Tag Archives: president

Obama will win a second term and John Kerry will be Secretary of State – Heard it here first 07/17/2012

John Kerry’s secretary of state dry run

The treaty could allow the U.S. to play a greater role in maritime decisions, some say. |
By JESSICA MEYERS |

Sen. John Kerry has the perfect audition piece for the secretary of state job he appears to covet — the long-stalled Law of the Sea treaty.

He’s come armed with a throng of industry backers and pleas from the country’s top officials. But a cadre of conservatives remains determined to sink it.

The international treaty, which governs use of the world’s oceans and affects everyone from shippers to telecom companies, has withered in the Senate for almost two decades. If Kerry fails to slip it through this session, the Foreign Relations Committee chairman doesn’t just miss out on the lead role. He loses treaty supporter and Foreign Relations Committee ranking member Dick Lugar (R-Ind.), along with other willing moderates.

So he’s positioning the vote for the lame-duck session, when it stands the best chance. And with Congress at an impasse, nothing will look better than a Senate treaty that doesn’t need House support.

“I refuse to politicize this,” Kerry told POLITICO, “so we’re not going to do anything until after the elections.”

The debate comes down to sovereignty and money. Advocates argue the treaty would allow the United States to play a greater role in maritime decisions and enhance both business opportunities and navigational rights. Opponents say it robs America of its authority and redistributes revenue to developing countries.

Kerry said lawmakers need to revisit the treaty because the United States abides by its rules but can’t benefit from them. This matters even more as countries lay claim to the melting Arctic’s routes and resources. The Massachusetts Democrat points to “significant backing” from oil and gas companies, the Navy and the maritime industry.

Kerry’s critics consider the recent push as much about politics as principle. His desire for the Cabinet position is one of Washington’s badly kept secrets.

“He’s very well versed in the issue, and he’s decided that it’s doable, and if he gets it across the finish line, maybe he will get secretary of state,” a senior GOP aide said.

A letter signed so far by 28 senators, including five Foreign Relations Committee members and Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) promises to oppose ratification.

The treaty “reflects political, economic and ideological assumptions which are inconsistent with American values,” the senators wrote.

The European Union and 161 countries have signed the treaty, known as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The United States remains the primary industrialized nation not to have done so.

The Foreign Relations Committee will hold its fourth hearing Thursday, this time focusing on the treaty’s effect on business interests.

Industry may end up creating some of the most powerful waves. Lockheed Martin, Verizon, the Chamber of Commerce and a host of commercial heavy hitters are lobbying for passage. The American Petroleum Institute joined a list of supporters last week, and both the National Association of Manufacturers and the Association for Rare Earth added their names Monday. Groups united earlier this year to create the American Sovereignty Campaign, which focuses solely on promoting the treaty.

“Before it was all government-to-government stuff, but industry is actually suffering and speaking up for the first time,” said Jonathan Waldron, a maritime lawyer. “This is probably the first time ever that industry has gotten involved.”

Companies now have the capability to mine minerals and lay underwater cables deep in the world’s oceans, he said, affecting everything from cellphones to gas prices. Waldron said the treaty would enhance these opportunities by solidifying the country’s rights further from shore.

Chamber of Shipping of America President Joseph Cox, who testified in favor of the treaty twice in the past two decades, said the new interest could shift the dynamic.

“I’ve been at the table, the Navy has been at the table and everyone has patted our head and told us to go home,” he said. “But now we have the money guys involved.”

A high-profile cast including six four-star generals and admirals, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, Joint Chiefs of Staff head Martin Dempsey and John Negroponte, the first director of national intelligence, have testified in agreement.

“We have undermined our moral authority by not having a seat at the table for nations who make arguments,” Panetta said at a recent hearing, citing concerns with China’s claims in the South China Sea.

Detractors say the current law works just fine.

“It would literally be crazy for us to turn over our sovereign rights of our continental shelf to an international body and expect that everyone else is going to play by the rules,” Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) told POLITICO.

Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld testified against the treaty on similar grounds. “I do not believe the United States should endorse a treaty that makes it a legal obligation for productive countries to pay royalties to less productive countries,” he said at a recent hearing.

The financing refers to payments of up to 7 percent that the United States would need to make. Clinton has said there would be a say in how that money gets distributed.

So what’s new in a fight that started after the Convention formed in 1982?

“Nothing,” said Steven Groves of The Heritage Foundation, who has testified against the treaty and doesn’t find the industry backing all that revelatory.

Except, he said, Kerry “may see that it’s becoming more and more difficult to get the votes he needs.”

Read more: SOURCE

EMERGENCY ALERT: 30,000 – 100,000 Russian Troops Scheduled within next 12 Months – May 2, 2012

EMERGENCY ALERT: 30,000 – 100,000 Russian Troops Scheduled within next 12 Months – May 2, 2012

Sheriff Joe sets D-Day on Obama’s eligibility

Sheriff Joe sets D-Day on Obama’s eligibility

Custom Search

Arpaio won’t release any of Cold-Case Posse’s conclusions in advance
by Jerome R. CorsiEmail

Following a Georgia judge’s ruling that Barack Obama is eligible to be on the state’s 2012 Democratic Party presidential ballot, the front lines in the continuing eligibility battle are being fought in Arizona.

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio told WND today his office has scheduled a news conference in Phoenix for March 1 to release findings of the Cold Case Posse that has been investigating Barack Obama’s birth certificate and eligibility to be president.
Ads by Google

Low Cost Health InsuranceBlue Cross, Aetna, Kaiser, CIGNA & More! Compare Plans & View Rates. www.GoHealthInsurance.com
DeVry UniversityRequest a Review of Financial Aid Options at DeVry University. www.DeVry.edu

Arpaio declined to release to WND any of the posse’s conclusions in advance of the press conference, although he is on record saying the findings may be “shocking” to many.

Discover what the Constitution’s reference to “natural born citizen” means and whether Barack Obama qualifies, in the ebook version of “Where’s the REAL Birth Certificate?”

In a separate matter, Arpaio told WND that a group of Department of Justice officials from Washington, D.C., began meeting with officials of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office regarding the DOJ’s allegation of systematic violations of the federal civil rights of Hispanics.

If the negotiations fail, the DOJ has threatened to take Arpaio and the MCSO to federal court, setting up an epic political battle just as Arpaio prepares to issue the results of the Cold Case Posse’s investigation.

Arpaio investigating Obama since September

Arpaio’s decision to investigate Obama follows a meeting held in his office Aug. 17 with tea party representatives from Surprise, Ariz., who presented a petition signed by more than 250 Maricopa County residents. The petitioners expressed concern that their voting rights could be irreparably compromised if Obama uses a forged birth certificate to be placed on the 2012 presidential ballot in Arizona or otherwise is found to be ineligible.

WND previously reported that the tea party letter formally stated the following charge: “The Surprise Tea Party is concerned that no law enforcement agency or other duly constituted government agency has conducted an investigation into the Obama birth certificate to determine if it is in fact an authentic copy of 1961 birth records on file for Barack Obama at the Hawaii Department of Health in Honolulu, or whether it, or they are forgeries.”

The posse, constituted under the authority of Arpaio’s office, consists of three former law enforcement officers and two retired attorneys with law enforcement experience. It has been examining evidence since September concerning Obama’s eligibility to be president under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution.

The Cold Case Posse conducting the investigation has been described as a “posse within the posse,” consisting of volunteers with professional experience in conducting investigations. It includes individuals chosen because of their professional backgrounds in law enforcement, lawyers who have participated in criminal or civil cases and individuals with specialized skills in fields ranging from accounting to conducting criminal forensic examination.

The posse was constituted as a 501(c)3 organization, designed to cost the people of Maricopa County nothing, while enabling people from around the country to contribute to its mission.

In total, more than 3,000 volunteers participate in Arpaio’s posse program. The power to constitute posses is authorized to Arizona sheriffs under the state constitution.

Showdown in Arizona

Arpaio and the Department of Justice are at loggerheads over whether the DOJ needs to provide proof of allegations that the MCSO is guilty of systematic violations of the federal civil rights of Hispanics.

“Prove it!” Arpaio challenged the DOJ in an exclusive interview with WND. “If Eric Holder has evidence that the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office has engaged in systematic violations of the civil rights of Hispanic, then show me the evidence.”

Arpaio has contended that the 22-page complaint the DOJ released Dec. 15 is nothing more than anecdotal and did not prove systematic sheriff’s department policies aimed at depriving Hispanics of their civil rights.

Nor was Arpaio concerned that the DOJ might take him and his sheriff’s office to federal court immediately, as it has threatened.

“If the Justice Department wants to take me to court, I’m ready,” Arpaio said.

The sheriff said that if the DOJ “wants to debate the facts instead of fixing the problems stated in our findings, we will do so by way of litigation.”

Those wishing to send a tax-deductible contribution directly to the Cold Case Posse may do so by mailing a check or money order to: MCSO Cold Case Posse, P.O. Box 74374, Phoenix, AZ 85087.SOURCE

Choosing the side of Tyranny Judge says Obama can be on Georgia ballot

Judge says Obama can be on Georgia ballot
Rejects plaintiffs demand to strike name from 2012 election

by Bob Unruh

An administrative law judge in Georgia today ruled that Barack Obama’s name can be on the state’s 2012 presidential election ballot because he was born in Hawaii, is “native born” and thus also is “natural born” as required by the Constitution.

He cited a little-known determination by an Indiana judge.

“The Indiana court determined that a person qualifies as a natural born citizen if he was born in the United States because he became a United States citizen at birth,” wrote Michael Malihi, an administrative law judge in Atlanta.

“For the purposes of this analysis, this court considered that President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen.”

See a related story about one of the major cases that remains yet from the 2008 election.

Malihi’s decision came without any evidence being presented by Obama or his lawyer after they refused to participate in the required hearing under a state law that mandates all candidates qualify for the office they seek.

The law also allows any voter to raise a challenge, and several did. A hearing was held on their evidence on Jan. 26.

Malihi essentially tossed all of the information the plaintiffs and their attorneys presented.

“The court finds the testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support plaintiffs’ allegations,” he said.

He was miffed at Obama but decided the case on the merits, as requested by the plaintiffs.

“Neither defendant nor his counsel, Michael Jablonski, appeared or answered. Ordinarily, the court would enter a default order against a party that fails to participate in any stage of a proceeding. … Nonetheless, despite the defendant’s failure to appear, plaintiffs asked this court to decide the case on the merits of their arguments and evidence. … By deciding this matter on the merits, the court in no way condones the conduct or legal scholarship of defendant’s attorney, Mr. Jablonski,” he said.

The judge ignored plaintiffs’ urging that a request for a contempt citation be issued against Obama for refusing to appear as subpoenaed.

The decision can be reviewed by Secretary of State Brian Kemp, who earlier warned Obama and his attorney that to snub the Georgia court system would be at Obama’s “peril.”

Mark Hatfield, one of the attorneys who, along with Van Irion, focused on the issue of the definition of “natural born citizen,” said the judge ignored the issue of burden of proof.

“If Obama has the burden of proof, and failed to show up, clearly he didn’t carry the burden,” he told WND. “The judge here completely ignores that.”

He also noted it was highly unusual for a judge to reach into another state’s repository of court rulings to support his decision when the U.S. Supreme Court itself has made a determination.

He said he’s hoping the Georgia secretary of state will evaluate the issue carefully, but he’s prepared to take the dispute to the appeals level.

Another attorney, Orly Taitz, represented several plaintiffs and brought in allegations of fake Social Security numbers and alternative names.

She said Malihi “makes absolutely no sense.”

Under Georgia law, she said, it is up to a candidate to prove his eligibility.

“[Obama] proved nothing. He didn’t show up. He didn’t provide evidence,” she said.

The decision follows a hearing last week on concerns raised by citizens of Georgia under a state law that allows voters to challenge the eligibility of candidates on the state’s ballot. It is the states that run elections in the U.S., and national elections are just a compilation of the results of the 50 state elections.

The state law requires “every candidate for federal” office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy “shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”

State law also grants the secretary of state and any “elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate” in the state the authority to raise a challenge to a candidate’s qualifications, the judge determined.

Citizens raising concerns include David Farrar, Leah Lax, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by Orly Taitz; David Weldon represented by attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation; and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, represented by J. Mark Hatfield. Cody Judy is raising a challenge because he also wants to be on the ballot.

Irion, representing David P. Weldon, had urged the court not to overlook the fact that Obama had been subpoenaed for last week’s hearing. Obama’s attorney, he pointed out, acknowledged the subpoena by asking that it be quashed. But when the judge refused his request, but told a state elections official he would not participate.

“Plaintiff Weldon moves this court to refer an order for contempt to the Superior Court for confirmation that defendant Obama is in contempt of court,” the motion says. “Grounds for this motion are that defendant Obama willfully defied this court’s order to appear and testify during this court’s hearing of January 26.”

The motion explains that when Malihi refused to quash the subpoena, Obama and his attorney, Jablonski, “requested that the Secretary of State [Brian Kemp] halt the proceedings. … The letter ended with a statement that the defendant and his attorney would suspend all further participation in the proceedings of this court pending response.”

Discover what the Constitution’s reference to “natural born citizen” means and whether Barack Obama qualifies, in the ebook version of “Where’s the REAL Birth Certificate?”

But after Kemp confirmed later that day that the hearing would continue and said that failing to participate “would be at the defendant’s peril,” Obama and his lawyer still refused to attend.

The letter from Obama’s lawyer to the state official, “coupled with the defendant’s willful refusal to comply with an order of this court, represent a direct threat to the rule of law,” the motion says. “The … actions represent a direct threat to the entire judicial branch and the separation of powers.”

Willfully ignoring a court subpoena is “unprecedented,” Irion argued. “While past presidents have litigated against subpoenas, in every case those presidents acknowledged and respected the authority of the judicial branch. … In the instant case the defendant did not appeal to a higher court, and instead instructed the Secretary of State that he would not participate. … When the Secretary of State refused to act in an unlawful manner the defendant ignored the Secretary of State, violated an order of this court, and apparently instructed his attorney to act in a manner that violates the professional rules of conduct of this state.”

Obama’s action, he said, “amounts to no less than a declaration of total dictatorial authority. Such declaration cannot go without response from this court. Failure to respond to the defendant’s contumacious conduct would amount to an admission that this court and the judicial branch as a whole do not have the authority granted to them under articles III and IV of the Constitution.”

The controversy over Obama’s eligibility dates to before his election in 2008. Some contend he was not born in Hawaii and that the birth documentation the White House released in April is a forgery.

Others say it doesn’t matter where he was born, as his father never was a U.S. citizen.

The Constitution requires presidents to be “natural-born citizens,” and experts say that the Founders regarded it as the offspring of two U.S. citizens.

Jablonski had asked Malihi to quash the subpoena, requested by Taitz. When the judge refused, Jablonski wrote to Kemp.

The attorney told Kemp that “serious problems” had developed in the hearings “pending before the Office of State Administration Hearings.”

Jablonski said, “At issue in these hearings are challenges that allege that President Obama is not eligible to hold or run for re-election to his office, on the now wholly discredited theory that he does not meet the citizenship requirements.”

He said the judge had “exercised no control” over the proceeding.

“It threatens to degenerate into a pure forum for political posturing to the detriment of the reputation of the state and your office. Rather than bring this matter to a rapid conclusion, the ALJ has insisted on agreeing to a day of hearings, and on the full participation of the president in his capacity as a candidate,” Jablonski wrote.

Kemp said the hearing, however, was in line with Georgia law, and he would be reviewing Malihi’s recommendations in the case.

He also had a warning about the cost of not showing up for a court hearing.

“Anything you and your client place in the record in response to the challenge will be beneficial to my review of the initial decision; however, if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.”

Top constitutional expert Herb Titus contends that a “natural-born citizen” is born of parents who were U.S. citizens at the time of the birth. The argument also is supported by a 19th-century U.S. Supreme Court decision, Minor vs. Happersett in 1875. The case includes one of very few references in the nation’s archives that addresses the definition of “natural-born citizen.”

That case states: “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

An extensive analysis of the issue was conducted by Titus, who has taught constitutional law, common law and other subjects for 30 years at five different American Bar Association-approved law schools. He also was the founding dean of the College of Law at Regent University, a trial attorney and special assistant U.S. attorney in the Department of Justice.

“‘Natural born citizen’ in relation to the office of president, and whether someone is eligible, was in the Constitution from the very beginning,” he said. “Another way of putting it; there is a law of the nature of citizenship. If you are a natural born citizen, you are a citizen according to the law of nature, not according to any positive statement in a Constitution or in a statute, but because of the very nature of your birth and the very nature of nations.”

If you “go back and look at what the law of nature would be or would require … that’s precisely what a natural born citizen is …. is one who is born to a father and mother each of whom is a citizen of the U.S. or whatever other country,” he said.

“Now what we’ve learned from the Hawaii birth certificate is that Mr. Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States. His mother was, but he doesn’t qualify as a natural born citizen for the office of president.”

SOURCE

Newt Gingrich, Lesbian Shocker?

Newt Gingrich, Lesbian Shocker?

By Larry Johnson in Current Affairs

Got your attention? Well, read on. News today is that Gingrich is planning to hold a press conference after the Nevada caucuses wrap up. This comes as the National Enquirer hits the stands today with the blaring headline, NEWT GINGRICH’S WIFE, LESBIAN SHOCKER.

Oh oh. Remember when the National Enquirer reported that John Edwards was screwing around and had a love child? So ask yourself, would the National Enquirer risk a lawsuit by making a false, unsubstantiated claim against the potential First Lady?

Is this why Newt is going to hold a press conference? Fold his tent rather than put his family life under further scrutiny?

I don’t think this kind of allegation, if true, necessarily is disqualifying. If it is false Newt may become the owner of the Enquirer. If this story catches legs then Newt is toast with the Christian right. My issue with Gingrich remains his lack of competence, not his wife’s sexual preference. How can you trust someone to be a competent President when he fails to meet the basic requirements to be on the ballot in Virginia, Missouri or Arizona?

But this week, he expanded the ass clownery and raised further questions about his focus:

Gingrich has had a rough time on the trail ahead of the Nevada Caucus, the first presidential contest in the West. Sources in or close to his campaign gave reporters incorrect information that Donald Trump would endorse Gingrich (he endorsed rival Mitt Romney). Gingrich also missed a meeting with the Silver State’s popular governor, Brian Sandoval, a Rick Perry supporter who was viewed as a possible Gingrich endorsement after Perry dropped out and endorsed the former House Speaker, according to The New York Times.

Newt ought to spend less time on “BIG IDEAS” and more time on ensuring that his campaign at least appears competent.

Anyway, has anyone read the Enquirer piece? What do you think?

UPDATE–God bless you Retired. An old friend who comments on the blog sucked it up and got to the bottom of the National Enquirer shocker headline:

For those of you who can’t wait until your next run to the Piggly Wiggly, the National Enquirer article is an alleged exclusive interview with the current Mrs. Gingrich’s alleged female high school buddy and college and sorority classmate Karen Olson, currently a canon with Minneapolis-based Episcopal Church. Karen Olson was a bridesmaid at Newton’s and Callista’s wedding. Olson says that she and Callista have been “best friends” since high school, and that both Newton and Callista are aware of her sexual orientation and are OK with it. Except for some titilating layout and presentation, there is no specific allegation that Callista is a lesbian in the article. Sorry, readers.

While the Enquirer broke news on the John Edwards love child, this is a cheap ass shot. There is plenty of fact to fuel legit attacks on Newt without stooping to smears of his third wife.

Speaking of, Newt is in fullblown meltdown. Check out Ed Morrissey’s take on Newt’s graceless press conference last night:

The surprises, and the fireworks, came from Newt Gingrich, who called a press conference rather than give a speech, which I watched this morning. It turned into a surprisingly angry, bitter affair, with Gingrich blaming Romney for spreading rumors that he was going to drop out after Nevada, when in fact the speculation started in the press when Gingrich called the unusual press conference. He attempted a little bit of press-baiting, but mostly took every opportunity to vent his loathing at Romney and his campaign, calling him the George Soros choice, pro-abortion, and so on. If people thought that the lack of graciousness after Gingrich’s loss in Florida was a careless mistake, this press conference dispelled that notion and made Gingrich’s speech in Florida look courtly by comparison.

Victor Davis Hanson writes today that Gingrich’s speech was about the only way the candidate could possibly have made a bad night even worse:

For Hot Air aficianados you may be surprised to read such a tough, anti-Gingrich piece. Ed and company have been largely supportive of the Newt. Not in this piece.

Newt keeps touting that he is a big idea guy, but can’t seem to grasp the simple idea that if you are going to run a nationwide campaign for President you must raise money, put together an organization and register according to the laws of each state. My jihad on Newt stems fundamentally from his chameleon character. He tries to slam Romney as a “Rockefeller” republican when the only candidate in the Republican field who actually worked on the 1968 Rockefeller campaign is Newt Gingrich. He tries to slam Romney as part of the “Washington Establishment” when he, Newt Gingrich, has spent more than 34 years in Washington and is the only candidate in the field with a Washington consulting business.

Will Newt drop out? NO. He is delusional and focused only on himself. The welfare of the Republican Party or America is the furthest thing from his mind.

SOURCE

Draft Jeb Bush

Draft Jeb Bush

By Artur Davis

In the early months of the election year, a polarizing president with a lackluster approval rating bided his time as the opposition party unraveled. Its nominating fight dissolved into chaos as the establishment front-runner collapsed, and an insurgent with a talent for galvanizing his party’s base surged, despite persistent fears about his electoral appeal beyond the party’s hardcore. A protracted primary fight ensued, with the insurgent and the party’s resistant establishment eviscerating each other for months; by the time it ran its course, a president who seemed imminently beatable was ahead by double digits. The story ends with that same president winning by an historic margin over a party that rejected its recent past in favor of a dangerously uncertain future.

This is a recounting of the 1972 election season. If it has the feel of a premonition, it’s because Republicans look dangerously on the verge of repeating the demolition derby that so weakened Democrats that year. Mitt Romney may be a better-constructed front-runner than Ed Muskie, but he is still a flawed contender whose candidacy seems at odds with his party’s mood and whose own half-answers have made his wealth seem shadowy and amoral. Newt Gingrich may be a far better-known quantity than the hapless George McGovern, but he still seems, like McGovern, more suited to the task of revolution than political persuasion. Republicans are, and should be, very worried.

Advertisement
Enter the last dream date that Republicans may have at their disposal. His name is Jeb Bush, and this time, there is a feasibility around the idea that seemed unthinkable months ago.

To be sure, the Jeb scenario will need more instability in order to flourish. The likeliest path involves Gingrich’s momentum carrying him through Florida; the February races in Arizona and Michigan dividing between Romney and Gingrich; Romney rebounding in March in moderate-leaning midwestern states such as Illinois and Wisconsin; Gingrich winning easily in the Deep South on Super Tuesday and Texas in early April, with Romney proving equally strong in New York and the rest of the Atlantic coastline, while states like Ohio and Indiana fail to resolve the split.

Imagine that California’s ultimate showdown leaves Gingrich with the slightest of edges, but with Romney remaining viable and in possession of a broader geographic base, far more internal support from GOP leadership, and a substantial chunk of delegates. To stop Gingrich, Romney might have no practical choice but to offer to throw his support to Bush, whose popularity would also implode Gingrich’s slim plurality.

Not one bit of it is implausible. Arguably, a deadlock is an entirely realistic outcome in a race where Romney’s institutional edges are considerable, but his vulnerabilities and Gingrich’s raw campaign skills are more than enough to offset that advantage. It is also all too likely that the result of a protracted bout would be two candidates so bruised that neither remains competitive with Obama. If so, there will be a sense of panic, and it is not hard to conceive that Romney could come under intense pressure to sacrifice himself to avert a November catastrophe.

The less probable outcome is that Jeb Bush would abandon a year of disclaimers to accept a draft in a brokered convention. But there are two reasons he might. The first is that an Obama landslide would devastate conservatism enough that it might be irreparable for a generation. One doesn’t have to subscribe to Gingrich’s Manichean rhetoric to concede that an Obama sweep would, for the first time in 76 years, institute government-centered, redistributionist economics as the country’s central governing philosophy. It would be, after all, the agenda that Obama and congressional Democrats had campaigned on, in contrast to the deliberately muted, ideologically vague platforms that elected Carter, Clinton, and Obama in 2008; or the growth-oriented, business friendly liberalism that JFK and LBJ embodied.

Second, Bush would have a pathway to victory in November. His brand of reform-oriented conservatism might actually be his party’s only pathway: Unlike Romney, whose leadership of Massachusetts produced one signature achievement — a hodgepodge of a health-care law that he likely wishes he could take back — Bush’s legacy is an issue that Republicans ought to own but are ignoring, education reform. He also turned Florida into a national laboratory for controlling health-care costs and reining in medical tort liability, both soft spots in Obama’s record.

At the same time, Bush has revealed a capacity for coalition-building that has eluded Gingrich. He is a hero of the conservative base who has had remarkable electoral appeal to Jewish and Hispanic voters. He combines support for a modified version of the DREAM Act with backing stronger border security — a middle ground that is both tough-minded and assimilationist — and happens to be entering his fourth decade of marriage to a Hispanic woman. It goes without saying that Bush gives Republicans the best shot of removing Florida from the Democratic column, and winning states with a strong Latino presence such as Arizona and Colorado.

The fact is that Jeb Bush bent Florida, a famously interest-group-ridden state, in a rightward direction; that’s an accomplishment Romney can’t begin to claim vis-à-vis Massachusetts. Bush is not just an authentic movement conservative, but a groundbreaker on an array of issues that drive votes, such as accountability for teachers and reining in the costs of private health insurance. While his record has blemishes that Democrats would exploit, from his stint in the Eighties lobbying for southern-Florida business interests to his ill-timed tenure at Lehman Brothers in 2007, this Bush is an adept, articulate campaigner who is unlikely to be tied in knots defending his history. Also, the statute of limitations seems to have expired on the ugliest sentiments around the last Bush presidency.

Jeb Bush should measure his reluctance against the risks looming for his party and, potentially, his country. The fact is that his party could be staring at an unavoidable disaster unless, in the interests of saving it, its best candidate comes out of retirement.

— Artur Davis served four terms in Congress representing Alabama’s 7th district.

SOURCE

The Mormon Plan for America and The Rise of Mitt Romney

The Mormon Plan for America and The Rise of Mitt Romney

Written by Ed Decker, www.saintsalive.com

From the book: The Man Who Would Be God

This is just a peek inside this important chapter
The very ethos of the Mormon faith is built around the anticipated return of Jesus to Independence, Missouri, for his thousand-year millennial reign. It is here that he will assign godhood to the worthy. However, it cannot take place until the U.S. Constitution falters and is saved by the LDS church. The nation will become a Mormon theocracy. Mitt Romney has raised Mormon speculation that this may be the time and that he may be the one to lead the way as both U.S. President and LDS high priest.

Almost 30 Years ago, the late BYU Professor and LDS author Cleon Skousen founded the Freemen Institute [later to be called The National Center for Constitutional Studies]. The name came from the Book of Mormon

And those who were desirous that Pahoran should remain chief judge over the land took upon them the name offreemen; and thus was the division among them, for the freemen had sworn or covenanted to maintain their rights and the privileges of their religion by a free government. Alma 51: 6-7

Skousen joined forces with Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority on some major political issues late 70s and early 80s and I was prompted to study out both the public and the LDS insider position on government, the constitution. [LDS say it is a divine document from the hand of God] Using that research, I produced a Study called “The Mormon Plan for America”.

When George Romney, Mitt’s father, made his aborted run for President in 1968, there was a lot in internal LDS talk about the last days prophecies that the US constitution would hang by a thread to be saved by the elders of the LDS church. Many felt that the day had finally arrived for the actual “Kingdom of God” to be established.

This pure form of theocratic, prophet led government would prepare the way for the ushering in of the millennium, the time when Jesus would return to earth, sit in his temple in Missouri to reign over the earth, with the center of His government operated as the “Kingdom of God” on earth.

The actual background for all these whispered conversations came from much of the historical documents of the church and the speeches of many of the early church authorities.

It goes something like this. Joseph Smith implemented a program called the United Order in the church… It was a plan of sharing… everything in common, all properties and wealth turned over and owned by the church and dispersed by the Brethren to the people on an as needed basis with a requirement for good stewardship or loss of use.

It was called the “Kingdom of God.” It was people living as God ordained under the United Order. However, it failed.

It was later determined that it could only work when both the secular and ecclesiastic functions operated under one authority… An LDS prophet ruling over a theocratic government where eternal commandments like the United Order and plural marriage and blood atonement would function within “The Kingdom of God”

That Theocracy would come into existence when the US Constitution would hang by a thread and the Mormon elders would be there to save it and the country and thereby usher in The Kingdom of God, the prophesied Mormon theocracy.

On December 7, 1968 Elder Hugh B. Brown presided over the groundbreaking of the LDS Washington D.C. Temple. It was dedicated in November 1974 by the prophet, Spencer W. Kimball.

The unique thing about this temple that struck me as singularly important was the design and furnishing of a large room on the upper floor. A photograph of this room is in the film, The Godmakers. It was set to house a presiding governing body.

It is my own personal belief that it was designed as the place where the theocratic government of God would conduct its business, with the prophet in His place of authority.

Now we jump ahead 40 years to 2007… and the 2008 Presidential election. A whole generation has passed and the son of George Romney has risen to the top of the list of Mormons who would qualify to take that run at the Oval Office and perhaps be in the right place as President or Vice President as the Constitution hangs by that foretold thread… and be there to call upon the elders, the Brethren to save the nation and soon usher in the “Kingdom of God.”

Far fetched… I would agree that I sound like a man shouting fire in a theatre, but, as you will read, I am talking about valid LDS end-times teachings…

You will also see that Mitt Romney has been raised and trained for this day. His family has been in the church for generations. He is the great grandson of polygamists Gaskell Romney and Anna Amelia Pratt.[1]

Mitt Romney is a Temple Mormon, a High Priest, and as such he has sworn blood oaths of sacrifice, obedience and consecration to the church and the “Kingdom of God.” His perfect obedience to these laws will allow him to become a god in the next life, the literal father of the peoples of a new and different earth. He is truly a Presidential candidate with an actual, definable god complex.

On February 12, 2007, as Mitt Romney announced that he would run for the office of President, he commented in a USA Today, article, Will Mormon faith hurt bid for White House? By Jill Lawrence, that…

… It is not his job as a presidential candidate to educate people about his church. “I’m running for a secular position,” he said in an interview. “I subscribe to what Abraham Lincoln called America’s political religion. The Constitution and the rule of law are the highest promises I would make in taking the oath of office.”

Mitt Romney’s LDS understanding of the U.S. Constitution and its divine role in the end times is not that of the average American.

Mitt Romney is a nice looking man, successful in the business world, with core values of family, church and faith. He does not smoke, drink or even touch coffee or tea. He has been married to the same woman for decades. He seems like the cure for dealing with the corruption of our national leadership. What could possibly be wrong in having such a man as our President? Let’s look at some of the reasons his presidency could be the end of America as we know it.

I recently searched through my files and have resurrected and updated the research paper, The Mormon Plan for America. That information is part of what I share below.

Some Extremely Grave Questions

Let me re-introduce you to a portion of one chapter in my book, The God Makers, co-authored with Dave Hunt.[2] It is a part of Chapter 16: The Hidden Kingdom. I suggest that you buy the book and read the entire story. It will shock you even more than what I will reveal here. It is a hidden kingdom that lurks beneath the placid surface of public Mormonism. It is this LDS “Kingdom of God” that former Governor, Mitt Romney has sworn blood oaths of obedience to in the LDS Temple ritual. The Late Apostle and LDS theologian, elder Bruce. R. McConkie described the Mormon temples as “Holy sanctuaries wherein sacred ordinances, rites, and ceremonies are performed which pertain to salvation and exaltation in the kingdom of God are called temples.”

There are several purposes to be achieved in the temple by worthy Mormons. First, they learn the secret/sacred signs, tokens, handshakes necessary to pass by the sentinels and enter the Celestial glory where they will become gods and goddesses and people new earths like this one.

Second, they receive sacred undergarments to wear for their protection while on earth, a secret new name by which they will be called from the grave and then swear obedience to certain laws that will govern their membership, obedience to the prophet and their behavior while on earth.

Mitt Romney’s temple experience was no different when he first received his “endowments” in preparation for his 30 month stint as an LDS Missionary.

The Law of Sacrifice

One of several temple oaths was his oath of Obedience to the Law of Sacrifice, in which he vowed,

“As Jesus Christ has laid down his life for the redemption of mankind, so we should covenant to sacrifice all that we [I] possess, even our [my] own lives [life] if necessary, in sustaining and defending the Kingdom of God.” [3]

The “execution of the penalty” for ‘disobedience at the time Mitt Romney took out his “temple Endowments” was demonstrated by

“by placing the thumb under the left ear, the palm of the hand down, and by drawing the thumb quickly across the throat to the right ear, and dropping the hand to the side”[4].

It is hard to imagine that well-educated Mormon men of such political stature like former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Utah Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah or Senator Harry Reid of Nevada could bring their thumbs to their throats and swear a blood oath that they will ‘suffer’ their throats slit from ear to ear should they not “sacrifice all that [they] possess, even [their] own lives if necessary, in sustaining and defending the Kingdom of God, as defined by the Mormon prophet.

These LDS oaths are taken directly from the rituals of Blue Lodge Masonry, the source of much of the LDS Temple rituals. It is no wonder, since the first 5 presidents and prophets of the LDS church were Masons.

These high level Temple Mormons clearly know that this Mormon “Kingdom of God” is, in reality, a Mormon one-world government, a theocracy, soon coming to America, that will be run by the strong arm of the Mormon Brethren, headed up by the only true prophet of God on earth. However, it is clear that they did swear such an oath.

The Law of Consecration

The other significant oath Mitt Romney has sworn to obey is the Law of Consecration. In the LDS temple ritual, the officiator says to the temple ‘patrons’,

We are instructed to give unto you the Law of Consecration as contained in the book of Doctrine and Covenants, in connection with the Law of the Gospel and the Law of Sacrifice which you have already received. It is that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents and everything which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion.

All arise. (All patrons stand.) Each of you bring your right arm to the square.

You and each of you covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar, that you do accept the Law of Consecration as contained in the Doctrine and Covenants, in that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion.

Each of you bow your head and say “yes.”
PATRONS: Yes.

Now we can see and understand the spiritual positioning of elder Mitt Romney beginning on that first day and reinforced with every temple visit thereafter. Let’s go back to Chapter 16 of my book, The God Makers, ”

Secrets of the Hidden Kingdom of God

Mormon leaders call their empire the “Kingdom of God.” However, their “God” is an extraterrestrial from Kolob, definitely not the God of the Bible; and the “Zion” to which their spirit-brother-of-Lucifer Jesus Christ will return to reign is Independence, Missouri.

Most Christians believe, as the Bible declares, that Christ will return to Jerusalem, Israel, to establish His millennial kingdom, whereas Mormons believe that they must establish a worldwide Mormon kingdom dictated from their Missouri base in order to make it possible for Christ to return.

Therein lays a great difference, which is why the Mormon hierarchy, beginning with Joseph Smith himself, has always had worldwide and absolute political power as its goal.

Mormon historian Klaus J. Hansen has written,

“The idea of a political kingdom of God, promulgated by a secret Council of Fifty, is by far the most important key to an understanding of the Mormon past.”[5]

Mormon writer John J. Stewart has said:

“The Prophet established a confidential Council of Fifty, or “Ytfif,” (Fifty spelled backwards), comprised of both Mormons and non-Mormons, to help attend to temporal matters, including the eventual development of a one-world government, in harmony with preparatory plans for the second advent of the Saviour”.[6]

Let’s jump ahead to the section called: Some Extremely Grave Questions

Mormonism seems as American as apple pie, and Mormons seem to be the perfect citizens with their close families, high morals, patriotism, Boy Scout programs, Tabernacle Choir, and conservative politics. A Los Angeles Times article implied that Mormons have recently gained the image of “super-Americans . . . [who] appear to many to be ‘more American than the average American.” [7]This may explain why such a high proportion of Mormons find their way into government. Returned LDS missionaries have “the three qualities the CIA wants: foreign language ability, training in a foreign country, and former residence in a foreign country.”[8] Utah (and particularly BYU) is one of the prime recruiting areas for the CIA. According to BYU spokesman Dr. Gary Williams, “We’ve never had any trouble placing anyone who has applied to the CIA. Every year they take almost anybody who applies.”[9] He also admitted that this has created problems with a number of foreign countries, who have complained about the “pretty good dose of [Mormon] missionaries who’ve gone back to the countries they were in as Central Intelligence agents.”[10]

This may at least partially explain the reported close tie between the Mormon Church and the CIA.[11] A disproportionate number of Mormons arrive at the higher levels of the CIA, FBI, military intelligence, armed forces, and all levels of city, state, and federal governments, including the Senate, Congress, Cabinet, and White House Staff. Sincere and loyal citizens, most of them may be unaware of the secret ambition of The Brethren. What could be better than having such patriots as these serving in strategic areas of government and national security?

Unfortunately, as we have noticed in every other area of Mormonism, the real truth lies hidden beneath the seemingly ideal image of patriotism presented by Mormons in public service. In fact their very presence in responsible government positions, particularly in agencies dealing with national security, raises some extremely grave questions that were expressed in my following letter mailed to the LDS Brethren in Salt Lake City. I also published it as an open letter in the Salt Lake Tribune.

The Mormon Oath of Vengeance Against this Nation

An open letter to:

The President, First Presidency and members of the General Authorities of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

August 21, 1980

Gentlemen:

I was recently reflecting that although the actual blood oath and the oath of vengeance were removed from the Temple ceremonies sometime after 1930, you gentlemen [listing ten of the above] are of an age to have received your own endowments prior to their removal, and therefore, are still under these oaths.

I am particularly interested in your personal position on your oath of vengeance against the United States of America. As you recall, the oath was basically as follows:

You and each of you do solemnly promise and vow that you will pray and never cease to importune high heaven to AVENGE THE BLOOD OF THE PROPHETS (Joseph and Hiram Smith) ON THIS NATION, and that you will teach this to your children and your children’s children unto the third and fourth generation.

Have you officially renounced this oath? Or are you still bound by it?

If you have not renounced it, how can you presume to lead four-and-one-half [now over six and a half million Americans] million people [US citizens] under item 12 of your Articles of Faith and still be bound to call upon heaven to heap curses upon our nation? (“We believe in being subject to Kings, Presidents, Rulers and Magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.”)

If you have renounced it, how can you justify having sworn such an oath in the most holy of holy places on this earth, before the sacred altar of your omnipotent God, and then renounce it? Gentlemen, I call upon you to repent of this abomination and proclaim to both the Mormon people and to the people of the United States of America that you renounce that oath and all it represents.

I also call upon all members of the Mormon Church who hold office in our government, serve in the Armed Services, work for the FBI and CIA who have gone through the Mormon Temple and sworn oaths of obedience and sacrifice to the church and its leaders (above), to repent of these oaths in the light of the obvious conflict of interest between their pledge of allegiance to the USA and their higher loyalty to a group of men who are sworn to seek vengeance against this great nation.

Sincerely,

(Signed) J. Edward Decker

cc: President J. Carter

Mr. Ronald Reagan

No response was received to this letter. The Brethren are so powerful that they are immune to criticism and feel no need to explain themselves or account to anyone for these actions. The Mormon Church already packs a political punch far out of proportion to its size. The Wall Street Journal explained how, in spite of the Constitution separation between Church and State, public schools in Utah are used to instill Mormonism in young minds. It mentioned political reapportionment, airline deregulation, the basing of the MX missile and the ERA as political issues affected by the power of the Church. For example, when the Church opposed the MX for Utah, those plans were immediately dropped by the federal government. The same Wall Street Journal article quoted the following statement from J.D. Williams, a University of Utah political science professor:

There is a disquieting statement in Mormonism: “When the leaders have spoken, the thinking has been done.” To me, democracy can’t thrive in that climate. They [Mormon politicians] don’t have to be called to Church headquarters for political instruction. They know what they’re supposed to do. That’s why non-Mormons can only look toward the Mormon Church and wonder: “What is Big Brother doing to me today?”[12]

A Disturbing Possibility

While the election of a Mormon President seems unlikely, it is highly probable under the present swing toward conventional morality and conservatism that a Mormon could one day become a Republican vice-Presidential nominee. This is especially true when one considers the growing cooperating between Mormons and Christian leaders like Jerry Falwell and groups like the Moral Majority. With the power, wealth, wide influence, numerous highly-placed Mormons, and large voting block under their virtual control, The Brethren have a great deal to offer a Republican Presidential candidate. Let’s assume that a Mormon Vice-Presidential candidate is on the winning ticket, and thereafter the President dies in office or is assassinated, causing the Mormon to succeed him as President of the United States.

There is every reason to believe that the new President would immediately begin to gather around him increasing numbers of zealous Temple Mormons in strategic places at the highest levels of government. A crisis similar to the one which Mormon prophecies “foretold” occurs, in which millions of Mormons with their year’s supply of food, guns, and ammunition play a key role. It would be a time of excitement and zealous effort by the “Saints” to fulfill Joseph Smith’s and Brigham Young’s “prophecy”:

The time will come when the destiny of the nation will hang upon a single thread. At that critical juncture, this people will step forth and save it from the threatened destruction.[13]

Not only does Mormonism predict the “saving” of America, but the precedent for an attempted takeover by force or subterfuge through political means has been set by the founding “Prophet” himself. In 1834 Joseph Smith organized an army and marched toward Independence, Missouri, to “redeem Zion.” In spite of a humiliating surrender to the Missouri Militia that proved his bold “Prophecies” false, the “Prophet” later formed the “Nauvoo Legion” and commissioned himself a Lieutenant-General to command it. Lyman L. Woods stated:

I have seen him on a white horse wearing the uniform of a general. . . .

He was leading a parade of the Legion and looked like a god.[14]

Joseph Smith was not only ordained King on earth, but he ran for President of the United States just before his death, at which time Mormon missionaries across the country became “a vast force of political [power].”[15] Today’s Church leaders are urging Mormons to prepare themselves for the coming crisis in order to succeed where past “Saints” have failed. A major article in the LDS Ensign magazine about being prepared included this oft-repeated warning reminder:

The commandment to reestablish Zion became for the Saints of Joseph Smith’s day the central goal of the church. But it was a goal the Church did not realize because its people were not fully prepared.[16]

Going back to our hypothetical crisis, what Mormons unsuccessfully attempted against impossible odds in the past they might very well accomplish with much better odds in this future scenario. Under cover of the national and international crisis, the Mormon President of the United States acts boldly and decisively to assume dictatorial powers. With the help of The Brethren and Mormons everywhere, he appears to save America and becomes a national hero. At this time he is made Prophet and President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Mormon Kingdom of God, while still President of the United States. There is no provision in the Constitution to prevent this.

With the government largely in the hands of increasing numbers of Mormon [and Masonic] appointees at all levels throughout the United States, the Constitutional prohibition against the establishment of a state church would no longer be enforceable. Mormon prophecies and the curse upon the United States government in revenge for the blood of Joseph and Hyrum Smith would seemingly have been fulfilled. In effect, the United States would have become a theocracy exactly as planned by The Brethren, completing the first step in the Mormon takeover of the world. LDS President John Taylor boasted of it 100 years ago:

Let us now notice our political position in the world. What are we going to do? We are going to possess the earth . . . and reign over it for ever and ever. Now, ye Kings and Emperors help yourselves if you can. This is the truth and it may as well be told at this time as at any other. There’s a good time coming, Saints, a good time coming![17]

A More Likely Scenario

While the above presents an extremely disturbing possibility, it may seem highly speculative and improbable. There is another scenario, however, which is equally disturbing and much more likely. It arises from the fact that Mormonism is actual part of something much larger.

We have already noted that the “revelations” that Joseph Smith received, far from being unique, were in fact very similar to the basic philosophy underlying many occult groups and secret revolutionary societies. Thus far in history, these numerous occult/revolutionary organizations have remained largely separate and in competition with one another.

If something should happen to unite them, and at the same time their beliefs should gain worldwide acceptance, a new and unimaginably powerful force for world revolution would have come into existence. There is increasing evidence of a new and growing secular/religious ecumenism persuasive enough to accomplish this unprecedented and incalculably powerful coalition.

It could be the means of creating the one-world government that has not only been the long-standing hope and plan of The Brethren and many other occult/revolutionary leaders, but is increasingly gaining a wide acceptance through New Age networks as the only viable option to a nuclear holocaust and/or ecological collapse. [End of quote from The God Makers, Chapter 16.]

Let’s review this once more from the top before we thread Mitt Romney’s bid for the Presidency into the mix.

Mormonism Teaches That:

The Constitution will hang by a thread, to be saved by the Mormon Church.

Will the Constitution be destroyed? No, it will be held inviolate by this people; and, as Joseph Smith said, “The time will come when the destiny of the nation will hang upon a single thread. At that critical juncture, this people will step forth and save it from destruction.” It will be so. (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses [JOD] Vol. 7, page 150).

…And when the Constitution of the United States hangs, as it were, upon a single thread, they will have to call for the “Mormon” Elders to save it from utter destruction; and they will step forth and do it. (Brigham Young, JOD, Vol. 2, page 317).

…We shall spread abroad, and the day shall will come – and this is another prediction of Joseph Smith’s – I want to remind you of it, my brethren and sisters, when good government, constitutional government, liberty will be found among the Latter-day Saints, and it will be sought for in vain elsewhere…… The day will come when the constitution and free government under it will be sustained and preserved by this people. (George Q. Cannon, JOD, Vol 23, page 104).

The Mormons will usher in a Theocracy, or “The Kingdom of God”, directed by the Lord’s Prophet (LDS).

With the restoration of the gospel and the setting up of the ecclesiastical Kingdom of God, the restoration of the true government of God commenced. Through this church and Kingdom, a framework has been built through which the full government of God will eventually operate. … The present ecclesiastical kingdom will be expanded into a political kingdom also, and then both civil and ecclesiastical affairs will be administered through it. (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, page 338).

Brigham Young confirmed that when the LDS Kingdom of God was in control, the American flag would fly above us.

When the day comes in which the Kingdom of God will bear rule, the flag of the United States will proudly flutter unsullied on the flag staff of liberty and equal rights, without a spot t sully its fair surface; the glorious flag our fathers have bequeathed to us will then be unfurled to the breeze by those who have power to hoist it aloft and defend its sanctity. (Brigham Young JOD, Vol. 2, page 317).

The Mormons will possess the whole earth and reign over it. As the Civil and Religious laws become one, the “United Order” will become the “Kingdom of God”.

Verily I say unto you, my friends, I give unto you counsel, and a commandment, concerning all the properties which belong to the order which I commanded to be organized and established, to be a united order, and an everlasting order for the benefit of my church, and for the salvation of men until I come— (D&C 104, verse 1).

The poor will be exalted and the rich made low. All property, including liquid assets will be deeded to the “kingdom” (Church), all money turned in. Some property will be conditionally ‘deeded’ back for us to “manage” as is deemed necessary for each man.

This is spelled out in the Doctrine & Covenants 42:

28 Thou knowest my laws concerning these things are given in my scriptures; he that sinneth and repenteth not shall be cast out.

29 If thou lovest me thou shalt serve me and keep all my commandments.

30 And behold, thou wilt remember thepoor, and consecrate of thy properties for their support that which thou hast to impart unto them, with a covenant and a deed which cannot be broken.

31 And inasmuch as ye impart of your substance unto the poor, ye will do it unto me; and they shall be laid before the bishop of my church and his counselors, two of the elders, or high priests, such as he shall appoint or has appointed and set apart for that purpose.

32 And it shall come to pass, that after they are laid before the bishop of my church, and after that he has received these testimonies concerning the consecration of the properties of my church, that they cannot be taken from the church, agreeable to my commandments, every man shall be made accountable unto me, a steward over his own property, or that which he has received by consecration, as much as is sufficient for himself and family.

33 And again, if there shall be properties in the hands of the church, or any individuals of it, more than is necessary for their support after this first consecration, which is a residue to be consecrated unto the bishop, it shall be kept to administer to those who have not, from time to time, that every man who has need may be amply supplied and receive according to his wants.

34 Therefore, the residue shall be kept in my storehouse, to administer to the poor and the needy, as shall be appointed by the high council of the church, and the bishop and his council;

If a man shall transgress this law, it shall ALL be taken from him, without recourse. All this is for the benefit of the Church. He who sins against this shall be cursed and delivered over to Satan. Lands shall be gotten by purchase or by blood when there is a problem in obtaining it. Every Mormon in the world swears an oath of obedience to the Law of Consecration and the Law of Sacrifice… in the Temple rites. They are bound by blood oath to honor their word.

Let’s look at the portion of the Revelation, Doctrines & Covenants 104, given to Joseph Smith the Prophet, April 23, 1834, concerning the United Order, which set this in its spiritual place.

1 Verily I say unto you, my friends, I give unto you counsel, and a commandment, concerning all the properties which belong to the order which I commanded to be organized and established, to be a united order, and an everlasting order for the benefit of mychurch, and for the salvation of men until I come—

2 With promise immutable and unchangeable, that inasmuch as those whom I commanded were faithful they should be blessed with a multiplicity of blessings;

3 But inasmuch as they were not faithful they were nigh unto cursing.

4 Therefore, inasmuch as some of my servants have not kept the commandment, but have broken the covenant through covetousness, and with feigned words, I have cursed them with a very sore and grievous curse.

5 For I, the Lord, have decreed in my heart, that inasmuch as any man belonging to the order shall be found a transgressor, or, in other words, shall break the covenant with which ye are bound, he shall be cursed in his life, and shall be trodden down by whom I will;

6 For I, the Lord, am not to be mocked in these things—

7 And all this that the innocent among you may not be condemned with the unjust; and that the guilty among you may not escape; because I, the Lord, have promised unto you a crown of glory at my right hand.

8 Therefore, inasmuch as you are found transgressors, you cannot escape my wrath in your lives.

9 Inasmuch as ye are cut off for transgression, ye cannot escape the buffetings of Satan until the day of redemption.

10 And I now give unto you power from this very hour, that if any man among you, of the order, is found a transgressor and repenteth not of the evil, that ye shall deliver him over unto the buffetings of Satan; and he shall not have power to bring evil upon you.

11 It is wisdom in me; therefore, a commandment I give unto you, that ye shall organize yourselves and appoint every man his stewardship;

12 That every man may give an account unto me of the stewardship which is appointed unto him.

13 For it is expedient that I, the Lord, should make every man accountable, as a steward over earthly blessings, which I have made and prepared for my creatures.

14 I, the Lord, stretched out the heavens, and built the earth, my very handiwork; and all things therein are mine.

15 And it is my purpose to provide for my saints, for all things are mine.

16 But it must needs be done in mine own way; and behold this is the way that I, the Lord, have decreed to provide for my saints, that the poor shall be exalted, in that the rich are made low.

17 For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare; yea, I prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to be agents unto themselves.

18 Therefore, if any man shall take of the abundance which I have made, and impart not his portion, according to the law of my gospel, unto the poor and the needy, he shall, with the wicked, lift up his eyes in hell, being in torment.

Is Socialism The United Order?

In a speech by this title, given at the LDS April 1966, General Conference of the Church, Mormon Elder and one of the governing Brethren of the church, Marion G. Romney, of the Council of the Twelve Apostles [and an uncle to Mitt Romney] had this to say about this United Order that Joseph Smith claimed came directly from God for the administration of properties and possessions.

Now as to the United Order, and here I will give the words of the Lord and not my words. The United Order, the Lord’s program for eliminating the inequalities among men, is based upon the underlying concept that the earth and all things therein belong to the Lord and that men hold earthly possessions as stewards accountable to God.

On January 2, 1831, the Lord revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith that the Church was under obligation to care for the poor. (See D& C 38.) Later he said:

“I, the Lord, stretched out the heavens, and built the earth …and all things therein are mine. And it is my purpose to provide for my saints, for all things are mine. But it must needs be done in mine own way….” (D& C 104:14-16.)

On February 9, 1831, the Lord revealed to the Prophet what his way was. (See D& C 42.) In his way there were two cardinal principles: (1) consecration and (2) stewardship.

To enter the United Order, when it was being tried, one consecrated all his possessions to the Church by a “covenant and a deed which” could not “be broken.” (D& C 42:30.) That is, he completely divested himself of all of his property by conveying it to the Church.

Having thus voluntarily divested himself of title to all his property, the consecrator received from the Church a stewardship by a like conveyance. This stewardship could be more or less than his original consecration, the object being to make “every man equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs.” (D& C 51:3.)

This procedure preserved in every man the right to private ownership and management of his property. At his own option he could alienate it or keep and operate it and pass it on to his heirs.

The intent was, however, for him to so operate his property as to produce a living for himself and his dependents. So long as he remained in the order, he consecrated to the Church the surplus he produced above the needs and wants of his family. This surplus went into a storehouse from which stewardship’s were given to others and from which the needs of the poor were supplied.

These divine principles are very simple and easily understood. A comparison of them with the underlying principles of socialism reveal similarities and basic differences.

The following are similarities: Both (1) deal with production and distribution of goods; (2) aim to promote the well-being of men by eliminating their economic inequalities; (3) envision the elimination of the selfish motives in private capitalistic industrial system.

Now the differences: (1) The cornerstone of the United Order is belief in God and
acceptance of him as Lord of the earth and the author of the United Order. Socialism, wholly materialistic, is founded in the wisdom of men and not of God. Although all socialists may not be atheists, none of them in theory or practice seek the Lord to establish his righteousness. (2) The United Order is implemented by the voluntary free-will actions of men, evidenced by a consecration of all their property to the Church of God.

One time the Prophet Joseph Smith asked a question by the brethren about the inventories they were taking. His answer was to the effect, “You don’t need to be concerned about the inventories. Unless a man is willing to consecrate everything he has, he doesn’t come into the United Order.” (Documentary History of the Church. Vol 7,pp.412-413.) On the other hand, socialism is implemented by external force, the power of the state.

What Have We Learned?

Basically, what we glean from Elder Marion Romney is that the United Order is a theocratic form of socialism. That, as a system, it can only operate properly under the Law of Consecration, as a function of the “Kingdom Of God” as understood in the context of the authority of the only true church on earth… the Mormon Church.

Mitt Romney understands this as a function of his Mormon upbringing, training, BYU Education, Temple worthiness and his LDS Priesthood [both Aaronic and Melchizedek… as an elder and High Priest].

He also is the nephew of the very General Authority and Apostle of the church, Marion Romney, who taught the doctrine from the pulpit to the entire church at the General Conference in 1966.

In his defense, I do not believe that Mitt Romney is overtly plotting such an LDS “New World Order.” I am certain it is not even in the back of his mind as he runs for office. However, as you have clearly seen, it is in his spiritual DNA, in his blood, in his roots and in his temple obligations.

In a TV interview the weekend following his 1007 announcement, he said:

“his Mormon beliefs would not handicap his run for the Republican presidential nomination.

“I’m not running for pastor in chief,” Romney told ABC News’ “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” Sunday. “I’m running for commander in chief.” The interview with the candidate and his wife Ann was videotaped earlier.[18]

In the announcement, itself, Romney stated that the USA needed transformation.

“Mitt Romney wants transformation. How do we know? The former Massachusetts Republican governor used the word ‘transform’ or a variant no fewer than 13 times in his presidential announcement Tuesday…. “So when he said on Tuesday, ‘If there ever was a time when innovation and transformation were needed in government, it is now,’ Romney was accurately describing the need to overhaul the doddering status quo in health care, education and homeland security – just for starters.

“He was also correct when he added, ‘I do not believe Washington can be transformed from within by a lifelong politician.'”[19]

Remember, Mormonism Teaches That:

When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. Satan gets a great victory when we disagree or “do our own thinking”.[20]

The Church Prophet has the right to identify how the Lord would have us vote and who would dare disobey?

“Now, does the office of the President of the Church embrace the right to identify for the whole membership of the church, and all the peoples of the world for that matter how the Lord would desire that we vote on certain matters? Certainly it does! Who would dare to proscribe God?”[21]

When the prophet speaks, the debate is over.[22]

All LDS administration is done by direct Revelation from God[23]

When the Mormon leaders speak, we are to obey and believe, even if our scientific knowledge says otherwise.[24]

God can (and often does) change his mind from revelation to revelation.

“That is modern revelation. May I repeat? Modern revelation is what President Joseph Smith said, unless [then] President Spencer W. Kimball says differently”[25]

If you are told by your leader to do a thing, DO IT! None of your business if it is right or wrong.[26]

LDS Prophet (from 1985 to 1994), Ezra T. Benson proclaimed:

The Prophet rightly should be in politics… after all, we do need God in Government.

The Prophet is above all humanity, above all scripture, above all the other prophets, above scientific knowledge and Must Be Obeyed.

Sometimes, in American politics, we are asked to focus more on the platform than the candidate, because we can trust the party and the candidate’s advisors to keep the candidate on the ‘straight and narrow’ as best they can.

In Mitt Romney’s case, his oath of office has already been sworn in a sacred LDS Temple ceremony. That oath is to the Mormon Plan for America and it will supersede any oath of office as President.

And it doesn’t really matter in the LDS scheme of things if Mitt Romney does not make it to the Oval Office, or even the office of Vice President. This Mormon Plan for America has been in the shadows for over 160 years. The Brethren believe it is their birthright, their purpose, their destiny to usher in the purification of the earth for Christ’s return.

They did not give up on the plan when Joseph Smith failed in his bid for the Presidency, nor did they give up when George Romney withdrew his bid. They will rejoice if Mitt makes it, but if not, they will merely look ahead to the one who will usher in the “Kingdom of God” in the soon coming future. Meanwhile, they will continue to prompt their people to file for every level of public office, to be ready when the wonderful fulfillment of prophecy comes.

[FOOTNOTES)

VISIT OUR MORMONISM FOCUS PAGE

RELATED PRODUCT

bookofmormon

THE BIBLE VS. THE BOOK OF MORMON DVD

“The Book of Mormon claims to be ‘a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible.” Both the Bible and the Book of Mormon declare themselves to be ancient, historical, and reliable rules of faith—the very word of God.

“These claims have historically been taken on faith. But is there any evidence to support them one way or the other? Is it even possible to ‘test’ a rule of faith? More to the point, is there any basis for placing one’s faith in the Bible or the Book of Mormon?

$17.95 BUY DVD / MORE INFO.

FOR FURTHER PRODUCTS ON MORMONISM CLICK HERE

Footnotes:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Romney

[2] Harvest House Publishers; Rev Upd Su edition, November 15, 1997

[3] http://www.saintsalive.com/mormonism/temple_ritual.htm

[4] IBID

[5] Klaus J. Hansen, Quest for Empire, The Political Kingdom of God and the Council of Fifty in Mormon History, pp. 55-56.

[6] John J. Stewart, op. cit., p. 204.

[7] 35 Los Angeles Times, Apr. 5, 1980, Part 1:1, p. 1.

[8] Kostman et al, op. cit.

[9] Salt Lake Tribune, Oct. 1, 1981

[10] IBID

[11] Kostman et al, op. cit.

[12] The Wall Street Journal, Nov. 9, 1983, p. 16.

[13] Journal of Discourses, vol.. 7, p. 15.

[14] Hyrum L. Andrus, Joseph Smith, the Man and Seer, p. 5.

[15] John J. Stewart, op. cit., p. 209; Hyrum L. Andrus, Joseph Smith and World Government, op. cit., p. 54.

[16] The Ensign, Jan. 1979, “To Prepare a People,” p. 18.

[17] Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 230.

[18] UPI Staff, United Press International, February 19, 2007 WASHINGTON

[19] Romney’s Campaign Of Transformation, J Pinkerton, Newsday Thursday, Feb 15, 2007

[20] Improvement Era (Official LDS church magazine), June 1945, p. 345.

[21] LDS Stake Bulletin, Renton Washington Stake, Fall, 1976.

[22] “The Debate is over”, President N. Eldon Tanner [1st Counselor to the Prophet, The Ensign, August 1979, First presidency Message.

[23] Ensign, May 1978, page 64.

[24] Elder Wilford Woodruff, Journal of Discourses, Volume 5, page 83

[25]Elder S. Dilworth Young, BYU Fireside May 5, 1974

[26] President Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, page 32.

You can order the book at www.saintsalive.com or at Amazon
Last Updated on Monday, 24 October 2011 19:15

(article source)

SOURCE

It Begins: Army Cuts 8,700

Army slashing 8,700 jobs as budget cuts begin

By Ed O’Keefe

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta has warned that the federal budget cuts could be “devastating” for the Pentagon.

With deeper budget cuts looming, the Pentagon is starting to cut back by trimming the Defense Department’s civilian workforce.

The Army said Thursday it is moving forward with plans announced in July to cut about 8,700 positions, using a mix of early retirement offers, buyouts and attrition to trim the jobs by the end of the fiscal year in late September.

“Army commands and agencies are continuing to take necessary actions to reduce their civilian on-board strength to meet funded targets established by the secretary of defense and reflected in the President’s budget,
” Thomas R. Lamont, assistant secretary of the Army for manpower and reserve affairs, said in a statement. “To the maximum extent possible, the Army will rely on voluntary departures to achieve these manpower reductions.”

The cuts will come in 37 states at 70 different locations across eight commands and agencies with nearly 90 percent of the cuts taking place within the Installation Management Command, Army Materiel Command and the Training and Doctrine Command. Most of the cuts are likely to occur in Virginia and Texas, where most of the DOD’s civilian workers are located.

In addition to eligible workers who retire, commanders will be able to use voluntary early retirement offers and buyouts to cut jobs, the Army said.

The failure of the bipartisan debt supercommittee means the Pentagon budget could be cut by a total of $1 trillion over the next decade — what defense leaders warn is a “huge” cut that would amount to a 23 percent reduction in the defense budget, resulting in furloughs and layoffs of “many” civilians and a reduction in the size of the military. Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta has warned that the cuts could be “devastating” for the Pentagon, creating a “substantial risk” that the country’s defense needs might not be met.

SOURCE

Secret Service: “Bullet hit White House”

Secret Service says bullet hit White House

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Secret Service says a bullet hit an exterior window of the White House and was stopped by ballistic glass.

An additional round of ammunition was found on the White House exterior. The bullets were found Tuesday morning. A spokesman for the Secret Service, Edwin Donovan, declined to answer additional questions about the incident including the caliber bullets recovered or what room of the White House was behind the window that was hit, citing an ongoing criminal investigation.

The discovery follows reports of gunfire near the White House on Friday. Witnesses heard shots and saw two speeding vehicles in the area. An assault rifle was also recovered.

President Barack Obama, who was headed to a summit in Hawaii, was not at the home at the time of the shooting.

The Secret Service said it has not conclusively connected Friday’s incident with the bullets found at the White House. Previously, authorities had said the White House did not appear to have been targeted Friday night.

U.S. Park Police have an arrest warrant for Oscar Ortega-Hernandez, who is believed to be connected to the earlier incident. He is described as a 21-year-old Hispanic man, 5 feet 11 inches tall, 160 pounds, with a medium build, brown eyes and black hair.

He is believed to be living in the Washington area with ties to Idaho.

After the gunfire was reported, police said they found an abandoned car Friday night near the Theodore Roosevelt Bridge that crosses the Potomac River to Virginia.

U.S. Park Police spokesman Sgt. David Schlosser has said items found in the vehicle led investigators to Ortega. The suspect hasn’t been linked to any radical organizations but does have an arrest record in three states, Schlosser said Monday.

In 2010, there were a series of pre-dawn shootings at military buildings in the Washington area, including the Pentagon and the National Museum of the Marine Corps. Police charged a Marine Corps reservist with those shootings earlier this year. The suspect, Yonathan Melaku of Alexandria, Va., remains in custody.

SOURCE

WARNING: Corporate-Fascist Military Coup Brewing in the United States?

WARNING: Corporate-Fascist Military Coup Brewing in the United States?
Tony Cartalucci

The US intelligence community, in conjunction with Wall Street corporate-financier interests, have spent an inordinate amount of time positioning themselves for a possible military coup and martial law take over of the United States. This is being done under the guise of the fraudulent “War on Terror” as preparation for a very real and inevitable economic collapse. In particular, one personality above all others is being groomed by intelligence operatives and policy wonks, while built-up by the corporate media in the eyes of the public to intercede in America’s accelerating political, economic, and even global tactical decline. This man is General David Petraeus who served as former head of US Central Command which included combat operations in Iraq and former commander of US forces in Afghanistan before being sworn in as the current director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in September 6, 2011.

Image: Julius Caesar crosses the Rubicon, on his way to seize power in Rome via a military coup and become the republic’s first emperor. America is not immune from suffering a similar prolonged, ignoble death to the extreme, parasitic elitism that empire breeds.

Posing as a venerable American hero, “leading” American troops through two wars in service to his nation, Petraeus’ ties are in fact to Wall Street and London corporate financier oligarchs. His membership [3] in the corporate-financier Council on Foreign Relations [4] is perhaps the most significant conflict of interest in America’s political landscape. He has been both commander of America’s troops and now director of the CIA, all while privately associating with the unelected policy makers of the CFR; an organization that represents the collective interests of the largest banks, private institutions, and corporations on earth. Whether Petraeus is guilty or not of improprieties amidst this enormous conflict of interest is irrelevant. The fact that he hasn’t shown the proper judgment to rectify such a conflict by either resigning, or ending his CFR associations, should be alarming to all Americans.

To add further fears regarding the ambitions and agenda of Petraeus, one must examine those that are gravitating around him and indeed prodding him along.

In 2010, Petraeus gave a speech before the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) [5], another private institution funded by corporations, working on behalf of corporations, essentially producing their own self-serving policy and using their vast connections and resources to have it rubber stamped by Congress and executed by the US Government at the American people’s expense. In his speech, Petraeus would praise Neo-Conservative policy wonk Frederick Kagan who he credited for developing the “surge” strategy in Iraq.

In fact, almost all military strategy comes not from a large mahogany desk with maps strewn across it with a calculating general hovering above, but rather from institutions like AEI and other corporate-funded think-tanks including the Brookings Institution or the RAND Corporation. Frederick Kagan, along with other “resident scholars” at AEI, have also developed the current strategies being employed in Afghanistan and soon in Pakistan [6]. One might say that Petraeus, and many other lackluster officers in the United States military are nothing more than empty vessels with administrative and operational capabilities merely carrying corporate-funded, crafted, and serving policies onto the battlefield, while equally empty vessels for politicians sell the policies and their tremendous costs back at home to the American people.

AEI’s board of trustees represents a wide variety of corporate-financier interests including those of the notorious Carlyle Group, State Farm, American Express, and Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co (also of the CFR). Dick Cheney also acts as a trustee. Joining policy wonk Frederick Kagan as members of AEI’s “research staff” are warmongers Newt Gingrich, John Bolton, Richard Perle, John Yoo, and Paul Wolfowitz. AEI’s work is done entirely with the concept of “American exceptionalism” in mind, or, in other words, American global hegemony. The AEI’s own annual report is rife with talk of US strategic preeminence and its assertion over the sovereignty of foreign nations in the form of sanctions, military operations, invasions, and occupations. The AEI, in tandem with the Heritage Foundation, Foreign Policy Initiative, and many others, all with interconnecting memberships and corporate-financier sponsors, are literally the “Project for a New American Century (PNAC)” in motion.

If a general commanding the summation of America’s military might and now America’s immense, omnipresent intelligence network, being bent to the will of corporate-financier interests who literally write the script from which he acts isn’t frightening enough, then maybe it is the fact that these same apparently “Neo-Conservative,” “right-wing” organizations are also engineering and executingthe latest “liberal-humanitarian” war in Libya.

In fact, as notorious “Neo-Con” Paul Wolfowitz, an AEI “visiting scholar,” expounded the merits of “Obama’s war” in Libya [7] and the desirable effect it could have on helping topple regimes in Syria and Iran, one might recall Wolfowitz’ aspirations back in 1991 where he spoke with General Wesley Clark about an opportunity to clean up the old Soviet “client regimes” before the next super power rose up and challenged western hegemony [8]. Amongst these “client regimes” were Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, and Iran. It would appear than one linear agenda serving these corporate-financier interests unfolds regardless of who is in office.
With this in mind, we see that Petraeus is in no shape, form, or way a “political” or “establishment” outsider, or by any means a hero capable of saving America from its decline. He is amongst one of the most entrenched “insiders,” with his position in the CIA digging him in even deeper. His, or others like him, potentially entering into the political fray will be nothing more than a dangerous new ploy used to manipulate the American public. As Republican hopefuls flounder in front of an increasingly skeptical and angry public and the path for real political outsiders is being opened, the American people must be ever vigilant against pretenders like Petraeus, or other “military men” who might attempt to cross the proverbial Rubicon and pose as “reformers,” or “saviors” here to rescue us from our flawed form of government.

It should be noted, that Republican candidate Rick Perry is also entirely compromised by the special interests described above. Perry, who farcically claimed America “cannot afford four more years of this rudderless leadership,” already has the very men currently engineering Obama’s multiple wars behind the scenes, lining up behind him for indeed, four more years of what Perry called “rudderless leadership.” Foreign Policy reported [9] that notorious “Neo-Cons” including Douglas Feith, William Luti, Andrew McCarthy, Charles Stimson, and Daniel Fata, with the help of certified warmonger Donald Rumsfeld, had been introduced to Rick Perry to help him “brush up” on foreign policy. Also meeting with Perry was Dan Blumenthal of the above mentioned AEI, Peter Brookes of the Fortune 500-funded Heritage Foundation (page 35), and Zalmay Khalizad, a PNAC signatory and a member of the extraterritorial meddling National Endowment for Democracy’s board of directors, to help Perry define his “hawk internationalist” foreign policy stance.

By “hawk internationalist,” Foreign Policy indicates that it means, “embracing American exceptionalism and the unique role we must play in confronting the many threats we face.” This of course is the same “American exceptionalism” promoted by the corporate-financier funded AEI along with the Heritage Foundation, the Brookings Institution, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Foreign Policy Initiative and is nothing more than a misleading way to describe modern day imperialism pursued by these organizations’ various corporate sponsors.

It should be clear that the establishment is attempting to supply us with a wide variety of political and non-political poseurs and solutions from which we are to choose, before they continue on in earnest with their agenda. Expending energy fighting over these false choices is beyond futile. Instead, the path to restoring the American Republic starts with each and every one of us. The system is only as corrupt as the amount we continue paying into it. We must recognize the corporations lurking behind this system, seen by many as benign or even beneficial to modern America, and realize that they indisputably dominate both America domestically and all that falls under American influence abroad. Boycott these corporations into destitution and replace them with local, decentralized, practical alternatives based on real markets, real competition, real progress, and technological innovation.

Video: The indispensable Dr. Webster Tarpley discusses Libya, the global economy, and the prospect of General Petraeus’ potential role in bringing Bonapartism openly to America’s shores. Via Tarpley.net.
Notes

[1] The Telegraph, “David Petraeus for President: Run General, run,” April 3, 2010
[2] The Guardian, “Petraeus in profile: the man who could be president,” April 27, 2011
[3] Council on Foreign Relations, Membership Roster, letter ‘P’ for “Petraeus,” as of September 30, 2011
[4] Council on Foreign Relations, Company Membership, as of September 29, 2011
[5] AEI Speeches & Testimony, “The Surge of Ideals,” May 6, 2010
[6] The Stanley Foundation, “The Case for Larger Ground Forces,” by Frederick Kagan & Michael O’Hanlon, April 2007
[7] AEI via the Wall Street Journal, “Why Gadhafi’s Fall is in America’s Interests,” by Paul Wolfowitz, June 23, 2011
[8] FORA.tv Conference Channel, “Wesley Clark: A Time to Lead,” October 3, 2007
[9] Foreign Policy Magazine, “Rick Perry, the “hawk internationalist,” August 10, 2011

SOURCE

Republicans Advance Bill Targeting US Funding for UN: ‘What Are We Paying For?’

Republicans Advance Bill Targeting US Funding for UN: ‘What Are We Paying For?’

By Patrick Goodenough

(CNSNews.com) – A U.S. House committee Thursday approved a bill linking U.S. contributions to the United Nations to significant financial and other reforms, one day after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned she would recommend that President Obama veto the measure if it reaches his desk.

Deeply divided along party lines, the House Foreign Relations Committee voted 23-15 for the U.N. Transparency, Accountability, and Reform Act (H.R. 2829), whose most radical provision aims to force the U.N. to change its funding mechanism from the current system of “assessed” contributions to voluntary ones.

Proponents say this would allow the U.S. – and other member states – to fund only those activities and agencies it regards as being efficiently managed, and in the national interest.

In order to compel the U.N. to make the shift, the legislation would withhold 50 percent of the U.S. assessed contributions to the regular budget (which does not include peacekeeping) if the U.N. has not moved at least 80 percent of the budget to voluntary funding within two years.

American taxpayers account for 22 percent of the U.N.’s regular operating budget and 27 percent of the separate peacekeeping budget in “assessed” dues. In addition the U.S. provides billions of dollars in voluntary contributions for various U.N. agencies. In FY 2010 the total U.S. contribution was $7.69 billion.

Conservatives critical of the U.N. have long advocated the U.S. using its leverage, as the biggest funder by far, to push the world body to reform – and to weaken efforts by hostile member-states to use the U.N. to harm American interests.

The bill’s author, committee chairwoman Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), told Thursday’s markup hearing that the U.N. budget continues to climb.

“What are we paying for?”
she asked, then cited repressive regimes’ membership on the Human Rights Council, a continuing anti-Israel bias, the elevation of member states like North Korea and Iran to leadership positions in various bodies, and corruption scandals.

“Why do we bear the financial burden for this?” Ros-Lehtinen continued. “Every year, scores of member countries that contribute almost nothing to the U.N. vote together to pass the budget. Then they pass the costs on to big donors like the U.S., which is assessed a whopping 22 percent.


“In contrast, China pays just three percent. We need a game-changer.”

The committee’s top Democrat, Rep. Howard Berman, said the “real agenda” behind the bill was to end U.S. participation in the U.N. and to “deal a fatal financial blow to the world body.”

He argued that there was no evidence to support the notion that withholding dues can leverage meaningful change.

“Previous attempts at withholding did not lead to any significant and lasting reforms – they only succeeded in weakening our diplomatic standing and influence, and undermining efforts to promote transparency, fiscal responsibility and good management practices in the U.N. system,”
Berman told the committee.

‘A dangerous retreat’

If the bill does pass in the House – where it has 125 co-sponsors, all Republican – its passage through the Democrat-controlled Senate would be an uphill battle. Even if it did make it through the Senate, its chances of making it into law are slim.

In a letter to Ros-Lehtinen on Wednesday, Clinton expressed strong opposition to the measure, saying if it reached the president, she would recommend a veto.

Citing U.N. missions in Iraq and Afghanistan as examples, she argued that international engagement through the U.N. comes at a fraction of the cost of acting alone.

“This bill also represents a dangerous retreat from the longstanding, bipartisan focus of the United States on constructive engagement within the United Nations to galvanize collective action to tackle urgent security problems,
” she wrote.

“If we act to diminish our global stature, the United States would surrender a key platform from which to shape international priorities, such as obtaining tough sanctions on Iran.”

During the hearing, Ros-Lehtinen referred to Clinton’s letter, and in particular the suggestion that the legislation could harm U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan because other countries would not share the burden by paying for U.N. missions in those countries.

Does the administration have such little faith in our allies and in our diplomacy – which they pride themselves on – to think that they would not share the burden of fighting Islamist extremists unless the U.N. forced them to?” she asked.

On the eve the markup hearing, the U.N. Foundation released results of a poll in which 64 percent of respondents said they supported the U.S. “paying our dues to the U.N. on time and in full” while 31 percent said they opposed this.

The poll also found 55 percent of respondents were not in favor of legislation that would cut U.S. funding of the U.N., while 39 percent favored it.

The wording of the question on the proposed legislation said that it “cuts fifty percent of the United States’ funding to the United Nations,” “ends United States’ funding to UNICEF and the World Health Organization” and “ends United States’ funding of United Nations’ agencies that respond and take action after a natural disaster or humanitarian crisis.”

The poll wording did not say that 50 percent of U.S. funding would only be cut if the U.N. failed to shift from an assessed to voluntary payment mechanism. Neither did the wording make clear that funding to agencies like UNICEF would only end if those agencies fail to provide the U.S. Comptroller General with a certificate of transparency, or to comply with that certification.

The U.N. Foundation was set up in 1998 with a $1 billion donation to U.N. causes by CNN founder and philanthropist Ted Turner. Its priorities include building public support for the U.N. and advocating U.S. funding for the U.N.

“At a time when the United Nations is more relevant than ever in addressing the world’s greatest peace and security challenges, this survey is evidence that voters believe in the value of the United Nations to American interests,” U.N. Foundation president Timothy Wirth said in a statement on the poll.

SOURCE

Foregone Conclusion? The Reality of an Obama-Hillary ticket

The allure of an Obama-Hillary ticket

LAURA WASHINGTON [email protected]

Hillary to the rescue? That rumor-theory-speculation-spin-Hail Mary pass has been circulating around the political hustings for the last year.

The Washington mouths are blabbering that Vice President Joe Biden will take a political bullet for his president and step off the 2012 presidential ticket. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama’s archrival-turned-secretary of state, is tired of the international fly-arounds and serving as red meat for America’s attack dogs.

She could step off the world stage and into the vice presidential nomination. It’s a way, some political soothsayers say, to rekindle that old “black” magic.

Washington Post reporter and author Bob Woodward floated the prospect in an October 2010 interview. CNN Host John King suggested that “a lot of people think if the president’s a little weak going into 2012, he’ll have to do a switch there and run with Hillary Clinton as his running mate.”

“It’s on the table,”
Woodward replied. “President Obama needs some of the women, Latinos, retirees that she did so well with during the [2008] primaries.” He added that it’s “not out of the question.

The idea still has juice. Little wonder. Politically, Obama has been having a very bad year. A recent ABC/Washington Post poll found that four in 10 Americans “strongly” disapprove of how Obama is handling his job. It’s “the highest that number has risen during his time in office and a sign of the hardening opposition to him,” the Post reported last week.

Of course, Obama’s posse has ridiculed the concept. The president is happy with Biden and Clinton in their current roles, they say. The idea of an Obama-Clinton ticket has been greeted with scorn, ridicule, incredulity or glee, depending on who’s talking.

Still, they natter on.

There are plenty of women and feminists of all genders who begrudgingly voted for Obama in 2008 but are still hankering for Hillary Clinton. Sarah Palin punted and Michele Bachmann is imploding, but Democrats have one more chance to make 2012 the Year of the Woman.

I called my go-to guy on presidential matters. Michael Mezey pooh-poohed the idea as warmed-over grist from the D.C. rumor mills. “It’s very hard for a president to do that because it seems to me that what the president [would be] doing is admitting failure,” said Mezey, a DePaul University political science professor and expert on the American presidency. “The storyline will be that the campaign is desperate,” he added. “I just don’t think they’re at a point of desperation.”

I’m not so sure. An Obama-Clinton ticket would be a potent and historic lure. It would pander to female voters, but I suspect they’ll go with it. It would open the door for a Clinton presidential bid in 2016.

And it would bring a tear to U.S. House Speaker John Boehner’s eye.

SOURCE

The President Has The “Doomsday” Plane. Who’s going to save you?

Doomsday Plane’ Would Save President and Joint Chiefs in Apocalypse Scenario

By MICHAEL MURRAY

In the event of nuclear war, a powerful meteor strike or even a zombie apocalypse, the thoroughly protected doomsday plane is ready to keep the president, secretary of defense, Joint Chiefs of Staff and other key personnel in the air and out of danger. It may not deflect a Twitter photo scandal, but it can outrun a nuclear explosion and stay in the air for days without refueling.

The flight team for the E-4B, its military codename, sleeps nearby and is ready to scramble in five minutes. It was mobilized in the tumultuous hours after planes crashed into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and southern Pennsylvania on 9/11.

“If the command centers that are on the ground in the United States have a failure of some sort, or attack, we immediately get airborne. We’re on alert 24/7, 365,” Captain W. Scott “Easy” Ryder, Commander, NAOC, told ABC News’ Diane Sawyer as she traveled to Afghanistan with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates on the apocalypse-proof plane. “Constantly there’s at least one alert airplane waiting to get airborne.”

All E-4B aircraft are assigned to the 55th Wing, Offutt Air Force Base, Neb. The modified 747s can travel at speeds up to 620 miles per hour, 40 miles per hour faster than their commercial counterparts.

The $223 million aircraft is outfitted with an electromagnetic pulse shield to protect its 165,000 pounds of advanced electronics. Thermo-radiation shields also protect the plane in the event of a nuclear strike.

A highly-trained security team travels with the plane.

“The first people off of the airplane are these guys, they’ll position themselves appropriately around the airplane,
” Ryder said to ABC News. “The secretary also has his own small security staff that does similar things. So these guys are predominately designed to protect our airplane, and the secretary’s staff protects him, as an individual.”

Even though it carries VIPs, their staff and security personnel, the plane is highly fuel efficient. The plane can stay in-flight for days without refueling, a necessity if circumstances demanded the plane’s use by the nation’s top officials.

A precision tech team mans the sensitive electronic technology found on the plan. There is so much powerful electrical equipment onboard a specially upgraded air-conditioning system is necessary to keep it cool and functional.

“Give us the phone number of anybody, anytime, anyplace, anywhere on earth, we can get a hold of them,
” Master Sgt. Joe Stuart, US Air Force, told Diane Sawyer.

It can even communicate with submerged submarines by dropping a five-mile-long cable out the back of the plane. “[We] drop is down and [it] transmits coded message traffic to US submarines,” Ryder told ABC News.

Although the extreme amount of survival technology on the plane more than makes up for it, the plane lacks the amenities found in bases on the ground.

“It’s like being Fedexed
,” Gates told Sawyer. “It’s fairly Spartan, with no windows or anything.”

Even the Secretary of Defense only gets a tiny bathroom with a sink, but no shower. A small trade-off for being able to board this plane as the rest of us dive for cover in a worst-case scenario.

Some more details on the general characteristics of the plane, according to the official U.S. Air Force website:

Primary Function: Airborne operations center

Contractor: Boeing Aerospace Co.

Power Plant: Four General Electric CF6-50E2 turbofan engines

Thrust: 52,500 pounds each engine

Wingspan: 195 feet, 8 inches (59.7 meters)

Length: 231 feet, 4 inches (70.5 meters)

Height: 63 feet, 5 inches (19.3 meters)

Weight: 410,000 pounds (185,973 kilograms)

Maximum Takeoff Weight: 800,000 pounds (360,000 kilograms)

Fuel Capacity: 410,000 (185,973 kilograms)

Payload: communications gear permanently installed on aircraft

Speed: 602 miles per hour (523 knots)

Range: 6,200 nautical miles

Ceiling: Above 30,000 feet (9,091 meters)

Crew: Up to 112 (flight crew and mission crew)

Unit Cost: $223.2 million (fiscal 98 constant dollars)

Initial operating capability: January 1980

Inventory: Active force, 4

video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player
SOURCE

RICK PERRY: The MAN behind the mask

RICK PERRY: the MAN BEHIND the MASK

By Robert Quinn (about the author)

opednews.com

We know there are people on the job doing everything they can to protect America from terrorists. Who’s going to protect America from Rick Perry should he become the next president of the United States?

Statistically, in the past 5 years you were:

– 1,052 times more likely to be killed in a car accident than in a terror attack.

– 202 times more likely to die in a building fire than be killed in a terrorist attack.

– 25 times more likely to drown in a bathtub than be killed in a terror attack.

– 3.64 times more likely to be hit and killed by a lightning bolt than killed in a terrorist attack.

– And if you happen to live in Governor Rick Perry’s Texas, in the last 5 years you were 108 times more likely to be executed by Gov. Perry than you were to be killed in a terrorist attack.

The terrorist threat pales in significance in the face of the threat Rick Perry poses. Rick Perry is a very dangerous man.

In the whole of the South there have been 1266 executions in the last 35 years. Texas alone accounts for 442 of these executions, of which 234 were on Governor Perry’s watch. Comparatively, there have been 4 executions in the whole of the Northeast.

All Southern states, without exception, have a death penalty statute. Only 2 Northeastern states have a death penalty statute. Yet the murder rate in death penalty states (the South) is nearly 2X what it is in states without the death penalty (the Northeast). So either the death penalty is not an effective deterrent to murder or those who live in the South are inherently more violent than those who live in the Northeast. Whatever the case, I have 3 things to say to Rick Perry, and to those who support his candidacy for president:

1) Every murderer believes that his actions are justified. At the moment of taking another’s life he believes that the person being killed deserves to die. How is this any different than state-sanctioned executions? Murder in the name of putting an end to murder is still murder.

2) Even if I were to be persuaded that state-sanctioned executions differ in important ways from non-state-sanctioned executions, the fact remains that state-sanctioned executions are not an effective deterrent to murder.

3) Even if state-sanctioned executions were an effective deterrent to murder, the execution of even one innocent man or woman is one too many.

Who knows how many innocent victims of the death penalty there have been? Since 1992, newly available DNA evidence has exonerated 15 death row inmates. Unfortunately, DNA evidence is available in only a small fraction of the cases that carry the death penalty.

Rick Perry doesn’t seem to be bothered by any of this. And I can’t help but wonder how else Rick Perry’s killer instinct might manifest if he were to become our next president. Does America really need another gun-slinging Texan, another sociopathic cowboy, another man without a conscience swaggering into the oval office and onto the world stage? We deserve better than this. The world deserves better than this. Now, more than ever, America’s presidency is in need of a genuine man or woman of peace who is both able and willing to lead our country in a radically new direction.

SOURCE

The Top 10 Reasons Why Dr. Ron Paul Is the Only Rational Choice

The Top 10 Reasons Why Dr. Ron Paul Is the Only Rational Choice


The top 10 reasons why Dr. Ron Paul is the only rational presidential choice for Americans, Democratic, Republican and Independent:

10. Dr. Paul works a real job, has run a small a business and served in the military. He has been a physician for 40 years, co-owned a coin store for 12 years and was a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force and U.S. National Guard for five years. That was how our country was set up — for public servants to work a real job that they returned to after their public service was done. He has real skills and is not a professional politician.

9. Dr. Paul has decades of experience running a business and in depth knowlegde of health care.

8. Dr. Paul understands money and is chairman of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology.

7. Dr. Paul does the right thing referencing the U.S. Constitution and works for the country versus campaigning for his ego. He has been serving the public in politics for over 40 years.

6. Dr. Paul refuses to accept a federal pension for his public service, something other members get after a short period because they do not have real jobs. According to Dr. Paul, to receive a pension for public service would be “hypocritical and immoral.”

5. Unlike most other candidates out there, Dr. Paul is not a good-looking, smooth-talking, snake charmer or charismatic zealot. He is a regular, plain-spoken person who says it the way it is.

4. Dr. Paul doesn’t care if big groups like him (like unions and businesses). His donations come primarily from individuals, not from groups. He is willing to serve his country honorably without personal gain. Dr. Paul will do what is right for the U.S. based on the Constitution whether or not big money or big government likes it.

3. Dr. Paul has written a bill, called the Sun Light Rule that requires our politicians have at least 10 days to read bills before signing them.

2. Dr. Paul will bring practical wisdom, cut spending, balance the budget, stabilize the economy and probably be able to do away with the IRS and income tax, a tax that is not constitutional and was started to fund the civil war and supposed to stop after the civil war. He wants to abolish the U.S. Department of Education, giving the states and parents back control. He wants to do away with other large government agencies, restoring the rightful power to the states.

1. Dr. Paul’s old-fashioned decency, integrity, honor and real-life experience are exactly what our country needs after hiring actors, puppets, oil and other group-connected slick sales men and marketers. He’s been married to the same woman, Carol, for 54 years (married 1957).

Electing dishonorable, irresponsible, good-looking, smooth-talkers over the past several decades has eroded our country’s stability.

Are Americans finally ready to elect an honest, decent man who will not listen to non-sense from regular Americans, politicians or corporations? A president who will be accountable and hold us all accountable? I hope so.

“Special interests have replaced the concern that the Founders had for general welfare. Vote trading is seen as good politics. The errand-boy mentality is ordinary, the defender of liberty is seen as bizarre. It’s difficult for one who loves true liberty and utterly detests the power of the state to come to Washington for a period of time and not leave a true cynic.” — Dr. Paul

He does not take money from corporate PACs. Lobbyists cannot sway him; to try is a waste of time. He never bargains with his own deeply held beliefs, nor does he cut backroom deals. Because his political views and his personal convictions are in complete harmony, he seldom faces a “tough” vote. And when the politicking for the week is over, he returns to his district to take up his lifelong occupation, which has nothing to do with politics.” — S. C. Gwynne

SOURCE