Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty, Usher in World Government, Claims British Lord Monckton

Well, it’s finally happening.  As I’ve been warning since before the elections, the Obama-messiah is now on the cusp of ushering in a One-World government, via the upcoming “global warming” treaty to be signed in Copenhagen in December. 

A communist world government is about to be imposed upon the world, and when that treaty is signed, it is your taxes that are going to be used to pay for this communist world government. 

Why?  Because under the agreement your wonderful president has pledged that the United States will provide the vast majority of the funding for the implementation and enforcement of this one-world government.

Watch the short video excerpt above of Britain’s Lord Monckton explaining the treaty, or read his words below. 

Rest in peace, my fellow Americans.  You have only a few short months of freedom left…unless, of course, you get up off your dead rectums and call your legislators and let them know you simply will not tolerate this. 

Let your elected representatives know they will be out on their asses in the 2010 elections if they allow this bill to be signed in December. 

Let them know they will not have one moment of peace from the American public for the rest of their natural born lives if they allow this bill to be signed. 

Let them know they will be despised and shamed, their careers will be trodden under foot and they will live like broken men and women for the rest of their lives.

Let them know their names will go down in ignominy in the annals of U.S. history.   

Let them know their families, too, will be disgraced and ashamed by the fact that they allowed their country to be sold out to one-world communism while they sat and fiddled.

Let them know there will be dire consequences the likes of which they have probably never considered. 

Let them know this is the FINAL straw.

Let them know this is not their country to give away, but ours to keep, and we won’t take this lying down.

– Spencer

Obama poised to cede U.S. sovereignty, institute world government says British Lord Monckton…

http://fightinwordsusa.wordpress.com/2009/10/15/obama-poised-to-cede-us-soverignty-claims-british-lord/

October 15, 2009 at 6:17 am | In Political | 139 Comments
by Walter Scott Hudson

The Minnesota Free Market Institute hosted an event at Bethel University in St. Paul on Wednesday evening. Keynote speaker Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, gave a scathing and lengthy presentation, complete with detailed charts, graphs, facts, and figures which culminated in the utter decimation of both the pop culture concept of global warming and the credible threat of any significant anthropomorphic climate change.

A detailed summary of Monckton’s presentation will be available here once compiled. However, a segment of his remarks justify immediate publication. If credible, the concern Monckton speaks to may well prove the single most important issue facing the American nation, bigger than health care, bigger than cap and trade, and worth every citizen’s focused attention.

Here were Monckton’s closing remarks, as dictated from my audio recording:

At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.

I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The world “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfication of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.

How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it – Now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it.

[laughter]

And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, it takes precedence over your Constitution, and you can’t resign from that treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties – And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out of it.

So, thank you, America. You were the beacon of freedom to the world. It is a privilege merely to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free. But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your prosparity away forever. And neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect will have any power whatsoever to take it back. That is how serious it is. I’ve read the treaty. I’ve seen this stuff about [world] government and climate debt and enforcement. They are going to do this to you whether you like it or not.

But I think it is here, here in your great nation, which I so love and I so admire – it is here that perhaps, at this eleventh hour, at the fifty-ninth minute and fifty-ninth second, you will rise up and you will stop your president from signing that dreadful treaty, that purposeless treaty. For there is no problem with climate and, even if there were, an economic treaty does nothing to [help] it.

So I end by saying to you the words that Winston Churchill addressed to your president in the darkest hour before the dawn of freedom in the Second World War. He quoted from your great poet Longfellow:

Sail on, O Ship of State!
Sail on, O Union, strong and great!
Humanity with all its fears,
With all the hopes of future years,
Is hanging breathless on thy fate!

Lord Monckton received a standing ovation and took a series of questions from members of the audience. Among those questions were these relevent to the forthcoming Copenhagen treaty:

Question: The current administration and the Democratic majority in Congress has shown little regard for the will of the people. They’re trying to pass a serious government agenda, and serious taxation and burdens on future generations. And there seems to be little to stop them. How do you propose we stop Obama from doing this, because I see no way to stop him from signing anything in Copenhagen. I believe that’s his agenda and he’ll do it.

I don’t minimize the difficulty. But on this subject – I don’t really do politics, because it’s not right. In the end, your politics is for you. The correct procedure is for you to get onto your representatives, both in the US Senate where the bill has yet to go through (you can try and stop that) and in [the House], and get them to demand their right of audience (which they all have) with the president and tell him about this treaty. There are many very powerful people in this room, wealthy people, influential people. Get onto the media, tell them about this treaty. If they go to www.wattsupwiththat.com, they will find (if they look carefully enough) a copy of that treaty, because I arranged for it to be posted there not so long ago. Let them read it, and let the press tell the people that their democracy is about to be taken away for no good purpose, at least [with] no scientific basis [in reference to climate change]. Tell the press to say this. Tell the press to say that, even if there is a problem [with climate change], you don’t want your democracy taken away. It really is as simple as that.

Question: Is it really irrevocable if that treaty is signed? Suppose it’s signed by someone who does not have the authority, as I – I have some, a high degree of skepticism that we do have a valid president there because I -

I know at least one judge who shares your opinion, sir, yes.

I don’t believe it until I see it. … Would [Obama's potential illegitimacy as president] give us a reasonable cause to nullify whatever treaty that he does sign as president?

I would be very careful not to rely on things like that. Although there is a certain amount of doubt whether or not he was born in Hawaii, my fear is it would be very difficult to prove he wasn’t born in Hawaii and therefore we might not be able to get anywhere with that. Besides, once he’s signed that treaty, whether or not he signed it validly, once he’s signed it and ratified it – your Senate ratifies it – you’re bound by it. But I will say one thing; they know, in the White House, that they won’t be able to get the 67 votes in the Senate, the two-thirds majority that your Constitution has stipulated must be achieved in order to ratify a treaty of this kind. However, what they’ve worked out is this – and they actually let it slip during the election campaign, which is how I know about it. They plan to enact that Copenhagen treaty into legislation by a simple majority of both houses. That they can do. But the virtue of that – and here you have a point – is that is, thank God, reversible. So I want you to pray tonight, and pray hard for your Senate that they utterly refuse to ratify the [new] Treaty of Copenhagen, because if they refuse to ratify it and [Obama] has to push it through as domestic legislation, you can repeal it.

Regardless of whether global warming is taking place or caused to any degree by human activity, we do not want a global government empowered to tax Americans without elected representation or anything analogous to constitutional protections. The Founding Fathers would roll over in their graves if they knew their progeny allowed a foreign power such authority, effectively undoing their every effort in an act of Anti-American Revolution. If that is our imminent course, we need to put all else on hold and focus on stopping it. If American sovereignty is ceded, all other debate is irrelevant.

Edited to add @ 8:31 am:

Skimming through the treaty, I came across verification of Monckton’s assessment of the new entity’s purpose:

38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:

World Government (heading added)
(a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.

To Redistribute Wealth (heading added)
b) The Convention’s financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund including five windows: (a) an Adaptation window, (b) a Compensation window, to address loss and damage from climate change impacts [read: the "climate debt" Monckton refers to], including insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory components, © a Technology window; (d) a Mitigation window; and (e) a REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive forest incentives relating to REDD actions.

With Enforcement Authority (heading added)
© The Convention’s facilitative mechanism will include: (a) work programmes for adaptation and mitigation; (b) a long-term REDD process; © a short-term technology action plan; (d) an expert group on adaptation established by the subsidiary body on adaptation, and expert groups on mitigation, technologies and on monitoring, reporting and verification; and (e) an international registry for the monitoring, reporting and verification of compliance of emission reduction commitments, and the transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries. The secretariat will provide technical and administrative support, including a new centre for information exchange [read; enforcement].

Edited to add @ 1:24am on October 18, 2009

Brought to my attention via an e-mail from Minnesota Majority, this clip of Monckton’s closing remarks taken by a higher quality mic than my own. The transcript above hardly does justice to his delivery.

Obama-messiah: Winning the Nobel Peace Prize for a Wish and a Promise

So Obama-messiah has won the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009.

Not for bringing peace to any nation, region or even a single person. But for merely promising to do so.

Could you imagine if the Nobel Prize in medicine was awarded to an individual who merely promised to find a cure for cancer, but never did?

Or the Nobel Prize in science being awarded to an individual who merely promised to make a car that ran on water, but never did?

Now that the Nobel committee is giving out prizes for mere promises, I could get rich.

Maybe I could win the Nobel Prize in chemistry for promising to make a nasal spray that snaps people out of the opiate-like hypnotic state they’re in over this idiotic presidency.

From the very start conservatives complained that Obama-messiah was all show and no substance. “Give him a chance!” the liberals whined in response.

This lame and ill-conceived award proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Obama-messiah doesn’t actually need to do anything. He only needs to promise, and it is accounted unto him as being done.  Kinda like God.  Only without the great track record.

Just ask any of our brave troops in Iraq or Afghanistan.

-Spencer

How to Win the Nobel Peace Prize In 12 Days
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/10/09/tommy-seno-obama-nobel-prize-win/

Let’s take a look at the president’s first 12 days in the White House according to his public schedule to see what he did to deserve a Nobel Peace Prize.

Editor’s Note: Although President Obama had only been in office for only 12 days before the nominations for this year’s Nobel Peace prize closed, the entire process actually takes a full year. According to the official Nobel Prize Web site invitation letters are sent out in September. Every year, the Norwegian Nobel Committee sends out thousands of letters inviting a qualified and select number of people to submit their nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize. The deadline to submit nominations is February 1. — Two hundred five names were submitted for the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, 33 of which are organizations. A short list of nominees is prepared in February and March. The short list is subject to adviser review from March until August. At the beginning of October, the Nobel Committee chooses the Nobel Peace Prize Laureates through a majority vote. The decision is final and without appeal. The names of the Nobel Peace Prize Laureates are then announced.”

Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize this morning. Over the last decade the only requirement to win the prize was that the nominee had to be critical of George W. Bush (see Al Gore, Mohamed El Baradei and Jimmy Carter).

President Obama has broken new ground here. Nominations for potential winners of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize ended on February 1. The president took office only 12 days earlier on January 20.

Let’s take a look at the president’s first 12 days in the White House according to his public schedule to see what he did to deserve a Nobel Peace Prize:

January 20: Sworn in as president. Went to a parade. Partied.

January 21: Asked bureaucrats to re-write guidelines for information requests. Held an “open house” party at the White House.

January 22: Signed Executive Orders: Executive Branch workers to take ethics pledge; re-affirmed Army Field Manual techniques for interrogations; expressed desire to close Gitmo (how’s that working out?)

January 23: Ordered the release of federal funding to pay for abortions in foreign countries. Lunch with Joe Biden; met with Tim Geithner.

January 24: Budget meeting with economic team.

January 25: Skipped church.

January 26: Gave speech about jobs and energy. Met with Hillary Clinton. Attended Geithner’s swearing in ceremony.

January 27: Met with Republicans. Spoke at a clock tower in Ohio.

January 28: Economic meetings in the morning, met with Defense secretary in the afternoon.

January 29: Signed Ledbetter Bill overturning Supreme Court decision on lawsuits over wages. Party in the State Room. Met with Biden.

January 30: Met economic advisers. Gave speech on Middle Class Working Families Task Force. Met with senior enlisted military officials.

January 31: Took the day off.

February 1: Skipped church. Threw a Super Bowl party.

So there you have it. The short path to the Nobel Peace Prize: Party, go to meetings, skip church, release federal funding to pay for abortions in foreign countries, party some more.

Good grief.

Read more Tommy De Seno at www.JustifiedRight.com.

America Hits “Barak Bottom” as Unemployment Rate Soars to 9.8%

Even as the Obama-messiah’s economic team touts so-called “economic green shoots” as evidence that America is emerging from recession, the government’s own figures tell a contradictory story as unemployment continues to soar. 

In February, Obama signed a $787 billion stimulus bill while promising that the unemployment rate would not surpass 8% if the stimulus bill was passed.  He promised America the stimulus package would result in ”a new wave of innovation, activity and construction” that would be ”unleashed all across America.”

Obama also promised the stimulus would “save or create up to four million jobs.”

Vice President Joe Biden said the massive federal spending plan would “drop-kick” the economy out of the recession.

Instead, unemployment has soared to 9.8% — over 20% higher than what Obama said it would be if his stimulus was passed.  Indeed, it is now higher than what the Obama administration said it would be if nothing was done to revive the economy. 

In other words, far from saving the economy, Obama’s stimulus plan is instead sinking the economy.  There are now 3 million fewer American workers working than what Obama promised.

America is clearly hitting “Barak Bottom.” 

– Spencer

263,000 More Jobs Lost

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-Sept-nonfarm-payrolls-rb-589941939.html?x=0&.v=1

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. employers cut a deeper-than-expected 263,000 jobs in September, lifting the unemployment rate to 9.8 percent, according to a government report on Friday that fueled fears the weak labor market could undermine economic recovery.

Reuters – A worker constructs a new home in Geneva, Illinois, June 23, 2009. REUTERS/Jeff Haynes …

The Labor Department said the unemployment rate was the highest since June 1983 and payrolls had now dropped for 21 consecutive months.

Analysts polled by Reuters had expected non-farm payrolls to drop 180,000 in September and the unemployment rate to rise to 9.8 percent from 9.7 percent the prior month. The poll was conducted before reports, including regional manufacturing surveys, showed some deterioration in employment measures.

The government revised job losses for July and August to show 13,000 more jobs lost than previously reported. Preliminary annual benchmark revisions, released together with September’s employment report showed that total non-farm payroll employment for March would have to be revised down about 824,000.

Stubbornly high unemployment is viewed as the missing link in the economy’s recovery from its worst recession in 70 years.

Video: Elementary School Children Taught to Sing and Perform Praises to “Barak Hussein Obama”…

First they took God out of the public schools.  Now they’ve replaced Him with…Barak Hussein Obama. 

If you don’t believe it, watch the above 3-minute video of an elementary school class being taught to praise Obama in song. 

Do you remember how conservatives were recently vilified and ridiculed on the nightly news when they opposed Obama’s address to school children on the grounds that it constituted propaganda, and would result in liberal school teachers getting carried away and creating a cult of idolatry around the presidential man-god?  

“Nonesense!” the defenders of liberalism barked.  “Republican clap-trap!” the liberal pundits screamed.  “Just more evidence that Obama is hated due to the color of his skin,” the liberal media talking heads editorialized.  

But here it is.  In full color.  Little school children being taught to sing and perform praises to Obama by their school teacher. 

Could you imagine the uproar from liberals during the previous administration had conservative teachers (if there are any) started teaching elementary school children to sing songs of praise to President Bush?  The worldwide condemnation would have been instantaneous, vindictive, explosive and would have droned on for months.  Were a video of such an event to have been taken, it would have been played ad nauseum for months on end by the liberal media, and would have been made the butt of thousands of sarcastic jokes by the late night talk show hosts. 

 But conservatives don’t worship their leaders.  They don’t sing praises to their leaders.  Stalinists do.  Marxists do.  Leninists do.  But conservatives tie their leaders down with the cords of the U.S. Constitution and the foundational principles our nation was based upon, always reminding them that they are not gods, not benevolent rulers, but servants of “We the People.”  And in cases where a conservative leader falls short, or starts getting a little too big for his (or her) britches, conservatives even disdain their leadership and eagerly seek to replace them for forgetting their place.

What we are seeing now reminds me a lot of communism under Khrushchev.  Back then, the Russian school children were told to sit at their desks, close their eyes, and pray to Jesus for a piece of candy.  Then they were told to open their eyes, and look to see if any candy had appeared on their desks.  Of course, there was none.  Then they were told to close their eyes once more, only this time they were to pray to Comrade Khrushchev for candy.  While the Russian kiddies were praying again, the teacher’s assistant would rush through the room placing a piece of candy on each child’s desk so that when they were told to quit praying and open their eyes, there the candy would be. 

At this point, it wouldn’t shock me to see that kind of thing happen next.  I only hope someone takes a video of it.

Obama-messiah hates the white man

“Obama hates the white man” says Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson…

Posted: August 04, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

© 2009 

… an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil. – Luke 6:45

Barack Obama hates white people – especially white men. Sorry folks, but the truth will set you free!

Why else would Obama falsely accuse Sgt. James Crowley and other Cambridge Police officers of “racial profiling” and claim they “acted stupidly” – creating a national racial controversy?

For months, I have said that Barack Obama was elected as a result of white fear (guilt) and black racism. Whites voted for him because of guilt and the fear of being called “racist.” And the 96 percent of blacks who voted for the “Messiah” did so because of his race and his “spread the wealth” notions.

Despite the stark reality of Obama’s close association with black racists like the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., many white Americans hoped for the best and cast their ballot for the “post-racial” candidate, Obama.

The new president assembled his left-wing policy wonks and Chicago henchmen, and within six months into his presidency he has tried to radically alter and fundamentally socialize every major American industry from banking to health care.

When Obama intentionally maligned the Cambridge police officers it shocked America, especially whites. A growing number of Americans were questioning his out-of-control spending ($1 trillion in six months), but they didn’t see him as racially polarizing. That all changed after he weighed in on the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. and accused the white cops of racial profiling without knowing the facts. For the first time he spoke from his heart without the aid of a teleprompter, and we saw the real Barack Obama. (Now we know why he relies on the teleprompter!)

Barack Obama is Jeremiah Wright Jr. He is the NAACP and the Congressional Black Caucus! He embodies the aspirations of every left-wing black group that wants to tear down this country and take power away from the “oppressive” white man. He’s not an obvious race hustler like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson; but Obama is a smooth pathological liar – with a wicked heart.

It’s no coincidence that he nominated the “wise Latina” Sonia Sotomayor and appointed Eric Holder attorney general. Holder, best-known for signing off on Bill Clinton’s pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich, also stirred controversy when he referred to America as a “nation of cowards.” Obama wants to transform the judicial system and rule of law into “social justice” to address “racial inequalities” – and he has a committed comrade in Eric Holder.

For instance, note the Holder Justice Department’s order to dismiss the charges against the New Black Panther Party members (including one who wielded a nightstick) who had been charged with voter intimidation in Philadelphia during November’s election. This was considered to be one of the most blatant cases of voter intimidation since the ’60s, yet Obama’s chief law enforcement officer once again let the criminals walk.

Barack Obama is dividing the races like no other president in history – and his polls numbers reflect that. A poll by the Pew Research Center found that Obama’s popularity slipped among whites after the Gates controversy from 53 percent to 46 percent. Among blacks and Hispanics, his numbers went up from 63 percent to 74 percent. Overall job approval was 54 percent, down from 61 percent in a mid-June Pew poll.

Both Obama and his friend Henry Louis Gates are racist. Keep in mind also that Gates’ attorney, Charles Ogletree, was Barack Obama’s law professor at Harvard. We’re dealing with liberal-elite, cunning black intellectuals.

Sgt. James Crowley said after the “beer summit” that there were no apologies, but that he will meet with and listen to more about Gates’ views. Listen to what? How to hamstring cops from doing their jobs? Are you kidding me?

I realize that Crowley was under a great deal of pressure to get along, but he should have had the courage to demand an apology and tell the president and Gates: 1) They were wrong, and 2) Their phony photo op and “beer summit” at the White House won’t cleanse their racist hearts.

President Obama spoke of this being a teachable moment, and it certainly is for white Americans. The lesson is that they need to speak up or lose their country! All accounts indicate that in this instance, the moment was missed and Sgt. Crowley was conned. The focus has subtly shifted from the false accusations of a racist black man to racial profiling from the dreaded white man.

As for Obama, as a result of his part in this incident and his efforts to destroy this great country, I am convinced that unless ACORN and company fix the next election, he will be a one-term president – and that is something that all freedom-loving courageous Americans can toast to. This Bud’s for you, Mr. Obama!

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105910

Obama-messiah, the Media, Sicko and Universal Health Care

The push for “universal health care” (read:  socialistic medicine) is going to be absolutely relentless, with ABC leading the way by turning their programming over to the Obama-messiah (see news article below). 

The cable channels are already running Michael Moore’s docu-fantasy “Sicko,” night and day, in an effort to convince the American public to go the socialistic health care route. 

Sicko, of course, portrays the American health care system as based on nothing but raw, unmitigated greed, while socialistic health care systems around the world are portrayed as if they were run by angels with magic, healing fingertips.  You just show up at the hospital and you’re healed…free!

In fact, the word “free” is used, in regards to socialistic health care, so many times in Sicko that you get the impression all of the doctors and nurses working under such a system are cheerfully donating all of their time, that the hospitals are all run on free energy machines instead of electricity and fuel, and that everybody simply lives and thrives on the air they breathe instead of basic necessities like food, shelter, clothing and the money to buy it with. 

In reality, there are no “free” lunches.  Under a socialistic health care system it’s the “greedy capitalists” (i.e., productive, hardworking businessmen and women) who are forced to pick up the tab through higher and higher taxes for those who simply don’t want to work, or those who believe they have a “right” to have their health care “provided for them” by their employers and their fellow citizens.

Where this supposed “right” to free health care comes from is never explained.  (I can tell you:  It comes from the Communist Manifesto.  But for some reason, Michael Moore carefully ignores that inconvenient fact.)  Instead, Sicko makes its point by featuring a handful of sensationalistic examples of indigent people being refused medical treatment by hospitals in the U.S., and accepted with open arms for “free” treatment in hospitals in Cuba, France, Britain and Canada.  You see, under socialism, heath care is magic.  Nobody pays for anything!

In one scene, Americans are shown complaining that their medications are costing them $182 a month in the states, while in Cuba, they get the equivalent (we are led to assume) medication for only five cents.  Yes, five cents.  Clearly, the American health care system is evil and corrupt to the core.  And Castro is a saint, doing the socialistic bidding of God Almighty.

But you see, somebody picks up the difference between that five cents charged to the patient under the socialistic system, and that $182 charged under a free market system.  And that “somebody” is (drum roll, please)…you.  Through higher and higher taxes.  And through significantly lower pay at work, which you accept in return for “free” health care.

It’s no surprise that our masters in the liberal media are launching this all-out assault to implement a socialistic health care system here in the U.S. under our new messiah, the Obama-meister.  The surprise is that our media-masters are so intent on making this happen that they have now dropped all pretense of being independent from government.  I warned from the start that the media was becoming Obama-messiah’s Praetorian Guard.  They are now his direct mouthpiece. 

Mao, Lenin and Marx must be smiling. What could not be accomplished by them, is being accomplished by a simple, stuttering negro from Chicago. 

– Spencer 

ABC TURNS PROGRAMMING OVER TO OBAMA; NEWS TO BE ANCHORED FROM INSIDE WHITE HOUSE

Tue Jun 16 2009 08:45:10 ET

On the night of June 24, the media and government become one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care — a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm!

Highlights on the agenda:

ABCNEWS anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver WORLD NEWS from the Blue Room of the White House.

The network plans a primetime special — ‘Prescription for America’ — originating from the East Room, exclude opposing voices on the debate.

MORE

Late Monday night, Republican National Committee Chief of Staff Ken McKay fired off a complaint to the head of ABCNEWS:

Dear Mr. Westin:

As the national debate on health care reform intensifies, I am deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC’s astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on this critical issue on June 24, 2009. Next Wednesday, ABC News will air a primetime health care reform “town hall” at the White House with President Barack Obama. In addition, according to an ABC News report, GOOD MORNING AMERICA, WORLD NEWS, NIGHTLINE and ABC’s web news “will all feature special programming on the president’s health care agenda.” This does not include the promotion, over the next 9 days, the president’s health care agenda will receive on ABC News programming.

Today, the Republican National Committee requested an opportunity to add our Party’s views to those of the President’s to ensure that all sides of the health care reform debate are presented. Our request was rejected. I believe that the President should have the ability to speak directly to the America people. However, I find it outrageous that ABC would prohibit our Party’s opposing thoughts and ideas from this national debate, which affects millions of ABC viewers.

In the absence of opposition, I am concerned this event will become a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat agenda. If that is the case, this primetime infomercial should be paid for out of the DNC coffers. President Obama does not hold a monopoly on health care reform ideas or on free airtime. The President has stated time and time again that he wants a bipartisan debate. Therefore, the Republican Party should be included in this primetime event, or the DNC should pay for your airtime.

Respectfully,
Ken McKay
Republican National Committee
Chief of Staff

Obama-messiah’s “Rock and Five Pillars” Speech at Georgetown University on April 14, 2009

I’m not sure who wrote the analysis of Obama-messiah’s “Rock and Five Pillars” speech, which is indented and highlighted in color under different sections of the speech, below.  But they sure did a good job of it.

I’d say “Why people can’t see what is happening to this country is beyond me,” but in reality, it’s not. 

I know our heavenly Father’s Word in II Thessalonians 2:11 says, “And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”

Obama-messiah is a “type,” so to speak, of the real thing who is soon coming (i.e., the antichrist).  And I honestly believe God is giving us a good, preparatory preview of what it’s going to be like when he gets here. 

Of course, as I’ve said repeatedly, Obama-messiah is no antichrist.  He’s just a piker by comparison.  When the supernatural one arrives, you’ll see the whole world swoon under his presence, as it states throughout Revelation chapter 13.

But watching this fraud mesmerize the people with deceptive speech and bold ventures sure  makes you wonder how soon the real thing is coming.

– Spencer

President Obama’s “Rock and Five Pillars Speech” at Georgetown University on April 14, 2009

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT ON THE ECONOMY

The White House, Office of the Press Secrectary

I want every American to know that each action we take and each policy we pursue is driven by a larger vision of America’s future — a future where sustained economic growth creates good jobs and rising incomes; a future where prosperity is fueled not by excessive debt, or reckless speculation, or fleeting profits, but is instead built by skilled, productive workers, by sound investments that will spread opportunity at home and allow this nation to lead the world in the technologies and the innovation and discoveries that will shape the 21st century. That’s the America I see….

[Notice the absence of any reference to entrepreneurial ventures -- the individual ingenuity and personal efforts that has been the praise and envy of the world. Instead, he emphasized the management of "workers" -- the key vision of totalitarian socialism.]

…since the problems we face are all working off each other to feed a vicious economic downturn, we’ve had no choice but to attack all fronts of our economic crisis simultaneously.

The first step was to fight a severe shortage of demand in the economy….

Second, I absolutely agree that our long-term deficit is a major problem that we have to fix. But the fact is that this recovery plan represents only a tiny fraction of that long-term deficit…..

Finally, to coordinate a global response to this global recession, I went to the meeting of the G20 nations in London the other week. Each nation has undertaken significant stimulus to spur demand…. 

It is simply not sustainable to have a 21st-century financial system that is governed by 20th-century rules and regulations that allowed the recklessness of a few to threaten the entire economy….

[In the next section, notice how God's Word is taken out of context and used to substantiate a global socialist economic system. But his fallacious arguments have nothing to do with actual economic realities:]

Now, there’s a parable at the end of the Sermon on the Mount that tells the story of two men. The first built his house on a pile of sand, and it was soon destroyed when a storm hit. But the second is known as the wise man, for when “the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house, it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.”

It was founded upon a rock. We cannot rebuild this economy on the same pile of sand. We must build our house upon a rock. We must lay a new foundation for growth and prosperity — a foundation that will move us from an era of borrow and spend to one where we save and invest; where we consume less at home and send more exports abroad

[The next illustration brings a reminder of "The five pillars of Islam." Islamic banking -- based on Sharia law -- is fast expanding into Western nations, including the USA]

 

It’s a foundation built upon five pillars that will grow our economy and make this new century another American century: Number one, new rules for Wall Street…. number two, new investments in education that will make our workforce more skilled and competitive…. number three, new investments in renewable energy and technology…. number four, new investments in health care…. and number five, new savings in our federal budget that will bring down the debt for future generations [probably includes reducing entitlements and health care for the elderly]….

That’s the new foundation we must build. … Let me talk about each of these steps in turn. The first step we will take to build this foundation is to reform the outdated rules and regulations that allowed this crisis to happen in the first place…..

 

[He proceeds to discuss the second, third and fourth points, but not the fifth point. He ends with his supposedly Biblical reference. It must sound good to all who don't know the context. Remember, the solid rock refers knowing and following God's Word -- what Obama has repeatedly mocked. And his final statement mocks the values of America's founders. Unlike Obama, they did attempt to build on the foundations of God's holy Word.]

That is the house upon the rock — proud, sturdy, unwavering in the face of the greatest storms. And we will not finish it in one year. … But if we use this moment to lay that new foundation, if we come together and begin the hard work of rebuilding, if we persist and persevere against the disappointments and setbacks that will surely lie ahead, then I have no doubt that this house will stand and the dream of our founders will live on in our time.
 

---

In preparation for this important speech, Christian symbols had to be hidden:Religious Symbols Covered Up When President Obama Spoke at a Catholic University: Officials at Georgetown University covered a monogram symbolizing the name of Jesus because it was inscribed on the stage where the president spoke Tuesday. The White House asked for all symbols to be covered at the lecture hall. ….”The cowardice of Georgetown to stand fast on principle tells us more than we need to know… but the bigger story is the audacity of the Obama administration to ask a religious school to neuter itself before the president speaks there.”

See Not Ashamed

 

---

The Sting, in Four Parts by Charles Krauthammer, April 17, 2009:

“In a major domestic policy address at Georgetown University this week, Barack Obama promised — eight times — a ‘New Foundation.’

For those too thick to have noticed this proclamation of a new era in American history, the White House Web site helpfully titled its speech excerpts ‘A New Foundation.’…  

Obama offered his New Foundation speech as the complete, contextual, canonical text for the domestic revolution he aims to enact. It had everything we have come to expect from Obama:

• The Whopper: The boast that he had “identified $2 trillion in deficit reductions over the next decade.” It takes audacity to repeat this after it had been so widely exposed as transparently phony….
• The Puzzler: He further boasted of his frugality by saying that his budget would reduce domestic discretionary spending as share of GDP to the lowest level ever recorded….
• The Non Sequitur: …Obama rarely fails to repeat this false connection. A crisis — and the public’s resulting pliability to liberal social engineering — is a terrible thing to waste….
• The Swindle: The Obama administration is spending money like none other in peacetime history….

Obama-messiah Earth Day Flights Burned More Than 9,000 Gallons Of Fuel

We could probably “save the planet” from “global warming” just by banning politicians like Obama-messiah from traveling to remote locations to give speeches, when there are perfectly good television cameras right there in Washington DC.   

 

Perhaps someone should teach him how to spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e, too. 

And it’s not just politicians.  Every time I turn on the television all I hear are harangues from idiotic, air-headed actors and actresses about how we have to work to “reduce our carbon footprint.” 

 

Even Fox Network is now browbeating its viewers during commercial breaks to “Go green, and mean it!”, enlisting the stars of their hit shows like “24” to guilt-trip viewers into making the reduction of their “carbon footprints” the social centerpiece of their lives. 

 

Compared to these overpaid Hollywood dolts, who jet back and forth between Los Angeles, New York and London for film shoots as frequently as most people drive to their local grocery store, my “carbon footprint” is about nil. 

 

But isn’t that always the case?  The ones who have the largest “carbon footprints” are always the ones telling the rest of us to clean up our acts.  C’est la vie.

 

Singer Cheryl Crowe says we have to learn to wipe our butts with only a single square of toilet paper.  I don’t know how that’s going to stop global warming.  But it sure will eliminate all of that glad-handling you see at political and environmental rallies.  (At least, you’d think it would.  Who knows, with these sick puppies.)

 

At any rate, I’ve decided today to start “reducing my carbon footprint” by no longer watching television shows that interrupt my enjoyment of the show by telling me to reduce my carbon footprint.  The electricity I’ll save alone should put a dramatic dent into global warming. Probably reduce earth’s temperatures by four or five degrees by this time next year.  Hell, I’ll probably have to start wearing long sleeve shirts in the summer, it will get so cold. 

 

Yes, I’m exaggerating for effect.  But if enough of us turned off those TV shows in protest, you can bet the dumb Hollywood stars would get the message, and stop blowing so much hot air.  And that would likely go a long way toward eliminating “global warming.”

 

As for our intrepid frequent-flyer-in-chief, perhaps he should catch a clue from his wife Michelle, and do something constructive, like stay home and take up organic gardening. 

 

And shut the f#$@ up, for a change.

 

– Spencer

 

Obama Earth Day Flights Burned More Than 9,000 Gallons Of Fuel

http://www.cbsnews.com/track/rss/blogs/2009/04/22/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4962384.shtml?CMP=OTC-RSSFeed&source=RSS&attr=PoliticalHotsheet_4962384

 

It happens every time a president leaves town to make an Earth Day speech. Reporters scramble to point out how much fuel was expended so the President could talk about conserving energy and using alternative fuels.

 

In flying to and from Iowa today, President Obama took two flights on Air Force One and four on Marine One.

 

The press office at Andrews AFB wouldn’t give me the fuel consumption numbers for the 747 that serves as Air Force One without the approval of the White House Press Office, which as I write this has yet to be given.

 

But Boeing says its 747 burns about 5 gallons of fuel per mile. It’s 895 miles from Washington to Des Moines, so a round trip brings the fuel consumption for the fixed-wing portion of the President’s trip to 8,950 gallons.

 

The trip also put President Obama on Marine One for round-trip flights between the White House and Andrews AFB and between Des Moines International Airport and Newton, Iowa, site of his Earth Day speech. It totaled about an hour of flight time. The VH-3D that serves as Marine One consumes about 1200 pounds of fuel per hour which comes out to about 166 gallons consumed flying the President today.

 

Not included in these calculations are the presidential vehicles that took him the short distance from the landing zone in Newton to the event site at the Trinity Structural Towers Manufacturing Plant.

 

In his speech there, President Obama called for a “new era of energy exploration in America.”

 

At a plant that manufactures the towers for wind turbines, he urged Americans to support his plan for promoting expanded use of alternative and renewable fuels.

 

And he announced that for the first time, the Interior Department would be leasing federal waters for projects to generate electricity from wind and ocean currents.

 

President Obama could have saved at least 9,116 gallons of fuel by giving his speech at the White House – but no wind turbines are manufactured here.

Obama-messiah grabs for complete control of nation’s financial institutions

The financial institutions have finally figured out that the so-called “bailout” comes with so many strings attached, many of them are actually clamoring to give the money back. 

 

But Obama-messiah has now declared that before they can do so, they must pass a “financial stress test,” which, in essence, prevents them from getting out from under the onerous hand of Big Brother government. 

 

And now Obama-messiah is considering converting the stock in those financial institutions, which the government took control of as “collateral” for the loans, from preferred stock to common stock.  This means the government would completely control those 500 major financial institutions, because they would control a voting majority among the common stockholders.    

 

In other words, if Obama-messiah has his way, we will convert to a Soviet-style, nationalized business system in which the government runs the financial institutions, and therefore controls virtually every aspect of the economy.

 

The 2010 elections sure seem a long way away.  But as I’ve stated repeatedly, unless we elect a conservative majority to Congress, Obama-messiah and his socialist minions are going to continue steamrolling right over this country.

 

– Spencer

 

 

Obama’s leap to socialism 

http://thehill.com/dick-morris/obamas-leap-to-socialism-2009-04-21.html

 

 

By Dick Morris 

Posted: 04/21/09 05:21 PM [ET] 

 

President Obama showed his hand this week when The New York Times wrote that he is considering converting the stock the government owns in our country’s banks from preferred stock, which it now holds, to common stock.

 

This seemingly insignificant change is momentous. It means that the federal government will control all of the major banks and financial institutions in the nation. It means socialism.

 

The Times dutifully dressed up the Obama plan as a way to avoid asking Congress for more money for failing banks. But the implications of the proposal are obvious to anyone who cares to look.

 

When the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) intervention was first outlined by the Bush administration, it did not call for any transfer of stock, of any sort, to the government. The Democrats demanded, as a price for their support, that the taxpayers “get something back” for the money they were lending to the banks. House Republicans, wise to what was going on, rejected the administration’s proposal and sought, instead, to provide insurance to banks, rather than outright cash. Their plan would, of course, not involve any transfer of stock. But Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) undercut his own party’s conservatives and went along with the Democratic plan, ensuring its passage.

 

But to avoid the issue of a potential for government control of the banks, everybody agreed that the stock the feds would take back in return for their money would be preferred stock, not common stock. “Preferred” means that these stockholders get the first crack at dividends, but only common stockholders can actually vote on company management or policy. Now, by changing this fundamental element of the TARP plan, Obama will give Washington a voting majority among the common stockholders of these banks and other financial institutions. The almost 500 companies receiving TARP money will be, in effect, run by Washington.

 

And whoever controls the banks controls the credit and, therefore, the economy. That’s called socialism.

 

Obama is dressing up the idea of the switch to common stock by noting that the conversion would provide the banks with capital they could use without a further taxpayer appropriation. While this is true, it flies in the face of the fact that an increasing number of big banks and brokerage houses are clamoring to give back the TARP money. Goldman-Sachs, for example, wants to buy back its freedom, as do many banks. Even AIG is selling off assets to dig its way out from under federal control. The reason, of course, is that company executives do not like the restrictions on executive pay and compensation that come with TARP money. It is for this reason that Chrysler Motors refused TARP funds.

 

With bank profits up and financial institutions trying to give back their money, there is no need for the conversion of the government stock from preferred to common — except to advance the political socialist agenda of this administration.

 

Meanwhile, to keep its leverage over the economy intact, the Obama administration is refusing to let banks and other companies give back the TARP money until they pass a financial “stress test.” Nominally, the government justifies this procedure by saying that it does not want companies to become fully private prematurely and then need more help later on. But don’t believe it. They want to keep the TARP money in the banks so they can have a reason and rationale to control them.

 

The Times story did not influence the dialogue of the day. People were much more concerned with the death of 21 horses at a polo match. Much as we will miss these noble animals, we will miss our economic freedom more.

 

———–

Morris, a former adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton, is the author of Outrage. To get all of Dick Morris’s and Eileen McGann’s columns for free by e-mail or to order a signed copy of their best-selling book, Fleeced, go to dickmorris.com. 

Obama-messiah rules carbon dioxide is a “threat to the planet”; moves to begin controlling emissions…

The Obama-messiah’s has now ruled that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and a planetary threat. 

 

Let me explain something to you:  When you breathe, you exhale carbon dioxide.  You are now “polluting the environment,” and you thereby constitute a “threat to the planet.”

 

The bottom line is that Obama-messiah has now set the stage to micro-manage every aspect of your daily life, exactly as I’ve been warning.

 

Just about everything you do, from burning wood in your fireplace, to running your heater, to driving your car, to hosting a family barbecue (not to mention breathing), creates carbon dioxide emissions.  Even the electricity you use to run your household lights will be regulated, because coal is used to produce electricity, and the burning of coal is one of the major producers of carbon emissions.  In other words, the more electricity you use, the more coal must be burned to produce it.  Leave your lights on too long (time to be determined by your local EPA bureaucrats), and you’re now a threat to the environment.  Better get used to walking around in the dark, my friends.  (It’s called rationing.) 

 

In short, one by one, virtually everything you do will be regulated and micro-managed in the name of “saving the planet.” 

 

Not only that, but the price of everything you buy – and I mean everything — is going to skyrocket, because electricity has to be used in one form or another to produce, package, transport, warehouse and sell  products.  And since coal burning will be penalized under the new rules, thanks to its carbon emission-producing nature, that means more expensive and less efficient government-mandated means of producing electricity will be instituted.  Guess who pays the costs in higher and higher electric bills?  Yes, you, the consumer. 

 

As the article below points out, coal companies are already pulling back on production, because they don’t want to spend tens of millions of dollars on coal mining operations only to find out that coal is going to be regulated into oblivion, or taxed into oblivion, after they’ve already made the investment to mine it.  And once coal mining comes to a screeching halt, coal supplies will dwindle, which will also send prices skyrocketing due to the laws of supply and demand.

 

In short, if you think people are having a hard time making ends meet now, just wait until they start passing the new regulations limiting the carbon dioxide “threat.”

 

– Spencer

 

Obama rules carbon dioxide is a “threat to the planet”; moves to begin controlling emissions…

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123997738881429275.html#mod=djemalertNEWS  

 

By JONATHAN WEISMAN and SIOBHAN HUGHES

 

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration declared Friday that carbon dioxide and five other industrial emissions threaten the planet. The landmark decision lays the groundwork for federal efforts to cap carbon emissions — at a potential cost of billions of dollars to businesses and government.

 

The Environmental Protection Agency finding that the emissions endanger “the health and welfare of current and future generations” is “the first formal recognition by the U.S. government of the threats posed by climate change,” EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson wrote in a memo to her staff.

 

The finding could touch every corner of Americans’ lives, from the types of cars they drive to the homes they build. Along with carbon dioxide, the EPA named methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride as deleterious to the environment. Even if the agency doesn’t use its powers under the Clean Air Act to curb greenhouse gases, Friday’s action improves the chances that Congress will move to create a more flexible mechanism to do so.

 

On a conference call Friday with environmentalists, EPA officials stressed they would take a go-slow approach, holding two public hearings next month before the findings are official. After that, any new regulations would go through a public comment period, more hearings and a long review.

 

“Whatever the process it, it will be the time-honored and ordinary process of soliciting public input,” an EPA official said.

 

New regulations driven by the finding could be years away. But unless superseded by congressional action, the EPA ruling eventually could lead to stricter emissions limits. Businesses that stand to be affected range from power plants and oil refineries to car makers and cement producers.

 

Uncertainty about the impact of such regulation is already affecting some companies. Consol Energy Inc., a big coal and energy company based in Pittsburgh, says it is delaying two large mining projects in Northern Appalachia because of uncertainty around pending carbon emission regulation.

 

“In terms of starting to move dirt, we would postpone that until there’s some clarity,” said Thomas Hoffman, vice president of investor relations.

 

Friday’s announcement marks a significant turn in U.S. policy on climate change. The U.S. has never ratified the Kyoto climate treaty. President Bill Clinton, who signed the pact, didn’t submit it to the Senate for ratification because of strong opposition to the deal, which didn’t impose greenhouse gas limits on China and other developing economies. President George W. Bush also didn’t submit the Kyoto treaty for ratification, and largely resisted calls for stronger action on climate change, including the endangerment finding.

 

That approach began to crumble two years ago, when the Supreme Court found that carbon dioxide is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act and declared that the EPA can regulate it.

 

With Friday’s finding, the U.S. takes a big step closer to European Union nations, which have agreed to Kyoto greenhouse gas limits and are pushing for a new treaty on climate change at a December meeting in Copenhagen.

 

Some Republicans and business groups that have long blocked action on climate-change legislation shifted positions in response, saying Congress now must act on legislation that would give businesses more flexibility in meeting emissions targets than rules issued under the Clean Air Act.

 

Rep. Edward J. Markey (D., Mass.), a co-author of sweeping climate change legislation, called the EPA’s decision “a game changer.”

 

 ”It’s now no longer a choice between doing a bill or doing nothing,” said the lawmaker, who will hold four days of climate change hearings next week before the formal drafting of a bill begins the last week of April. “It is now a choice between regulation and legislation.”

 

Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, sought a middle ground, proposing to focus carbon caps on coal-fired power plants and vehicle tailpipes — and holding off any move until the nation emerges from recession.

 

American Electric Power, a utility giant with 5.2 million customers in states from Texas to Michigan to Virginia, is already considering what coal plants would have to be shuttered and how high rates would have to go to comply with either a regulatory or legislative mandates to curb carbon dioxide. AEP spokesman Pat Hemlepp said rate increases stretch from 25% to 50% and beyond, depending on the climate change strategy that finally emerges from Washington.

 

A proposal by President Barack Obama would cap the emissions of greenhouse gases, then force polluters to purchase emission permits, which could be traded on the open market. The details of the cost of carbon credits have been left to Congress, although Mr. Obama has said he wants all emissions covered, with no allowance for free emissions, as some business groups and lawmakers want.

 

Heavy carbon emitters, such as utilities that rely on coal-fired power, would pay a hefty price, but the cost of compliance would be alleviated by purchasing extra emissions permits from companies that emit less or can more easily adapt with energy-saving technology.

 

Regulation, on the other hand, would probably exclude such flexibility, and simply force businesses to reduce emissions. Businesses also see a more favorable playing field in Congress than with EPA regulators, who do not have to face the voters.

 

 ”We’re pretty confident that Congress is going to be much more sensitive to the economic impact of this than some unelected bureaucrats,” said Hank Cox, a spokesman for the National Association of Manufacturers.

 

The impact of the EPA finding could be dramatic. Using the Clean Air Act, the EPA could raise fuel-efficiency standards for automobiles, such as by authorizing nationwide adoption of California’s rules for greenhouse-gas tailpipe emissions.

 

That could require auto makers to produce more hybrid and electric vehicles, such as the Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrid under development by General Motors Corp. The Volt, however, is expected to carry a sticker of about $40,000, or roughly twice the price of a conventional Chevrolet Malibu sedan.

 

In electric power, the EPA could force new power plants to include emissions-reduction technology, although it is unclear whether emerging technologies to capture carbon-dioxide emissions would be feasible.

 

The EPA could order older power plants to be retrofitted, such as with more-efficient boilers, and it could mandate more reliance on wind and other renewable energy if coal-fired power plants can’t be made to run more cleanly. That could present technological and infrastructure challenges.

 

White House officials made clear Friday that President Obama prefers a legislative approach to curbing global warming. The House Energy and Commerce Committee will hold hearings next week on an Obama proposal to cap carbon emissions and sell tradable permits that businesses must buy to emit carbon dioxide. The White House will dispatch senior officials to those hearings, an official said.

 

The EPA finding comes about two years after the Supreme Court found that carbon dioxide is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act and that the EPA can regulate it.

 

Write to Jonathan Weisman at jonathan.weisman@wsj.com and Siobhan Hughes at siobhan.hughes@dowjones.com