*URGENT* Important Notice for America's Future

"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." - John 8:32

The draft Treaty of Copenhagen, to be signed in mid-December 2009, would create an unelected world government with direct power over all financial and trading markets, and direct power to intervene over the heads of elected governments in the economic and environmental affairs of all nations that sign the Treaty. The word "government" actually appears in the Treaty as the first of three purposes of a huge, new, supranational bureaucratic entity that will have the power to require wealthier nations to redistribute up to 2% of their annual gross domestic product to third-world countries in imagined reparation for imaginary "climate debt" - and all this just as final scientific proof that CO2 has a tiny and harmless warming effect is available. Please read and sign the Instrument of Repudiation, and urge at least five of your friends to sign it too, and urge each of them to find five more to sign it. The Instrument will be tabled during the Copenhagen Conference this December. So sign now, and save America's freedom, democracy, and prosperity.

GO HERE AND SIGN !
http://www.webcommentary.com/

Instrument of Repudiation

We, the People of the United States of America,

HEREAS We recollect with filial Affection and patriotic Pride that eleven score and thirteen Years ago our Forefathers brought forth on this Continent a new Nation, conceived in Liberty and dedicated to the Proposition that all Men are created equal;

AND FORASMUCH AS We remember with Gratitude Our gallant Armed Forces who fearlessly fought and bravely died that Our Nation might be born free, then again that all Slaves might be set free, then again that all Europe might be restored to Freedom and all the World delivered from fell Tyranny, and We salute Our Troops who this day as fearlessly fight and as bravely die on Freedom’s far Frontiers that the World may win the Freedom that our Nation has long and merrily enjoyed, that blessed Freedom for which She is everywhere known, and for which She stands a Beacon of Hope to all who are not yet free;

NOW, THEREFORE, reaffirming our Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, under God, Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all, with united Voice and Will do declare this Our implacable Intention and Our unflinching Resolve –

We will no longer countenance the fraudulent, unscientific, now-discredited Superstition that is Climate Change, in that the warming that carbon dioxide induces is now proven small, harmless, and beneficial;

We will not abide the wanton squandering of the hard-won Fruits of Our Workers’ Labor either for the Establishment and Enrichment of any such costly, corpulent, corrupt, many-tentacled, supranational Tyranny of pampered, festering Functionaries as is now in Prospect or for purposeless Redistribution to the Dictators or Oligarchs of other Nations in imagined Reparation for Our imaginary “Climate Debt”;

We will remind our Lawgivers that any Bill to curtail Emissions of Carbon Dioxide, however piously intended, is doomed to extravagant Futility, in that shutting down every Enterprise and Industry of Humankind even for 200 years would forestall no more than 1 Fahrenheit Degree of “Global Warming”;

We will never be governed by any but them whom We have freely elected, may freely hold to Account, and may freely replace, and We will have no unelected, unaccountable, irreplaceable World Government set atop of Us, or above Our beloved Constitution, or over any of the Free Nations or Free Markets of the World, and Government of the People, by the People, and for the People shall not perish from the Earth;

WHEREFORE We direct that the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, for its Corruption, its Extravagance, and its Mendacity, be utterly disbanded forthwith and for aye.

AND We utterly refuse, reject, and repudiate the proposed Treaty of Copenhagen and all Climate Bills as null, void, invalid, iniquitous, unjust, damnable, reprobate, inane, and empty of Meaning for all Time;

AND We require that this Our Instrument of Repudiation of the said Treaty and Bills, when signed by Us, be served upon the Conference of the States Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change;
The Treaty of Copenhagen shall not pass. No Climate Bill shall pass. We will remain free.

God Bless America!

GO HERE AND SIGN !
http://www.webcommentary.com/

2010-A Reminder

A good friend of mine sent me this letter in an e-mail and I wish to share it as it reflects my own sentiments on Sen. Boxer let alone most of the legislative branch of our Republic.

Do you remember this scene in the Senate? Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) hearing from a Brigadier General? He addresses Barbara as "Ma'am", and she CORRECTS him, telling him she's "worked SO hard” to earn the title, "Senator", so please when addressing her use that title!

Many of us witnessed the arrogance of Barbara Boxer on June 18, 2009 as she admonished Brigadier General Michael Walsh because he addressed her as "ma'am" and not "Senator" before a Senate hearing.

This letter is from a National Guard aviator and Captain for Alaska Airlines named Jim Hill. I wonder what he would have said if he were really angry. Long fly Alaska Airlines!!!!!

Babs:

You were so right on when you scolded the general on TV for using the term, "ma'am," instead of "Senator". After all, in the military, "ma'am" is a term of respect when addressing a female of superior rank or position. The general was totally wrong. You are not a person of superior rank or position. You are a member of one of the world's most corrupt organizations, the U.S. Senate, equaled only by the U.S. House of Representatives.

Congress is a cesspool of liars, thieves, inside traders, traitors, drunks (one who killed a staffer, yet is still revered even in death), criminals, and other low level swine who, as individuals (not all, but many), will do anything to enhance their lives, fortunes and power, all at the expense of the People of the United States and its Constitution, in order to be continually re-elected. Many democrats even want American troops killed by releasing photographs. How many of you could honestly say, "We pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor"? None? One? Two?

Your reaction to the general shows several things. First is your abysmal ignorance of all things military. Your treatment of the general shows you to be an elitist of the worst kind. When the general entered the military (as most of us who served) he wrote the government a blank check, offering his life to protect your derriere, now safely and comfortably ensconced in a 20 thousand dollar leather chair, paid for by the generals taxes. You repaid him for this by humiliating him in front of millions.

Second is your puerile character, lack of sophistication, and arrogance, which borders on the hubristic. This display of brattish behavior shows you to be a virago, termagant, harridan, nag, scold or shrew, unfit for your position, regardless of the support of the unwashed, uneducated masses that have made California into the laughing stock of the nation.

What I am writing, are the same thoughts countless millions of Americans have toward Congress, but who lack the energy, ability or time to convey them. Regardless of their thoughts, most realize that politicians are pretty much the same, and will vote for the one who will bring home the most bacon, even if they do consider how corrupt that person is. Lord Acton (1834 - 1902) so aptly charged, "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Unbeknownst to you and your colleagues, "Mr. Power" has had his way with all of you, and we are all the worse for it.

Finally Senator, I, too, have a title. It is "Right Wing Extremist Potential Terrorist Threat." It is not of my choosing, but was given to me by your Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano. And you were offended by "ma'am"?

Have a fine day. Cheers!

Jim Hill
16808 - 103rd Avenue Court East
South Hill , WA 98374

If you care about the way our Country is heading, Please circulate this to remind every voter that the "cesspools" MUST be pumped out when we go to the polls in November, 2010

It's come to this,,Flag Desecration

'Desecrated flag' video is DNC finalist



Talk about a party of "no",the DNC is the party of "NO TO AMERICA"

Part III (Opt-Out) Here We Go,,,,,,

“Kansas citizens have a right to make their own health care decisions without federal czars”
-Sen. Mary Pilcher-Cook

Here is a recent example of what is happening and is to come.

The bills in both houses of congress have yet to pass, let alone be combined in conference and yet be voted on again in each house and then if passed make it to Obamas desk,,,(emphasis mine)

Kansas state lawmakers push for health care insurance opt-out

By DAVID KLEPPER
The Star’s Topeka correspondent

TOPEKA | Three Republican lawmakers in Kansas want to give the state an opt-out should Congress pass health reforms that mandate individual health insurance.

Their proposal, which would alter the Kansas Constitution, is similar to efforts under way in more than half the states, including Missouri. It’s a pointed attempt to get President Barack Obama and Congress to back off efforts to retool the nation’s health care system.

“Kansas citizens have a right to make their own health care decisions without federal czars,” said Sen. Mary Pilcher-Cook, a Shawnee Republican and one of the three sponsors of the proposed amendment.

The amendment would say no law can require individuals or employers to buy health insurance.

To be added to the state constitution, the legislation must be passed by a two-thirds majority of the Kansas House and Senate and then be approved by voters next year.

Pilcher-Cook, with Rep. Brenda Landwehr of Wichita, and Rep. Peggy Mast of Emporia, announced the legislation Tuesday and predicted it would be a key debate of the coming session, which begins in January.

Democrats were quick to note that the three lawmakers receive taxpayer-funded health insurance. Kenny Johnston, the party’s executive director, called it hypocritical to try to block health reforms while getting coverage on the public’s dime.

“For many Kansans, these extreme right Republicans would eliminate the best hope for affordable coverage,” Johnston said. “Just saying ‘no’ is not a solution.”

But the legislation’s sponsors insisted they’re not against reforms, only federal mandates.

“We were created to have state sovereignty,” Landwehr said. “We were not set up to have the federal government tell the states who, what, when, where and how.”

Landwehr and Pilcher-Cook said they don’t believe the amendment, if successful, would put the state in jeopardy of losing federal health care funds.

As I suggested in 'Part II (Opt-Out)' this particular brand of health care reform is setting up battles across the Nation within the individual states and as the article stated,those battles now are occurring in over half the country!

The last paragraph in the article also bolsters my previous suggestion in 'Part II' about setting up numerous States Rights v. Federal battles.

The President and Congress had better re-think this debacle entirely and soon!

Until that happens,one thing is for sure,,Constitutional lawyers will be very busy.

Lipstick Part II (Opt-Out)

“With any comprehensive reform, there always are unanticipated consequences”

As I noted in ‘Lipstick on a Pig’ Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) revealed Monday 26,2009 that the Senate bill will include the public option, but with a clause that allows states to “opt out” of a government run program and here are some real concerns dealing with such a concept.

“There are serious logistical questions in terms of implementation. How do states opt out? Must state legislatures decide or can they use public referendum to allow voters to make the decision? Regardless of whether the venue turns out to be a legislative decision or a public referendum, we should expect intense lobbying and spending from those who feel strongly about the issue. States with conservative voters or strong private health insurance companies will face strong pressure to exit the public option”.

This set of questions are extremely important. All of us have heard calls for the entire American electorate being able to actually vote on any health care reform up or down as opposed to congress. Now with this “opt-out option” it sets-up battle grounds in all 50 states as who decides to opt-in or out i.e.; the state government or the electorate.

Also,consider the ramifications concerning migration from state to state due to the individual states decision. Say for instance Ohio opted-in and Michigan opted-out,Michigan would surely see a huge population decrease which in turn would lessen the following; our representation in Washington D.C., return on Federal dollars for infrastructure and schools,,etc. and obviously tax revenue to the state itself.

The above is but a partial list of problems of a large exodus from a state due to opting-out,now let’s examine the flip side.Ohio is now seeing a very large and fast growing population which it is not capable of supporting i.e.; housing,hospitals,schools,police/fire/ems services,prison’s and infrastructure. This will lead to disaster in all of those areas not only in the short-term but for an unforeseen future.

“Another consideration concerns what it means to opt out. On the insurance side, opting out presumably means that people within the state who cannot afford health insurance would not have a public option to choose from and would be limited to the private insurance companies that operate within their jurisdiction. But what about the tax revenue that would have gone to subsidize uninsured residents of that state through a public option? Will that money in exiting states go to private insurance companies?”

This goes to a question I posed myself but delves further. Now this supposes that our taxes that would have stayed in Federal hands had MI opted-in are now returned to the state but here again sets-up two battles:

(1) States Rights v. Federal. If MI opted-out,why should its taxpayers be federally taxed for something we do not have?

(2) Intrastate argument of what essentially would be fascism; government (taxpayer) money going directly to private industry whether they be a non-profit entity or not. Or conversely using those funds for say,setting up individual medical savings accounts or simply refunding the money so we can choose ourselves.

“From a governance standpoint, the public option creates a worrisome precedent for other policy areas. If states don’t like congressional decisions on gun control, climate change or immigration, will state legislators demand an opt-out? If this were 1965 and there were a Medicare opt-out, it is conceivable we would have ended up with two-thirds of the country having Medicare, while one-third did not."

Unanticipated consequences does not even come close to describing the train wreck headed our way.



(Quoted excerpts; Darrell M. West is vice president and director of governance studies at the Brookings Institution via Politico.com)

Lipstick on a Pig

Health care 'public option' needs new name?

Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) Mon. 26, 2009

In an appearance at a Florida senior center, the Democratic leader referred to the so-called public option as “the consumer option.” Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., appeared by Pelosi’s side and used the term “competitive option.”

Both suggested new terminology might get them past any lingering doubts among the public – or consumers or competitors.

“You’ll hear everyone say, ‘There’s got to be a better name for this,’” Pelosi said. “When people think of the public option, public is being misrepresented, that this is being paid for with their public dollars.”…

“I think she’s going to go up and test-drive it when she goes back to Washington,” Wasserman Schultz said. “It might stick.” (h/t hotair.com)

We have seen this before, for instance the term “global warming” apply lipstick and it became “climate change”. Another recent example would be A.C.O.R.N.; they too after rather unfavorable publicity on their unsavory tactics in their operation are trying lipstick as well renaming themselves “Community Organizations International”. The two examples given above prove to show that no matter how much or what kind of “lipstick” you apply,it is still in the end,,,,a pig.

Lets look further as well into the Pelosi quote; I agree with her on the “public being misrepresented”,she should know as she is spearheading the effort to do so. In that quote she is in effect saying public dollars (TAXES) will not be paying for this? Folks, “public-option” means “government-run” and the only way government can run anything is by tax collection and those tax revenues come from YOU.

Then we shift to Harry Reid (D-Nev.) :

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) revealed Monday 26,2009 that the Senate bill will include the public option, but with a clause that allows states to opt out of a government run program.

"I’ve concluded with the support of the White House and Sens. Dodd (D-CT) and Baucus (D-MT), that the best way to move forward is to include a public option with the opt-out provision for states"

Reading that clearly it means; Include an opt-out option on a public option?

If in fact it were an “option”,why then would you include an opt-out? In other words,why would anyone be required to opt-out of something that they never opted-in in the first place being it was an “option” to begin with?

Also, if a state does opt-out,does that mean the state in question and it’s citizens can then “opt-out” of the taxes to pay for it as well? My guess is NO on that.

Clearly these politicians are using lipstick on a pig or better labeled the ‘worlds largest wild bore in history’,do not be fooled. Reform is needed,but addressing what we already know needs attention within our existing health care system and related industries affecting the cost,not the care itself or delivery of it.

If someone needs to fix a front porch on their property,they do not tear down the entire house and rebuild but rather address (fix) the porch itself as the latter is much cheaper than the former and is after all common sense.

Afghanistan-To Dither or not to Dither ?

America's top commander in Afghanistan warns that more troops are needed there within the next year or the nearly 8-year-old war "will likely result in failure."



August 2009
U.S. and NATO commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal said:

"Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) -- while Afghan security capacity matures -- risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible."

It has been almost (2) months ago that Gen. McChrystal made that statement and requested more troops. And since that time our Forces have suffered 85 fatalities and 349 wounded in Afghanistan. Now, going by Gen. McChrystals' own words “next 12 months” (1-year), that is now 10 months and yet still no decision from Pres. Obama.

The chart below clearly shows a gathering threat in Afghanistan;

U.S. Fatalities by Year-Operation Enduring Freedom-Afghanistan

Year - Total
2001 - 12
2002 - 49
2003 - 48
2004 - 52
2005 - 99
2006 - 98
2007 - 117
2008 - 155
2009 - 267 (TO DATE)

Source: iCasualties.org

Pres. Obama made Afghanistan a central part of his campaign to be Commander in Chief and 10 months into holding that position he has yet to show leadership. Be reminded that Gen. Stanley McChrystal was hand-picked by Obama for the job.

Obama referred to Afghanistan as "the right war",well Mr. President,do right by the troops serving under your command,make a decision !

Political Posturing

This is rich. The AP is reporting that Sen. Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat from East Lansing is seeking “further” cuts in lawmaker’s annual salaries which are already slated to be cut by $8,000 in 2011 from the current $79,650.


Now on the surface that seems to be a realistic and noble idea especially in these economic times, but seems she only had this revelation after filing for her candidacy for Attorney General, whose office is also due for a salary decrease itself in 2011 but is also significantly higher than her current position; $119,188 as posted by current AG Mike Cox.

We can see that this comes down to political posturing in campaigning for higher office, but will she also advocate “further” cuts to the AG’s salary ,the very office she seeks to hold?

If so, this would at least be consistent.

If not, well that to would be consistent at least for a democrat, hypocritical.

'VICTICRAT'

Brought to you by ZoNation,it speaks for itself,,,,,,,

Will the insanity ever cease ?

Pres. Obama on Fri. 23,2009 speaking on Cap and tax legislation/global warming;

"There are going to be those who... make cynical claims that contradict the overwhelming scientific evidence when it comes to climate change, claims whose only purpose is to defeat or delay the change that we know is necessary."


Nessesary ? Really ? I offer this piece (Note the UN IPCC scientists)



'Scientific consensus' should be put on the stand

by Marc Morano

Climate fear promoters, knowing that they will lose an open, honest public debate, fear a trial moreso. There are some important pieces of evidence that cast into serious doubt the case for manmade global warming. Evidence that shows how no continents have set a record high temperature since 1974.


An issue for which the science is supposedly "settled" by a complete "consensus" of scientists would seem to offer the perfect opportunity to win over a skeptical public once and for all. But look no further than global warming movement's effort to ignore the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's call to put the science on trial, involving cross-examinations, witnesses, and a judge to make a final ruling.
Climate fear promoters, knowing that they will lose an open, honest public debate, fear a trial moreso. There are some important pieces of evidence that cast into serious doubt the case for manmade global warming.

Just this year came a series of inconvenient developments for the promoters of man-made global warming fears. A small sampling of developments include: New peer-reviewed studies, real world data, a growing chorus of scientists dissenting (including more UN IPCC scientists), open revolts in scientific societies, more evidence that rising CO2 is a boon for the atmosphere, and the Earth's failure to warm.

Those are just the broad strokes. What about the specifics? As the climate fear activists point fingers and regress into amusing rants, the global warming fear movement is collapsing.

There has been no significant global warming since 1995, no warming since 1998 and global cooling for the past few years. This follows a peer-reviewed analysis showing that the 20th century was not unusually warm.

In addition, a global temperature analysis on April 24, 2009 found that "no continents have set a record high temperature since 1974."

On May 1, 2009, the American Physical Society (APS) Council decided to review its current climate statement via a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists. The decision was prompted after a group of over 80 prominent physicists petitioned the APS revise its global warming position.

The physicists wrote to APS governing board: "Measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th-21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today."

There has been the failure of the oceans to warm, and Antarctic ice continues to grow. Even the poster child of the warming fear campaign, the Arctic, is not cooperating. Sea ice there grew more than the size of Texas over the last two years.

The hits keep coming from Down Under too. New Zealand Climate Scientist Chris de Freitas revealed on May 1, 2009 that "warming and CO2 are not well correlated." De Freitas added, "the effect of CO2 on global temperature is already close to its maximum. Adding more has an ever decreasing effect."

Australian Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer wrote on August 8, 2009: "At present, the Earth's atmosphere is starved of CO2...One big volcanic eruption can add as much CO2 in a day as humans do in a year."

Perhaps this body of evidence, bolstered by a good deal more, is why a U.S. government scientist said recently that if a climate trial occurred "only those with religious convictions of warming would continue to hold any support for man-made global warming."

Certainly there is enough strong evidence to knock back overreaching efforts to legislate and regulate everyday activities that involve carbon dioxide. If global warming activists and the Administration continue to avoid an official court hearing, we will have to continue putting the "science" on trial.

In a world where there's more than a reasonable doubt about catastrophic global warming, the verdict is easy to predict.

http://www.cfact.org

Marc Morano is executive editor of ClimateDepot.com, a global warming and eco-news center founded in 2009.

Redistribution to our peril

This from breitbart.com :

Obama offers millions in Muslim technology fund
Oct 23

The White House Friday highlighted a new multi-million-dollar technology fund for Muslim nations, following a pledge made by President Barack Obama in his landmark speech to the Islamic world.

The White House said the US Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) had issued a call for proposals for the fund, which will provide financing of between 25 and 150 million dollars for selected projects and funds.

The Global Technology and Innovation Fund will "catalyze and facilitate private sector investments" throughout Asia, the Middle East and Africa, the White House said in a statement.







Think about this,Obama who is for "government control" here in the U.S.A. is advocating "private sector investments" with OUR money in countries that are not exactly our friends.And do you honestly believe that those funds will be utilized properly? Or used against us ?

Now with unemployment here @ 9.5% Nationally and 15.2% in Michigan and with small business responsible for at least 50% of job creation,wouldn't you think that a sitting POTUS let alone a responsible congress would start to help here first ?

I would!

Some will say that $25-150 million is not alot,but that is not the point. The point is in the intention and the beneficiary. If you turn $25-150 million and more into small business TAX CUTS HERE it goes along way into solving our own economic situation first.