Thursday, April 30, 2009

Republicans need to return to their conservative principles

The party change by Arlen Specter highlights a problem the Republican Party has had for a long time. There are too many in the Party who disavow the basic tenets and principles that should distinguish Republicans from Democrats. The so-called "big tent" often cited as Ronald Reagan's vision of the Republican Party is specious; Reagan never envisioned being a part of a Party that deviated from basic conservative ideology of smaller, less intrusive, fiscally responsible government.

The Constitution embodies conservative ideals of limited government and maximum individual rights. The American people are fundamentally conservative; they support living under the rules of government spelled out in our country's founding document and eschew diminishing the freedoms of the Bill of Rights while enlarging the role of government beyond what is spelled out clearly in the Constitution. Whenever the Republican Party emphasizes its core conservative principles it wins elections in all but areas populated by underachievers who rely on the government dole; it loses when Republicans present a "Democrat light" version of policies - why vote for Republicans when you can have the real thing by voting for Democrats?

"We strayed from our principles of limited government, individual responsibility and economic freedom. We have to adhere to those principles to rebuild the Party. Those are the brand of the Republican Party, and people feel that we betrayed the brand." said Chris Chocola, a former Indiana Congressman who is head of the Club for Growth, a group that has financed primary challenges against Republicans it considers insufficiently conservative. [Incidentally, Specter's rival for the Republican Pennsylvania Senate seat, Patrick Toomey, is a product of Club for Growth.]

But some Republican leaders in Washington still believe that Republicans would be permanently marginalized unless they showed flexibility on social issues as well as economic ones.

Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the head of the National Republican Senatorial committee, said he would seek to recruit candidates who he thought could win in Democratic or swing states, even if it meant supporting candidates who might disagree with his own conservative views. Cornyn said he was taking a page from New York Senator Charles Schumer's book who led his party to big gains by embracing candidates who, for example, opposed abortion rights or gun control.

"If you think about it, Schumer has been very good at this; I complimented him this morning in the gym," Cornyn said, adding, "Some conservatives would rather lose than be seen as compromising on what they regard as inviolable principles."

Senator Lindsay Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said: "We are not losing blue states and shrinking as a party because we are not conservative enough. If we pursue a party that has no place for someone who agrees with me 70 percent of the time, that is based on an ideological purity test rather than a coalition test, then we are going to keep losing."

I believe Cornyn and Graham are wrong; in fact, they represent what is wrong with the Republican Party. One only has to look at their records to see how they often disagree with Party principles. Graham says it is okay for him to be a 70% conservative but that is not true. Remember what happened to John McCain who is also less conservative than most Republicans want in the last election. McCain and Graham campaigned together and presented a "Democrat light" choice and McCain lost to the "real thing."

Democrats now enjoy dominance but that could be just transitory. I believe Democrats could suffer a backlash if economic policies pushed by Barack Obama fail and the country remains in a recession with high unemployment.

New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg said "These policies that he (Obama) is pursuing expanding the size of the government are going to be policies which the country will find hard to accept when they look at the levels of debt and the levels of spending that they require." Gregg added that the Republican Party should do more to draw economic contrasts with the Democrats. Other Republicans said Mr. Specter's departure was in effect a purification rite for the party that would make it better able to make its case to the public.

Senator Jim Demint of South Carolina said ideological purity was the road to success. He said "The best way to get to 60 (senators) is to have a core group of Republicans who really do what they say and stand for their principles."

Patrick Toomey, a former head of the Club for Growth whose primary challenge to Arlen Specter caused Specter to change parties to avoid a probable defeat in the republican primary said Republicans should be open to a "wide range of opinions on a wide range of issues but I think fundamental common ground that the vast majority of Republicans share is the belief in limited government, freedom and personal responsibility."

Senator Graham, the 70% Republican, naturally disagrees with Gregg, Demint and Toomey and scoffs at the notion that the party was suffering because it was not conservative enough. Graham said "Do you really believe that we lost 18-to-34-year-olds by 19 percent, or we lost Hispanic voters, because we are not conservative enough?" - "No" he said, "this is a ridiculous line of thought. The truth (according to Graham) is we lost young people because our Republican brand is tainted."

In my opinion the problem is not what Graham argues; it is that Republicans send a mixed message. Some Republicans like Graham and McCain tell people the Democrat ideas are not so bad, they just need to be tweaked a bit. We need to tell the real story of what Republicans stand for - individual freedom, individual responsibility, conservative social ideals, smaller government, lower taxes, free enterprise - not socialism, and the opportunity for everyone to succeed without government interference. Young people and Hispanics who Graham says will be lost to the Republican Party will support Republican candidates that stand for something - not like Graham and McCain.

Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Obama’s successful “100 days” [with help from Newt Gingrich]

1. Obama has managed to get Congress to give him authority that undermines their own power. Obama's record in the first 100 days includes incredible political accomplishments. Under the guise of "economic stimulus" he was able to pass a $787 billion gift for his liberal special interest base; and he did it so quickly that no member of Congress was able to read it before they voted.

2. After campaigning on a pledge to end earmarks, he signed an appropriations bill loaded with 8,000 earmarks - and paid no political penalty.

3. President Obama has kept congressional Democrats marching with him in lockstep. House Democrats tow the party line an amazing 94 percent of the time and Senate Democrats vote Democratic 91 percent of the time.

4. Obama has achieved two historic bureaucratic power grabs:

A. President Obama has transformed the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) into giant engines of unsupervised spending. Together, they've spent the equivalent of the entire federal budget for 2007, without having to disclose where the money went.

B. Obama achieved the unprecedented bureaucratic power grab (with help from the U.S. Supreme Court) by having the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule that carbon dioxide poses a threat to public health. This seemingly innocuous decision opens the door to wholesale regulation of American life by government. Democrat politicians and activists will use this authority to force Congress to pass a $1 trillion to $2 trillion energy tax in the form of cap-and-trade legislation.

5. In Foreign affairs the Obama first 100 days record also includes remarkable weakness and self-delusion overseas. Obama tried to overcome anti-Americanism abroad by agreeing with anti-Americanism and criticizing his own country. President Obama has gone on a global apology tour, labeling America as "arrogant, dismissive and derisive" in front of foreign audiences.

6. President Obama has unleashed a domestic war over the meaning of guilt by caving in to the anti-American left and leaving the door open to prosecuting Bush Administration officials over the interrogation of terrorists who plotted to kill Americans.

7. But all these successful expansions of government at home and retractions of American leadership abroad are merely a prelude to President Obama's forthcoming crowning achievement. Obama's 2010 budget remakes our health care system, remakes our energy system, raises taxes and forecasts an amazing $9 trillion increase in the national debt.

8. Obama will succeed in getting Democrats in Congress to pass the budget's provisions on health care by preventing Republicans and moderate Democrats from having a voice in the debate. Obama-Reid-Pelosi are going to pass legislation that fundamentally affects every single American - as well as 17 percent of our economy – and they will do so by excluding the elected representatives of half of all Americans out of the process. This will be President Obama's most enduring - and devastating - accomplishment.

9. “Will the Future Bring Change We Can Believe In? Or a Change in What we Believe? One thing is clear at this point in President Obama's presidency: His control of Washington Democrats has been so masterful, and his policies so successful, that he has officially claimed ownership of the American economy. Going forward, it won't be possible to continue to place blame on former President Bush and the Republicans. If President Obama fails, it will be his failure and his alone. As for us, the ‘success’ of the first 100 days of the Obama presidency raises a threatening possibility.” [Newt Gingrich] - And in my view, a fatal change in our freedoms and way of life.

Monday, April 27, 2009

Senator Feinstein fly’s under the radar while the radical Barbara Boxer gets the attention

California has two Democrat Senators. One of them, the elevationally challenged Barbara Boxer, is an unmitigated socialist and espouses strict doctrinaire Democrat policies regardless the effect on the country. Boxer is a shrill (like Hillary Clinton) critic of anything resembling opposition to her causes, which are many and include whatever the radical left fringe wants.

The other California Senator, Diane Feinstein, benefits from having Boxer as the other senator from California. Whereas Boxer is shrill, Feinstein is soft spoken; whereas Boxer is a loud vocal proponent of socialism, Feinstein who likely shares the same views is not as prominently vocal – being content to let Boxer be the lightening rod for critics. However, although Feinstein projects a different image in contrast to Boxer, she is no less doctrinaire in her support of radical left goals.

There is one difference between Boxer and Feinstein that is overlooked and casts her in an unfavorable light, perhaps worse than Boxer – Feinstein can be said to be corrupt, and there is no evidence that this can be said of Boxer.

When the new Congress convened in 2009, Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation to give $25 billion in taxpayer money to a government agency that had just awarded her husband's real estate firm a lucrative contract to sell foreclosed properties at compensation rates higher than the industry norms.

Feinstein's intervention on behalf of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was unusual because Feinstein is not a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs which has jurisdiction over FDIC. Moreover, the FDIC is supposed to operate from money it raises from bank-paid insurance payments and not with federal money.

An investigation by The Washington Times shows that Senator Diane Feinstein first offered to help the FDIC obtain money for its effort to stem the rise of home foreclosures on October 30th. Her letter was sent very shortly before the agency determined that CB Richard Ellis Group (CBRE) - the commercial real estate firm that her husband Richard Blum heads as board chairman - had won the competitive bidding for a contract to sell foreclosed properties that FDIC had inherited from failed banks.

About the same time of the contract award, Feinstein’s husband, Richard Blum's private investment firm reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission that it and related affiliates had purchased more than 10 million new shares in CBRE. The shares were purchased for the going price of $3.77; CBRE's stock closed not long after at $5.14.

Spokesmen for the FDIC, Senator Feinstein and her husband Richard Blum's firm told the newspaper that there was no connection between the legislation and the contract signed Nov ember 13th, and that the couple didn't even know about CBRE's business with FDIC until after it was awarded.

What would one expect them to say; “yes, we are crooks?”

The senate has something called “ethics rules” which are strictly applied to Republicans but ignored for Democrats regardless which party has control of the senate. This is because Republicans like to portray themselves as fair and impartial on the matter of ethics and the Democrats just don’t give a damn. For those interested, the Senate ethics Rules state members must avoid conflicts of interest as well as "even the appearance of a conflict of interest." A fair question is whether Feinstein violated the latter provision by creating the appearance that she was rewarding the agency that had just hired her husband's firm (if not also the former).

"This clearly gives the appearance of a conflict of interest," said Kent Cooper, a former federal regulator who specializes in government ethics and disclosures. "To maintain the people's trust in government, it is incumbent on a legislator to take the extra steps necessary to ensure that when she introduces any legislation that it does not cause people to question her motives or the business activities of her spouse."

Mrs. Feinstein and Mr. Blum, a wealthy investment banker, is a power couple in both Washington and California; they even sat behind President Obama during his inauguration in January. Diane Feinstein also is mentioned by Democrats as a possible candidate for California governor.

The Blum firm is known for its commercial real estate services and will be paid a monthly maintenance fees for each foreclosed property it handles, as well as commissions and incentives. The total compensation can range from 8 percent of the sales price on many residential properties to 30 percent for properties worth $25,000 or less. Experts say most real estate agents earn no more than 6 percent on residential, even on foreclosed properties, and CBRE doesn't have as much experience in foreclosure sales as other firms.

"From everything I know about it, it is a very sweet deal and went to somebody who is less than qualified in dealing with foreclosed residential properties. Their expertise is in commercial real estate," said Cynthia Kenner, a Colorado real estate agent who specializes in selling bank-owned residential properties and last year helped sell more than 600 foreclosed properties.

"There are companies that are more experienced in selling such properties than CB Richard Ellis," she added.

Of course the FDIC said politics was not involved in its decision, noting that CBRE (Blum’s firm) was "deemed to be technically qualified and their fee structure fair and reasonable." That means the competition did not mandate the contract go to the lowest bidder necessarily, officials said.

Feinstein spokesman Gil Duran said there was no conflict of interest between Mr. Blum's firm getting the contract and the senator's legislation. He said she introduced the legislation because it would help prevent home mortgage foreclosures at a time when many Californians were in danger of losing their homes.

"She was not aware of the contract before she introduced the legislation," Mr. Duran said. "There is no evidence of any relationship or conflict between this foreclosure relief bill and the contract. Senator Feinstein complies with the rules and guidelines of the Ethics Committee."

Mr. Blum declined through a spokesman to comment.

CBRE spokesman Robert McGrath said the firm had $5 billion in revenues last year and was "well positioned" to help the FDIC as the nation's largest commercial real estate services company. Its pricing was at market rates after a highly competitive bid process, he said. [This is not true because market rates were 6%, not 8 to 30% given to CBRE.]

"We believe the FDIC will realize significant value from all the work we perform on their behalf," he said. [So will Feinstein’s husband.]

A little background: “Mr. Blum became chairman of CBRE in 2001 and has played a major role in its corporate business strategies. He led a buyout of the company, first taking it private and then a few years later taking it public again. He runs an investment management firm called Blum Capital Partners, which controls the second largest block of publicly traded CBRE stock - 38 million shares or 14.4 percent.” [WorldNet Daily]

Mr. Blum’s position as chairman of CBRE is not full time. He sets up partnerships through Blum Capital Partners that invests money for its clients and its owners. Blum reported owning more than $3 million in CBRE stock through various partnerships at the end of 2007, according to Mrs. Feinstein's personal financial disclosure statement.

CBRE's initial contract is for three years. The FDIC has the option to extend it for three two-year periods, records show. The contract calls for the real estate firm to be used "as needed."

In March, the FDIC said it had assigned CBRE 507 properties for disposal, valued at $221.7 million. In March, the company already had 23 FDIC properties valued at $11 million under contract to be sold.

Over the past 16 months, 50 banks have failed and more are expected to close. As a result, nobody knows how much CBRE will be able to earn over the life of the FDIC contract.

The FDIC contract came at a good time for CBRE because it was hit hard by the economic downturn. The company saw its revenues and income slide in 2008 and its stock price tumbled from $24.50 in May to below $4 in November. A few days later, CBRE raised $207 million through a stock offering that sold for $3.77 a share. Mr. Blum's investment partnerships bought 10.6 million shares at the market price of $3.77. The stock offering was announced a couple of days before the signing of the FDIC contract.

The FDIC contract with CBRE is on highly favorable terms according to real estate experts who reviewed the terms at the request of The Washington Times.

CBRE is to be paid under a three-tiered system with sliding rates, according to a rate proposal provided to the newspaper under a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. One example: CBRE gets to charge a setup fee of $450 for each residential property and $600 for each commercial property it takes over from the FDIC.

"That is highly unusual," said Ms. Kenner, the Colorado-based foreclosure expert. She said she does not collect a separate setup fee and was expected to do such work as part of her commission.

The FDIC said: "The setup fee is for setting up the assets in the contractor's database and the FDIC database. In the private sector, a similar fee is usually charged as an administrative fee, document preparation fee, or asset handling fee."

According to other information reported by WorldNetDaily, Milt Shaw, senior vice president of LPS Asset Management Solutions, which manages nearly 20,000 foreclosed properties for banks and other clients, said his firm did not charge setup fees. Others in the industry also called the fee unusual. CBRE also gets to collect a monthly administrative management fee of at least $200 for each residential and $1,600 for each commercial property in its inventory. Ms. Kenner and Mr. Shaw said fees for management services often come out of the sales commissions at closing, but the biggest fees for CBRE will come from the sales.

CBRE charges commissions of 8 percent of the sales price on residential and 7 percent on commercial properties worth up to $1 million. It also is entitled to an incentive fee of as much as 2 percent of the sales price for properties it sells within six months. The incentives start at two percent for residential properties worth between $25,001 and $500,000 and for commercial properties worth between $25,001 and $1 million before dropping to 1.5 percent.

Six percent commission is a standard rate for residential property in the private sector, but some experts said many buyers negotiate a lower fee; it is interesting that in the down market CPRE was able to negotiate a higher than normal rate.

Ms. Kenner, who deals in foreclosed residential properties, said she charges 5 percent to 6 percent, depending on the market, adding that she shares the fee with the buyer's agent and often with the asset management company.

Mr. Shaw said incentive fees are not that frequent in the private sector, but when he sees them they are usually smaller than 2 percent and pegged for a specific market.

The FDIC defended the fees, saying they were "intended to incentivize the contractors to sell the assets as quickly as possible for the benefit of the FDIC and to protect the insurance fund."

"The private sector normally does not have an urgency to sell assets quickly and thus do not normally have any incentive to do so," the agency said.

Mr. Shaw disagreed and said his private sector clients - banks and loan servicers - also wanted their properties sold quickly.

Other real estate specialists in the know say this was a very sweet deal for Feinstein’s husband.

Senator Diane Feinstein introduced her bill Jan. 6, seeking $25 billion from the government's bailout fund know as the Troubled Asset Relief Program to help bankroll an FDIC proposal to systematically prevent home mortgage foreclosures by expediting loan workouts and expanding federal loan guarantees.

It’s an interesting ethics question whether Mrs. Feinstein had an obligation to track her husband's business dealings with the government to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest.

"I find it amazing that they did not know that CB Richard Ellis had gotten the FDIC contract," said Mr. Cooper, the ethics expert and former regulator. "Why wasn't she or a staff person regularly watching for possible conflicts?"

Those familiar with the workings of the Ethics committee as far as Democrat ethics are concerned believe the Senate Ethics Committee will not take any action and will come up with some sort of implausible reason such as Feinstein’s legislation did not directly financially benefit her husband. Apparently for Democrats it is not sufficient that Feinstein’s legislation will indirectly, but substantially, benefit Feinstein and her family.

Robert L. Walker, a former chief Senate Ethics Committee counsel, said the Senate usually relies on the senator to police against improper appearances, but the policy "assumes that a senator and his or her staff will know about and remain alert to investments and other financial ties, including family financial ties, which could be the basis of such appearance concerns."

Senator Feinstein (one of the wealthiest members of Congress) declined to answer detailed questions about the steps she takes to avoid conflicts. Together Feinstein and her husband are worth at least $52.3 million, according to her 2007 personal financial disclosure forms filed with the Senate and analyzed by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which monitors money and politics.

Barbara Boxer may be a loud mouth radical extremist but her cohort Diane Feinstein votes the same way and additionally has suspect ethics.


Saturday, April 25, 2009

The U.S. Constitution has one big flaw

It is agreed among most of us that the creators of the U.S. Constitution did an amazingly competent job to protect individual rights and limit the national government’s role in our lives. Of course for at least the last 50 years or so socialists parading as liberals have managed to thwart the original intent of the Constitution throughout all three branches of government but that doesn’t detract from the generally fine work of our country’s founders.

However since man is fallible and not immune to error, the Constitution contains one glaring error which enables opponents of freedom, liberty and individual rights to impose their philosophy on all of us; this mistake is in the constitutional language that makes treaties entered into by the United States the supreme law of the land; overruling all other federal and state laws and judicial decisions to the contrary.

It is harmless enough to say as it does in Article II, Section 2 that The President “shall have power, by and with Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur … “; but it was undoubtedly not envisioned that the President and the Senate would be composed of people who would want to rewrite the Constitution and diminish the rights and freedoms built into the original language of the Constitution and enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

The problem and grievous mistake is what is written in Article VI which states in part:

“This Constitution and the Laws of the United States shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United states, shall be the Supreme law of the Land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or the Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

In other words, all provisions in the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, and all state laws can be obliterated in one fell swoop by a treaty signed by the president and approved by two thirds of the senate. With a president like Obama and an essentially veto-proof senate (including the renegade Republicans who have already demonstrated disregard of the Constitution) treaties formulated by the United Nations in direct opposition to our constitutional rights can become de facto and de jure amendments to the Constitution.

There are many, many horrendous treaties proposed by the United Nations and signed onto by countries around the world but until now some of the most intrusive have not been approved by the U.S. Senate even though a president has signed them. Recent treaties of this sort that come to mind are treaties signed by President Clinton such as Kyoto, and the Law of the Sea Treaty. As the UN became more and more dominated by anti-American countries a plethora of treaties antagonistic to our Constitution have been produced. Unfortunately for unwitting Americans some of these stand a good chance of passage and becoming law in this administration.

As just one example of what is likely in store for us; during his visit to Mexico President Obama said he will urge the U.S. Senate to ratify the treaty called “Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials.” The Clinton administration signed the treaty, better known by its Spanish acronym CIFTA, after the Organization of American States adopted it in 1997. The Senate has not ratified it. This treaty contains a number of provisions that would destroy constitutional rights.

Obama will push the U.S. Senate to ratify CIFTA. Obama’s nominee for Legal Adviser to the State Department, Harold Koh, has praised the treaty (more about Koh later).

As the Heritage Foundation has pointed out, the treaty has three provisions that can reverse some constitutional rights guaranteed to all Americans.

“First, while the Treaty states that it does not apply to “firearms ownership . . . of a wholly domestic character,” this provision is obviously subject to interpretations of what is “wholly domestic.”

The history of congress and the courts expanding the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution proves that we can expect few things to be regard as “wholly domestic.” Therefore this provision is too vague and open to many expansive interpretations that would transgress the Second Amendment.

“Second, the Treaty requires that countries signing “afford one another the widest measure of mutual legal assistance,” and creates a series of indictable offenses, and the legal basis for extradition.”

Thus we would have to assist undemocratic countries since not all the states in the Western Hemisphere are democracies and countries like Cuba and Venezuela (as well as other increasingly Marxist countries in the hemisphere) can take advantage of this provision to harm Americans.

Therefore if the U.S. ratifies the treaty, it will be compelled to give legal assistance to Hugo Chavez, and to consider his extradition requests. And since the offenses created by the treaty include the “counseling” of revolution, this means that Chavez could request U.S. legal assistance against, and the extradition of, any exiled opponent who exercised his freedom of speech by calling on the Venezuelan people to resist his dictatorship.

“Third, the Treaty creates a Consultative Committee of member states and the Treaty calls for the Committee to “prom [ote] . . . exchange of knowledge and experience . . . and technical assistance between . . . relevant international organizations, as well as academic studies.”

The call for technical assistance to relevant international authorities is also a back door through which the U.S. could be maneuvered into practical participation in the UN’s. global gun control intentions [and the subject of still other treaties] without the additional advice and consent of the Senate. There is no shortage of liberal academics writing such studies and no study funded by the Consultative Committee is likely to question its basic existence. These studies, therefore, will amount to subsidized propaganda.

Much of the treaty obligates the United States in ways that that would conflict with the First and Second Amendments. The justifications offered for ratification are untrue statistically, and unwise in their approach to international politics.

Obama and others favoring the treaty refer to the widespread violence in Mexico, fuelled by the drug trade and Obama has said that the U.S. is partly responsible for this because of easy access to guns which supposedly provide the most firearms to Mexican drug lords. It has been widely reported by the administration that 90 percent of guns seized in Mexico come from the United States. If true this would be a serious; but it is not true.

According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the figure of 90 percent relates not to all guns seized in Mexico. Rather, it is about the percentage of seized guns that Mexico sends to the U.S. for tracing that turn out actually to be from the United States. Guns that originate in the U.S. are in reality a small percentage of the total seized. Given that more than 150,000 Mexican soldiers have deserted in the past six years, taking their M-16s with them, Mexican criminals do not need U.S. sources to supply them with assault rifles. (Heritage Foundation report)

Another indication of the seriousness with which Obama intends to pursue approval of this treaty is the appointment of Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh, nominated to be the State Department’s Legal Adviser, who has been one of the leading advocates of international gun control.

Koh has strongly advocated for this treaty. In 2002, he praised it as providing “the best model” for his goal of promoting “the legal, political and social internalization of . . . [an] emerging international norm [against illicit arms transfers] into domestic legal systems.”

As has been previously pointed out, there two aspects of the treaty that would seriously damage rights under the First and Second amendments. First, the requirement to criminalize “counseling” is an attack on free speech. If this provision were put into effect, it would become a crime to resist tyrannical governments. Of course any conflict between the treaty and the constitution would have to be interpreted by the U.S. courts but how can we be sure what such an interpretation will produce. [Some courts in the U.S. have been notorious for ignoring the Constitution and some members of the U.S. Supreme Court have actually countenanced use of foreign court decisions when deciding U.S. cases.] The treaty would provide international legal support and justification “for denying the right of speaking of armed rebellion against oppression.”

Moreover the requirement to afford “mutual legal assistance” could easily be put to bad use; for example, would we want to assist Venezuela headed by President Obama’s new best friend Hugo Chavez, who is an OAS member and a treaty signatory?

Under the treaty, if a Venezuelan exile in the U.S. counseled the Venezuelan people to resist Chavez, he could be charged with a crime in Venezuela. The U.S. would then be obliged to afford the Venezuelan authorities assistance in gathering evidence, investigating, and prosecuting this ‘crime.’ Venezuela would also have the right to request the extradition of the ‘suspect.’ The U.S. could refuse this request on political grounds, but this could be deemed a violation of both this treaty and the existing extradition treaty between the U.S. and Venezuela.

The treaty creates obligations that are dangerous to free speech, offers opportunities for evading the Constitutional requirement for the advice and consent of the Senate, and could readily be expanded in ways that would conflict with the Second Amendment.

In short, the treaty is a poorly drafted document that, along with much that is ambiguous, contains provisions that (1) conflict with the Constitution, (2) would make the U.S. party to the denial of free speech abroad, and (3) would require the U.S. to either break its own pledges or give aid and comfort to foreign dictators by assisting their investigation of dissidents in the United States.

If the United states after entering into the treaty found the obligations too onerous and conflicting with important rights under the Constitution, the U.S. would have to refuse to uphold a treaty it had signed in good faith. This might become necessary but it is not sound practice. And it certainly conflicts with Koh’s belief that “responsible lawyers, scholars, and human rights activists” should use the U.S. court system to force the U.S. to comply with all international law, whether the U.S. has signed and ratified it or not. Under Koh’s vision, a U.S. court would be obligated to enforce the treaty, even if it was being used as an instrument of oppression by a foreign power.

We can only hope that when Koh, and the treaty, appear before the Senate at least the Republican members of the U.S. Senate will be less willing than Koh to substitute advocacy of international law over the Constitution.

Thursday, April 23, 2009

Making sense of the mess we’re in (with help from Porter Stansberry)

Watching the government rack up debts that will be impossible to repay while narrowing the tax base (at least 50% of Americans pay zero federal income tax) at the same time is very scary. It seems more and more certain the deficit will spiral out of control. Not only has the government gone mad with spending and corruption, but it also expects about 10% of the population to pay for essentially all the costs. The math simply doesn't add up: 10% of the population can't (and won't) pay for all of the costs of a socialist federal government.

And, by the way, before you respond with the typical Democrat vs. Republican nonsense, this problem has nothing to do with traditional politics. Both parties have grown the size and responsibilities of government. Both parties have added to the national debt. And both parties support the narrowing of the tax base – because that's what makes good political sense in an unlimited democracy. Promise the voters they can live at the expense of their neighbors – and the next five generations.

Unfortunately, we know from history this kind of political system can't last for long – for lots of reasons. One important reason: The rich will leave. Or they will stop working. They will hide their incomes or only invest in tax-protected vehicles. And we know the political response will be tougher laws on emigration, taxation, more money printing, and eventually, capital controls that make it impossible to protect you from massive currency devaluation. That's the script. We've watched the same things happen dozens of times around the world following World War II and the introduction of a global paper currency standard, which allowed governments to run huge deficits and finance their activities through inflation and devaluation. We just never thought we'd see it happen here.

Today, the idea of leaving America in search of freedom and financial security seems like absolute madness. But it won't for long. And by the time most people wake up to the very real threats to their standard of living, it will be too late. Again, before you respond with some crazed invective about how this isn't OBAMA's fault, blah, blah, blah – save yourself the trouble. The trends I'm talking about are cultural and fiscal, not ideological. Read the original Communist Manifesto. It's nearly identical to today's government policies. Any politician who tries to oppose the landslide of modern entitlements is immediately labeled a kook and is unelectable.

Whether you think we ought to have free health care and drugs for retirees, more military spending than the rest of the world combined, a bankrupt retirement scheme based on government debt, government guarantees for the banks, etc. doesn't matter to me. I'm not interested in pie-in-the-sky ideas about how the world should work. I write about how the world does work. And I can tell you this with 100% accuracy: You cannot support the world's reserve currency when you are the world's largest debtor, when you plan to finance annual deficits exceeding $2 trillion with progressive income taxes and money printing.

Our economy is a charade. And when it falls apart, the consequences will be devastating.

Monday, April 20, 2009

The absurdity that carbon dioxide is a pollutant

April 2, 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court decided in a 5-to-4 decision that carbon dioxide was a pollutant and the Environmental Protection Agency has a right to regulate it. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) comprises currently about an average global concentration of 387 ppm (parts per million) by volume in the atmosphere. Earth’s atmosphere is a mixture of gases with the principal constituents being nitrogen (78 percent) and oxygen (21 percent). The atmospheric gases in the remaining 1 percent are argon (0.9 percent), carbon dioxide (0.03 percent), varying amounts of water vapor, and trace amounts of hydrogen, ozone, methane, carbon monoxide, helium, neon, krypton, and xenon.

However the court singled carbon dioxide in the case (Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 05-1120, 549 U.S. 497). Twelve states and several cities of the United States brought suit against the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to force the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as pollutants.

The 5-to-4 decision (by the usual suspects plus Anthony Kennedy) disagreed with the Bush administration which has maintained that the government (EPA) does not have the right to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court's ruling did not force the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate carbon dioxide but said it could if the agency determined that carbon dioxide was a pollutant (and the majority opinion more or less demanded it to). Naturally the Obama EPA found “scientific” evidence to support the conclusion it wanted to reach, by disregarding all evidence to the contrary.

The lawsuit centered on a section of the Clean Air Act that provides that the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency "shall" set emission standards for "any air pollutant" from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines "which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare."

Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said that the only way the agency can “avoid taking further action” now is “if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change” or provides a good explanation why it cannot or will not find out whether they do. For the Obama administration the decision provided a convenient basis to regulate carbon dioxide emissions not only in the auto industry but wherever the agency can reach and therefore further the plan to enact global warming legislation and the “cap and trade” program.

It is important to note the Supreme Court did not itself say carbon dioxide was a pollutant, though it strongly implied that it was. Therefore the basis for government regulation of carbon dioxide is its conclusion that the gas, carbon dioxide, living beings exhale is a pollutant.

The first issue decided by the Court was whether there was a basis for the suit (“standing”) then the Court addressed the argument that the Clean Air Act simply did not authorize the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases because carbon dioxide and the other gases were not “air pollutants” within the meaning of the law.

Writing for the majority Justice Stevens said “The statutory text forecloses (the Bush administration) E.P.A.’s reading,” and that “greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act’s capacious definition of air pollutant.” The justices in the majority also indicated that they were persuaded by the existing evidence of the impact of automobile emissions on the environment. The agency (Bush EPA) itself “does not dispute the existence of a causal connection between man-made gas emissions and global warming,” Justice Stevens noted, adding that “judged by any standard, U.S. motor-vehicle emissions make a meaningful contribution to greenhouse gas concentrations.”

The evidence clearly shows the Justice Stevens majority decision was not based on all evidence available and that the Obama EPA is using the Court’s decision to enact its expansion of government control under the aegis of protecting against global warming. The administration could care less about pollution; it’s the ability to extend government authority that is the object.

Consider the following regarding whether carbon dioxide is a detrimental “pollutant” or a beneficial component of the atmosphere. (

MYTH 1: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.

FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year, which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is a measurable driver of global warming (remember carbon dioxide only accounts for 0.03% of the atmosphere), let alone the tiny amount released by humankind. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere LAGS changes in temperature, up and down,

Effectively, the man-made global warming theorists have put “effect” before “cause” — this completely debunks the entire global warming theory and shows that reducing carbon dioxide emissions is a futile exercise. Geological field examination in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2, and amounts of carbon dioxide vary correspondingly as a result.

MYTH 2: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.

FACT: Greenhouse gases (in total) form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume. They consist in varying amounts; about 96.5% is water vapor and clouds, with the remainder being trace gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O. CO2 constitutes about 0.03% of the atmosphere; the human portion of that 0.03% is incredibly small.

But isn't CO2 the most important of the greenhouse gases? Nope. Not even close. Most of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor, which is about 100 times as abundant in the atmosphere as CO2 and thus has a much larger effect.

In summary, water vapor is by far the most important and overwhelming greenhouse gas. Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention these important facts.

MYTH 3: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.

FACT: The computer models assume that CO2 is the primary climate driver, when in fact CO2 does not drive climate, and they do not take into account the Sun, which has the most significant effect on climate. You cannot use the output of a model to verify or prove its initial assumption - that is circular reasoning and is illogical. Computer models can be made to roughly match the 20th century temperature rise by adjusting many input parameters and using strong positive feedbacks. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time (correlated to the number of sun spots), and this happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover. Again, models are in essence: Computer models: GARBAGE IN = GARBAGE OUT. (Maybe they should also take note that when the Earth warms, so do other planets in our solar system. Now please explain how earth-produced CO2 can cause that?)

MYTH 4: The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming.

FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft; they are: 1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.” 2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”

MYTH 5: Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant.

FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, many governments have included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as a means for the government to politically control it. In the US it's really quite terrifying and is a slap in the face to science.

MYTH 6: Reducing car use will cut carbon dioxide levels and save the planet.

FACT: The planet does not need saving from this mythical problem of CO2 emissions from cars, but taking this on anyway, removing every car from every road in every country overnight would NOT produce any change in the carbon dioxide level of the atmosphere, and in any case it is pointless trying to alter climate by changing carbon dioxide levels because the cause and effect is the other way round. It is changes in the activity of the Sun that cause temperature changes on earth, with any temperature rise causing carbon dioxide to de-gas from the oceans.

MYTH 7: There are only a tiny handful of maverick scientists who dispute that man-made global warming theory is true.

FACT: There are literally tens of thousands of signatures from scientists worldwide on many petitions, ranging from the Oregon Petition Project, the Manhattan Declaration, all the way to the Leipzig Declaration, which all state that there is no evidence for the man-made global warming theory nor is there any impact from mankind’s activities on climate. Many scientists are now dissenting against Al Gore and the IPCC and strongly believe that the Kyoto agreement is a total waste of time, expensive, dangerous and one of the biggest political scams ever perpetrated on the public … as H L Mencken said "The fundamental aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary" … the desire to save the world usually fronts a desire to rule it.”

Of the scientists who support the climate change theory, many are on payrolls of government agencies and others are simply securing their funding. The consensus is clear: Man-made climate change is a hoax.

There are several motives for the media and politicians to lie to us about global warming, aside from money and control.

1. The media sells more papers, magazines, and television ratings soar when their audience is scared of some imminent catastrophe that your respective service is reporting on. Although, they can't decide whether we're going to burn to death, freeze to death, or drown.

2. Environmental organizations and some scientists will lie to us because their funding depends on it. If there is no crisis to work through, then they start losing funding. This is well documented. htttp://

3. Foreign countries are lying to us (by means of the IPCC) because they wish to diminish western economies, which are the strongest in the world. If our economy slows down, the economic standing of other countries improves because we will no longer dominate the markets and more power will be given to international organizations such as the UN and their agencies.

4. New taxes and restricted freedoms are certain. Carbon taxes will be imposed on everything and strict regulations for everyone....all coming soon by convincing the public that CO2 & greenhouse gases are somehow evil and we must all must pay to emit them (cap and trade). (Note: the oceans cause of 96.5% of all greenhouse emissions, naturally)

The motives for deception are there; don’t you agree?

The fact is that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is actually beneficial. Without carbon dioxide plant life would not flourish and would die. Carbon dioxide actually increases productivity of food crops.

Farms benefit from CO2. Reducing CO2 is now a judicial mandate and if the EPA imposes new rules, what will be farmers potential yield loss? This may seem odd to some but the Alarmists now have opened up a Pandora’s Box by creating such nonsense. Circumventing the legislative process by EPA regulation may yield short term political benefits, but it would create a lot of long term disasters to our food supply. (2008 Richard de Sousa (09:02:04)

Unfortunately politicians have not considered the harm of limiting or reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, even if that could be done. Since CO2 is food for plants, to tamper with CO2 is to harm vegetation. If the Endangered Species Act protects certain species from harm then we should find a plant specie which requires large amount of CO2 to survive and propagate therefore cutting down amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere is a danger to this plant specie survival. Perhaps the Endangered species Act can be used to trump or at least confuse the issues and the EPA? (2008 Phillip Bratby (09:17:43).

No body of science has yet definitively shown CO2 to be deleterious to anything under current atmospheric concentrations. Models and speculations are not scientific proof.

Since water vapor and carbon dioxide are naturally occurring gases in the atmosphere, and both are necessary for life to exist, how can they be considered to be pollutants?

Consider also that though some car emissions are toxic, CO2 is not one of them. What sense does it make for one segment of the industrial community to be forced to reduce it (via exhaust controls) while another generously pumps it into greenhouses to improve plant growth and health?

In my opinion the concept of the EPA was faulty from the beginning. It is the most powerful agency in the country not only because it enjoys reduced oversight but it places incredible power in the EPA administrator. DDT was banned by the action of a single individual, the EPA administrator, and its removal from use created a huge malaria epidemic in Africa; there are many other examples. The EPA is almost a fourth branch of government and four, essentially one - Justice Anthony Kennedy – just handed Obama the tool to increase control of our lives even further.

Sunday, April 19, 2009

Obama and Democrats outdo themselves with HR-1913

If you thought you had heard all the bad news coming from the Obama administration and a Democrat packed congress, you were wrong.

Two weeks ago, Representatives John Conyers (D-MI) and Mark Kirk (R-IL) quietly re-introduced the so-called hate crimes bill--H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. It is now expected that on Wednesday April 22, the full US House Judiciary Committee will vote on H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009.

Crimes already illegal will be considered “hate crimes” depending on the intent of the criminal. Therefore we must only hire psychologists as policemen or we have to assume all policemen are trained psychologists. Penalties for “hate crimes” will be greater than for the same crime not considered based on hate of the victim. Does this make any sense to a reasonable person? The criminal act is the same only the impossible assessment of the motivation is supposed to be different. It is one thing to deplore acts of violence against innocent victims or bias-motivated violent crimes directed at anyone including lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (gender confused) (LGBT) persons, it is another thing to try to get into the criminal’s mind to ascertain his motivation. The law should not provide extra legal protection for someone simply because of the way he/she engages in sex.

The so-called hate crimes bill will be used to lay the legal foundation and framework to investigate, prosecute and persecute pastors, business owners, Bible teachers, Sunday School teachers, youth leaders, Christian counselors, religious broadcasters and anyone else who the law deems capable of committing a crime motivated by hate of the victim. The problem is that innocent people like those just mentioned who believe in the Bible teachings will come under the rubric of committing a hate crime if they express their religious beliefs.

H.R. 1913 broadly defines “intimidation. A pastor’s sermon could be considered “hate speech” under this legislation if heard by an individual who then acts aggressively against persons based on any “sexual orientation.” The pastor could be prosecuted for “conspiracy to commit a hate crime.” During congressional committee markup in 2007, Representative Arthur Davis (D-AL) admitted that the legislation will not protect a pastor from prosecution. (So-Called hate crime bill threatens religious freedom)

The main purpose of this “hate crime” legislation is to add the categories of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” “either actual or perceived,” as new classes of individuals receiving special protection by federal law. Sexual orientation includes heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality on an ever-expanding number of categories deemed worthy of special treatment. Will Congress also protect other sexual orientations - such as pedophilia or polygamy?

Gender discrimination as a basis of a hate crime produces some interesting results. Gender identity includes such classes of people as cross-dressers, she-male, drag queens, transvestites and transsexuals. Under the Act, neither “sexual orientation” nor “gender identity” are really defined. How can a law be enforced if the new classes receiving special protection remain undefined? The sexual behaviors considered sinful and immoral by most major religions will be elevated to a protected “minority” class under federal law.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender activists (the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) have aggressively promoted the idea that any speech, including Bible oriented speech and anything in opposition to the gay agenda, will lead inevitability to violent “hate” crimes. This really enables them to demand restrictions of such speech as a way of protecting homosexuals from violence. What they’re really targeting is speech against LGBT behaviors that is based upon an understanding of what the Bible says about this behavior. In short, they’re targeting Bible Speech — not actual “hate speech.”

The ILGA have a broad definition of “hate crime: “Hate crimes are criminal acts (such as violent crime, hate speech or vandalism motivated by feelings of hostility against any identifiable group of people within a society.” The ILGA defines hate crime to include so-called hate speech and wants to limit the First Amendment freedom of expression to distinguish homosexuals and their cousins from criticism of any sort.

On the website “,” LGBT activists claim that pro-family organizations are engaging in hate speech when they criticize homosexual conduct and his “hate speech” allegedly leads to hate crimes that must be suppressed.

The Hate Crime law, HR-1913, will make 30 sexual orientations federally-protected. The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has published 30 such sexual orientations that, because of Congress’s failure to define “sexual orientation,” will arguably be protected under this legislation. These 30 orientations are listed in the APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV), which is used by physicians, psychologists, social workers, nurses, and psychiatrists throughout the U.S. It is considered the dictionary of mental disorders. Those 30 sexual orientations include behaviors that are felonies or misdemeanors in most states or can result in death.

Among those sexual orientations are (Protecting 30 Bizarre “Sexual Orientations” And “Gender Identity” -- Ever-Expanding Definitions):

Fronteurism -- which involves a man approaching an unknown woman and rubbing up against her buttocks; this is already criminal behavior.
Incest -- which is a crime (sex with a daughter or son).
Necrophilia -- a crime (sex with a corpse).
Pedophilia -- a crime (sex with an underage child).
Prostitution -- a crime in most states.
Zoophilia -- (beastiality) which is a crime in numerous states.
Voyeurism -- which is a criminal offense in most states.

Non-criminal sexual orientations include such behaviors as:

Autogeynephilia -- the perception of a man as being a woman;
Apotemnophilia -- sexual arousal from the stumps of an amputee;
Coprophilia -- sexual arousal from feces;
Urophilia -- sexual arousal from urine
Transvestic Fetishism -- intense sexually-arousing fantasies, sexual urges, and behaviors involving cross-dressing.

To protect a “sexual orientation” under H.R. 1913 – while leaving that term undefined -- is to protect this whole range of bizarre sexual behaviors. It is to normalize by federal law what are still considered to be mental disorders (paraphilias) by the American Psychiatric Association.

On the website “,” LGBT activists claim that pro-family organizations are engaging in hate speech when they criticize homosexual conduct and his “hate speech” allegedly leads to hate crimes and must be suppressed. This site compares opposition to homosexuality as equal to Adolph Hitler’s slaughter of six million Jews in Europe before and during World War II.

This homosexual militant group has a lot of supporters and they flex their muscles all over the country.

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a resolution blaming religious groups for so-called “hate crimes” such as the murder of Mathew Shepard. In addition, the Board approved a resolution urging the local media not to carry advertisements by pro-family organizations that addressed hope for homosexuals to change.

In New York, a billboard with a Bible verse on it was taken down under pressure from city officials, who cited it as "hate speech.”

In Massachusetts in 2005, parent David Parker was arrested for protesting his elementary school child having to listen to pro-LGBT propaganda! He eventually removed his child from the school. He was in court for two years and lost all of his appeals.

Slavic students in Sacramento wore anti-gay agenda T-shirts to protest the gay-inspired Day of Silence on campus. They were punished for their views. The claim that hate crime laws against violence do not affect free speech or freedom of religion is bogus.

One of the most serious attacks on free speech and religious freedom came in Philadelphia in 2004.

Eleven Christians were arrested on felony charges for preaching the Word of God at a gay pride rally. Eight charges were filed against them: three felony charges and five misdemeanors. Charges were eventually dropped against six of the Christians, but the five left faced potential prison sentences of 47 years in jail and fines up to $90,000!

They were charged under Pennsylvania’s hate crime law, which had recently added “sexual orientation” to their statute. The Christians were charged with: criminal conspiracy, possession of instruments of crime, reckless endangerment of another person, ethnic intimidation, riot, failure to disperse, disorderly conduct and obstructing highways. The “instruments of crime” were bull horns for witnessing.

The “ethnic intimidation” section of the hate crime statute was used against the Christians for having preached to the homosexuals in the parade and rally. Their “speech” was considered ethnic intimidation. The charges were eventually dropped against the Christians for having no basis in fact – but their free speech and religious freedom were violated and they had to spend thousands of dollars on legal fees.

The far-left 9th Circuit Court in San Francisco has attacked freedom of speech and religion for the Christian employees of the city of Oakland, California.

The court issued a memo declaring that it sided with the city of Oakland in censoring the emails and posters of the Good News Employee Association that used words like “Natural Family,” “Marriage” and “Family Values” in their materials. The 9th Circuit said the city had the right to censor those words because it made LGBT employees uncomfortable and violated the city’s sexual orientation ordinance! These words were considered “statements of a homophobic nature” and “sexual-orientation-based harassment.”

These are only a few examples that show how sexual orientation and hate crime laws can be used to suppress religious freedom and free speech.

This legislation provides hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund so-called anti-hate programs. This includes a series of $100,000 grants to organizations allegedly fighting “hate” in their communities. If signed into law, this so-called hate crimes bill will be used to fund pro-LGBT teaching materials for our nation’s public schools.

Here are a series of articles on hate crime legislation that go into great detail about the dangers of these laws.

So-Called hate crime bill threatens religious freedom
Protecting 30 Bizarre "Sexual Orientations" And "Gender Identity" -- Ever-Expanding Definitions
Religious Freedom Is Threatened By H.R. 1913
H.R. 1913 Will Inevitably Fund Anti-Christian Bigotry — And Attack Bible Speech
Misleading 'Hate Crime' Statistics

One tactic that is often used by homosexuals is to employ percentages in reporting on increases in hate crimes against LBGT persons instead of actual numbers or defining what those numbers mean. For example, a LBGT group could claim that hate crimes jumped 50% from one year to the next. This could only mean that there were 10 crimes last year and an additional 5 this year. The 50% figure sounds much worse than just honestly reporting that crime went from 10 to 15. (Misleading ‘Hate Crime’ Statistics)

LBGT claims that every 6 hours of every day, a homosexual, bisexual, or transgender person is “violently” attacked by a bigot. If this were true, there would be 1,460 such violent attacks each year, yet the group fails to define what “violent” is.

Here are the facts about examples of hate crimes.

FBI statistics on “hate crimes” against a person’s sexual orientation from 2007 (the latest available) reveal the following: In 2007 there were 1,521 victims of “sexual orientation” bias. However, the breakdown of these crimes is listed as:

335 were crimes of intimidation (shouting or name-calling)
448 were crimes of simple assault (defined as pushing or shoving without physical injury) 242 were crimes of aggravated assault (defined as bodily harm) -
(source: FBI statistics 2007).

From FBI collected data (same source as stated above) we can see there were only 242 crimes against a person’s sexual orientation that could be considered “violent.” And, twenty-seven of these bias crimes were directed against heterosexuals! All together, there were 9,535 victims of bias crimes in 2007. This includes bias against race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity/national origin, disability, or multiple-bias incidents.

The FBI statistics do not indicate how many of these “violent hate crimes” were committed by homosexuals against other homosexuals – or what provoked the violence.

Out of a total number of 855,856 cases of aggravated assault in 2007, only 242 were directed at LGBT individuals. This is only 0.02827578411446785% of all aggravated assaults! This is not an epidemic of hate against LGBT individuals. So, in a nation of 300 million people, there were only 242 “violent” crimes against homosexuals, bisexuals or drag queens in 2007. This is no epidemic of hate and local law enforcement does not need intrusive federal intervention to deal with such a miniscule number of crimes.

No Epidemic Of Hate Crimes Exists. H.R. 1913 falsely claims in Section 2, without any evidence, that “the incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender, or disability of the victim poses a serious national problem.”

FBI statistics, 2007, show that out of a nation of 300 million, there were only 1,521 hate crimes directed against a person’s sexual orientation in 2007. The majority of these “crimes” involved name-calling and pushing or shoving a person. It is clear from FBI statistics that there is no epidemic of hate against homosexuals that needs federal involvement in local law enforcement.

In fact, in analyzing FBI statistics, it is clear that anti-religious bias and racial bias are more serious issues than sexual orientation bias. Here’s a comparison of statistics on race, religion, and sexual orientation:

Out of 4,956 racial incidents, 908 were anti-white; 3,424 were anti-African American; and the rest were bias crimes against other races.

Out of 1,628 anti-religious bias crimes, 1,127 were against Jews; 142 against Muslims; 70 against Catholics; 67 against Protestants. The rest were against other religions.

Homosexual activists are well-known for having staged a number of fake hate crimes throughout the years.

For example, homosexual activists have claimed that a 72-year-old homosexual named Andrew Anthos of Detroit was attacked by an African-American man who called him a “faggot” and struck him in the head with a metal pipe, killing him. Police later learned that Anthos had not been the victim of a hate crime. He had fallen because of a severe arthritic condition in his neck. He was also mentally ill.

In January, 2007, a homosexual student at Boise State University told police that a man had beaten him in the back of the head and swore at him. He later admitted to police that he’d faked the crime by using a stick and his fists to beat himself.

The faking of hate crimes by homosexuals goes back years. In 2000, U.S. News & World Report columnist John Leo documented case after case of faked hate crimes by homosexuals. One involved Jerry Kennedy, a homosexual student at the University of Georgia. Kennedy reported to police that he’d been the victim of nine hate crimes over a three-year period – including three acts of arson. He later admitted faking these.

The objective of LGBT activists is to gain sympathy for their gay agenda or the passage of pro-LGBT legislation such as H.R. 1913. If H.R. 1913 passes, we can expect a further flood of these phony hate crimes.

Homosexual groups will provide false or misleading information to reporters on the extent of this alleged epidemic of hate – and they’ll organize candle-light vigils, put on plays and use other street theater antics to push their agenda. What is this agenda? It’s getting LGBT conduct to be given minority status protection under federal law – and to use this legislation to persecute anyone who criticizes LGBT behaviors.

It is imperative that all people who know and understand the gravity of HR-1913 should call their Congressman and tell them to vote against this bill. If they don’t understand what the consequences of passing HR-1913 into law, send them a copy of this article or extract portions for a letter or fax to your representatives.

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Obama flip-flops on Durban II

On April 20-24, 2009, in Geneva, Switzerland, the United Nations will host the “Durban Review Conference,” – a follow-up to the 2001 UN World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance (WCAR). As mandated by the UN General Assembly, the Human Rights Council of the United Nations (UNHRC) is responsible for organizing and convening the event “towards the effective and comprehensive implementation” of the conclusions and recommendations of WCAR, and to continue the “global drive for the total elimination of racism.”

Sounds good doesn’t it; after all who is not in favor of ending racism? However the truth is that the conference has nothing to do with racism; it is, like its predecessor conference (Durban I), part of a campaign to coordinate the diplomatic and legal war against Israel, an attempt to outlaw any criticism of Islam and a complete fraud having nothing to do with human rights.

The conference to be held in April is better known as Durban II, the sequel to the first such conference held in South Africa in September, 2001. That conference became an anti-Semitic diatribe reminiscent of Nazi Germany. America under George Bush honorably refused to participate; but not this time around under B. Hussein Obama.

The conference, which starts on April 20 - notably Hitler's birthday -, is strongly opposed by Israel and Jewish groups who say the first Durban conference in South Africa in 2001 amounted to an Israel-bashing session. The U.S. and Israel delegations walked out of that conference in protest over a draft resolution that likened Zionism -- the movement to establish and maintain a Jewish state -- to racism.

In contrast to the Bush Administration, the Obama Administration is objecting to an automatic boycott and says it is attempting to change the event's tone via negotiations. Moreover the Obama administration actually sent representatives to participate in the so-called “planning” for the Durban II conference in February. However since the stated purpose of the Durban II conference is to review and implement the declarations adopted at the UN's anti-Israel decisions that were made in Durban I, there was no possibility that the US representatives could have had any affect on the conference preparations or conference outcome.

With the naivety characteristic of the Obama administration, his administration’s State Department seemingly expected the US could cause the conference to address what the US views as genuine problems of racism worldwide without regard to the anti-Israel and anti-First Amendment nature of the Durban I proceedings. This is obvious since Libya, Cuba and Iran (all members of the UN Human Rights council) have achieved unanimity with all Islamic countries to condemn Israel and silence criticism of Islam. Is any Islamic country noted for its human rights; any belief that they will solve "problems of racism worldwide" is idiotic.

Among the provisions sought to become international law as a result of Durban I are clauses that aim to make any attack on Islam a criminal offense and calls "on states to develop, and where appropriate, to incorporate permissible limitations on the exercise of the right to freedom of expression into national legislation." Yes, you read that right. The transparent purpose is to criminalize all criticism of Islam which the tyrannical Islamic States consider to be "Islamophobia”.

At Durban I, both the UN-sponsored NGO group and the UN's governmental conference passed declarations denouncing Israel as a racist state. The NGO conference called for a coordinated international campaign aimed at delegitimizing Israel and the right of the Jewish people to self-determination, and belittling the Holocaust.

The NGO conference also called for curbs on freedom of expression throughout the world in order to prevent critical discussion of Islam. As far as the world's leading NGOs - including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch - were concerned, critical discussions of Islam are inherently racist.

In defending US participation in the Durban II planning sessions, Gordon Duguid, the State Department's spokesman, argued, "If you are not engaged, you don't have a voice. We wanted to put forward our view and see if there is some way we can make the document [which sets the agenda and dictates the outcome of the Durban II conference] a better document than it appears it is going to be."

However, this naïve expectation is absurd for two reasons.

First, since the stated purpose of the Durban II conference is to oversee the implementation of the first Durban conference's decisions, and since those decisions include anti-freedom of expression and the anti-Israel assertion that Israel is a racist state, it is clear that the Durban II conference is inherently, and necessarily, anti-freedom and anti-Israel.

The second reason is that both the State Department and the White House should have realized that they are powerless to affect the conference's agenda because that agenda was already set in previous planning sessions chaired by the likes of Libya, Cuba, Iran and Pakistan; and that agenda includes multiple assertions of the basic illegitimacy of the Jewish people's right to self-determination. The conference agenda also largely adopted the language of the Durban I conference that called for the criminalization of critical discussion of Islam as a form of hate speech and racism. The Durban II conference's agenda is not only openly anti-Israel, it is also openly pro-tyranny, and antithetical to US constitutional First Amendment right of free expression.

In any case, the Islamic bloc, supported by the Third World bloc, has an automatic voting majority. Beyond insignificant wording changes, the US has no ability whatsoever to change the conference's agenda or expected outcome.

Recently Professor Anne Bayefsky, the senior editor of the EyeontheUN Web site, said that by participating in the planning sessions the US is accepting the conference's anti-Israel agenda. Bayefsky reported that at the planning session in Geneva, the Palestinian delegation proposed that a paragraph be added to the conference's agenda. Their draft "calls for implementation of... the advisory opinion of the ICJ [International Court of Justice] on the wall, [i.e., Israel's security fence], and the international protection of Palestinian people throughout the occupied Palestinian territory." The American delegation raised no objection to the Palestinian draft.

By not objecting to this Palestinian draft, not only did the US effectively accept the ICJ's authority, for practical purposes it granted the anti-Israel claim that whatever Israel does is a violation of human rights (and not for self defense).

This assertion aligns with the language already in the Durban II agenda that calls Israel's Law of Return racist. Israeli law, which grants automatic citizenship to any Jew who wishes to live there, is the embodiment of Jewish nation and the vehicle through which the Jewish people has built a nation-state. In alleging that the Law of Return is racist, the Durban II conference asserts that the Jews have no right to self-determination in their homeland.

As Bayefsky and others argued recently, by entering into the Durban preparatory process, the US did two things. First, it made it all but impossible for European countries like France, Britain, the Czech Republic and the Netherlands, which were all considering boycotting the conference, to do so. They cannot afford to be seen as more opposed to its anti-Israel and anti-freedom agenda than Israel's closest ally. So just by participating in the planning sessions the US has legitimized a clearly bigoted, morally illegitimate process, making it impossible for Europe to disengage.

Second, through its behavior at the Geneva planning sessions the US demonstrated that the administration has no interest in changing the agenda in any serious way. The US delegation's decision not to object to the Palestinian draft, as well its silence in the face of Iran's rejection of a clause in the conference declaration that mentioned the Holocaust, shows the US did not join the planning session to change the tenor of the conference but that the US is participating in the planning sessions because it wishes to participate in the conference.

All this was confirmed when the administration despite being unceremoniously rebuffed by preparatory session attendees who rejected U.S. proposed changes to the Durban Declaration and Program of Action (DDPA), is intent on attending Durban II. The documents of Durban I are expected to be adopted at the April 2009 Durban II Conference.

Obama has now reversed his position on attending Durban II despite previously stating on Friday, Feb. 27, 2009, that administration efforts to change the Durban II documents were a failure. He stated that the “document being negotiated has gone from bad to worse, and the current text of the draft outcome document is not salvageable.

The Obama administration has flip-flopped and the United States is reconsidering its boycott of the upcoming United Nations “Durban II” racism conference.

State Department spokesman Robert Wood explained in an announcement Monday, “The United States welcomes the recent progress [?] that has been made through the efforts of many delegations, governments and officials in the formulation of the draft outcome document for the Durban Review Conference on April 20.” [Wood said this with a straight face despite previous State Department statements that “the document being negotiated has gone from bad to worse.”]

Wood then said “We hope [US] concerns will be addressed so that the United States can reengage the conference process.” But remember the stated purpose of the Durban II conference is to review and implement the declarations adopted at Durban I.

Obama still insists that the power of his oratory and personality will get rogue states like Iran to change their ways and embrace peace with Israel. The fact that Ahmadinejad will be attending the Durban II conference gave the Obama administration a reason to also attend Durban II. Interestingly, the U.S. announcement it is reconsidering attending the conference is consistent with a general change in its policy on dealing with Iran. The Obama administration has said it will open negotiations with Tehran over its nuclear development program, within the context of talks with the Group of Six world powers, including the U.S., Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany.

The U.S. also decided not to set a time limit within which the talks must either bear fruit or be deemed useless. In addition, both the U.S. and European nations are preparing proposals to drop the American demand that Iran shut down its nuclear facilities during the negotiations, said sources quoted in The New York Times.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced on Monday that he personally would attend the gathering, according to the state-run IRNA news agency.

Obama should heed a resolution passed by Congress but Obama has a history in his just three months in office of disregarding the will of the people, and sometimes of Congress which is dominated by his fellow Democrats.

On September 23, 2008, the US Congress adopted House of Representatives Resolution 1361 in anticipation of the Durban Review Conference (scheduled for April 20-24, 2009). This resolution calls on the US government to "lead a high-level diplomatic effort" aimed "to defeat any effort by states to use the forum to promote anti-Semitism or hatred against members of any group or to call into question the legitimacy of any state." In adopting this resolution Congress noted the enormous damage to human rights that resulted from the 2001 conference in Durban, South Africa, and particularly at the NGO Forum, which "misused human rights language to promote hate, anti-Semitism, incitement, and divert the focus of the conference from problems within their own countries to a focus on Israel."

The resolution, which was based on a draft written in the Foreign Affairs committee, is a clear congressional expression of wide political consensus on 'Durban II.’ Democrat representative Howard Berman, the leader of Democratic majority on the committee and the Republican Ranking Member, Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and a total of 24 co-sponsors signed their names to the text. This broad-based approach reflects opposition not only to the attacks against Israel that are embodied in the Durban process, but also the disastrous impact on genuine human rights concerns and freedom of expression that results from these activities.

Obama once again shows his support of things Muslim at the sacrifice of traditional American values. Is this what he was elected to do?

Monday, April 13, 2009

The ‘GIVE ACT’ should be called the ‘TAKE ACT’ – the federal government taking more power

The bill, HR 1388: The Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act, otherwise known as the "GIVE Act," was passed in the House by a vote of 321-105 and then the Senate voted closure on the motion to proceed by a margin of 74-14; making ultimate passage likely since Republicans have abandoned their role as a sensible “loyal opposition.”

Let us not forget that President Obama while campaigning made the mistake of revealing his real intentions when he said in his Colorado Springs speech he wanted to create a “civilian national security force which, candidate Obama said "would be just as powerful and well-funded as the U.S. military.”

The legislation also refers to "uniforms" that would be worn by the "volunteers" and the "need" for a "public service academy, a 4-year institution" to "focus on training" future "public sector leaders." The training, apparently, would occur at "campuses."

One writer said of the bill, "This is the equivalent of brown shirts," and who can disagree?

As WorldNet Daily noted: "Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?" I for one believe Obama did say what he meant in an unguarded moment, probably without his teleprompter to tell him what he should say.

This was not the only thing Obama said without permission of his teleprompter.

The original official Obama website (, said Obama would "require" all middle school through college students to participate in community service programs and that "President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in under served schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps. Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year.”

However, after many blogs protested against children being drafted into Obama's proposed separate domestic army, the official website was reworded to soften the wording to make it seem less mandatory. The word "require" was stricken from the website and replaced with the phrase "setting a goal" and “enabling" Americans to serve, rather than” requiring" them to serve. However elsewhere on the site, it described the plan under the heading, "Require 100 hours of service in college." (but since this article was posted, this reference on the website was also deleted.)

If the original bill wasn’t bad enough, Democrat George Miller, (D-California) introduced an amendment to the to severely restrict the First Amendment by prohibiting youth opposed to the program from attempting to influence legislation, organize or engage in protests, petitions, boycotts or strikes.

Under the pending legislation AmeriCorps will distribute money even though AmeriCorps volunteers have a history of being recruited and employed by community programs with an ideological purpose supported by Democrat Party politicians, including ACORN and Planned Parenthood. (Under terms of the legislation AmeriCorps volunteers can end up counseling Planned Parenthood clients to recommend and arrange abortions.)

The Canada Free Press wrote: “‘volunteerism that kept America running since the days of its founding’ would be "wiped out with the stroke of a pen."

"It becomes forced labor and like the practice of another era, presses American citizens of all ages and creeds, unknowingly into military service. On paper, H.R. 1388 is the 'Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act'; the more innocuous sounding 'The Give Act,' for short.

"The Give Act puts the finishing touches to Public Allies New Leadership for New Times, modeled after Saul Alinsky's 'Peoples Organizations' and operating under Michelle Obama.”

"Michelle, (wife of Barack Obama), was a pioneer in the social entrepreneur movement – a group of leaders who create new approaches and organize to provide new solutions to social problems. Like most things Saul Alinsky, H.R. 1388 sounds noble in stating why wide-sweeping change is necessary."

"H.R. 1388 goes straight to the heart of volunteerism in America, impacting everything from the lemonade stands of neighborhood children, to the residents of senior citizens homes. … The Give Act puts tow-headed school children and silver-haired seniors in the official uniform of the new State, and encompasses every walk of life in main-street America. Whether you are young or old, or firmly believe that volunteering means you are offering your time to the good of community work, you will be pressed into Obama's National Civilian Community Corps."

"These 'volunteers' would be "grouped together as appropriate in campuses for operational, support, and boarding purposes. The Corps campus for a unit shall be in a facility or central location established as the operational headquarters and boarding place for the unit. … There shall be a superintendent for each camp" – just like Nazi Germany.

Michael Kinsley also wrote about Obama’s plans for enlisting America's youth in voluntary versus required volunteerism on Time's website: "Problem number one with grand schemes for universal voluntary public service is that they can't be both universal and voluntary. If everybody has to do it, then it's not voluntary, is it? And if it's truly up to the individual, then it won't be universal."

I recently pointed out how the federal government exerts control over states the Constitution sought vigorously to separate by dictating terms to states when they accept federal (read – taxpayer) money. Well this is another example of how this is done.

J.D. Tuccille of the Civil Liberties Examiner said "Most public schools depend on federal dollars. As Obama elaborated in a speech last December, 'At the middle and high school level, we'll make federal assistance conditional on school districts developing service programs, and give schools resources to offer new service opportunities.' So, it won't be the nasty federal government forcing your kids to donate their time to government-approved service, it'll be the local schools – but that requirement will be among the strings attached to federal money.”

Obama selected as dictator for the mandatory civil service, political thug Rahm Emanuel, his chief of staff. With good reason this has further worried many that Obama's plans may be more "requirement" than "encouragement."

WorldNet Daily noted that “In his book, ‘The Plan: Big Ideas for America,’ Emanuel writes: ‘It's time for a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us. We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, all Americans between the ages of 18 and 25 will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service.’” “’Emanuel and co-author Bruce Reed insist 'this is not a draft,' but goes on to write of young men and women, 'the nation will enlist them for three months of civilian service.' They also warn, 'Some Republicans will squeal about individual freedom,' ruling out any likelihood that they would let people opt out of universal citizen service.’"

The problem is Republicans won’t “squeal” enough.

Friday, April 10, 2009

Amendment XX of the Constitution says Barack Obama is not president because he doesn't qualify - and what to do about it

Some people regard questioning Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be akin to tilting at wind mills; but I don’t. If Obama does not meet the constitutional requirement to be a natural born citizen and is therefore ineligible to be president, the consequences are enormous. If the constitution which is paramount in assuring the kind of government we have and our individual rights and liberty is ignored, the future of the United States is at risk – and Obama could settle all this by producing evidence he was born in the United States but he doesn’t; which raises the obvious question – can he?

Recently the Supreme Court decided not to hear the Donofrio case concerning whether Barack Obama is a natural born citizen and therefore qualified to be President [the case brought by Leo Donofrio who alleged Obama does not meet the Constitution's Article 2, Section 1 "natural-born citizen" requirement for president]. Shockingly, David Horowitz said of those who claim Obama is not natural born as being afflicted with "Obama Derangement Syndrome." Horowitz told people to "shut up about the birth certificate." He asked, "What difference does it make to the future of this country whether Obama was born on U.S. soil?" This is the wrong response to the decision by the Supreme Court. [It should be also remembered that a challenge to Obama's eligibility was brought in court before the Electoral College voted and Congress accepted the results but the issues were not decided.]

When the U.S. Constitution is clear on a matter, are we not supposed to make an effort to have the country re-think "what difference does it make to the future of this country?" If we don’t then what good is the Constitution if it can be ignored whenever it suits?

There is no doubt that the Constitution is very clear on this point and even the Obama apologists agree with that. Article II, Section 1 states: "no person except a natural born citizen ... shall be eligible to the Office of President." This is not ambiguous; if a person is not a natural born citizen, that person is ineligible to be president.

It’s true that Barack Obama received the required number of electoral votes to be elected president and received more popular votes than his opponent; but does that mean that the issue of eligibility should be disregarded? Is it too late to do anything about having an ineligible person occupying the White House and signing legislation into law; no, it is not too late?

Actually the U.S. Constitution addresses such a circumstance and tells us exactly what to do in the current situation. The election is not some kind of deadline. Even the true election by Electors is not the deadline. There is no deadline.

Here is the 20th Amendment of the Constitution in its entirety with selected portions highlighted:

Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

Section 4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

Section 5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.

Section 6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission [the 20th Amendment was ratified in 1933].

If it is found that Obama is not natural born, then the Constitution says Joe Biden shall be President until the President thing gets sorted out. This may be a horrible consequence but it is exactly what the Constitution says we shall do. It does not "suggest"; it says "shall."

Are we to apply the Constitution only in cases where it is convenient to do so?

The Constitution even suggests that there is a qualification process: "if the President elect shall have failed to qualify;" it says "…the Vice President shall act as president until a president shall have qualified."

What happens in the event Barack Obama is not president? That means he cannot be validly elected. The people and the Electoral College cannot overcome this and the House of Representatives can't make him president. He takes the oath of office, and assuming he's aware he's not a citizen, then it's a perjured oath. Any appointments made by an ineligible president would have to be recalled, and their decisions would be invalidated and all laws signed by him would not be enforceable.

Terrible you say; not to freedom loving people who believe in the Constitution.
So what can be done about this since the Supreme Court has refused to hear many cases raising the issue?

Under the common law such as is the basis of our system of jurisprudence, there is something called a writ of quo warranto. "What is quo warranto? It is a right under the Ninth Amendment* which was understood and presumed by the Founders, and which affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents.

Here is a writing on the subject. Revival of the writs must be combined with reviving standing for private prosecution of public rights, subverted by the decision in Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923), which is discussed in an article by Steve Winter, The Metaphor of Standing and the Problem of Self-Governance.

Frothingham is sometimes cited for opposition to quo warranto but the majority opinion (Chief Justice Earl Warren) Frothingham v. Mellon did not recognize a constitutional barrier against federal taxpayer lawsuits. Rather, it denied standing because the petitioner did not allege "a breach by Congress of the specific constitutional limitations imposed upon an exercise of the taxing and spending power." Because the purpose of standing is to avoid burdening the court with situations in which there is no real controversy, standing is used to ensure that the parties in the suit are properly adversarial, "not whether the issue itself is justiciable." Clearly in the Obama eligibility issue there is "a breach of constitutional limitations" and federal "taxpayer lawsuits" are appropriate.

No doubt the consequences of removing Obama from the presidency are great and could require suppressing civil disorder which may arise from segments of the population but the alternative is equally grim – a destruction of the Constitution and the freedom and liberty for Americans it provides.

*Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.