I was born in the inner city of Atlanta in 1961, when segregation was still rife, at a time when I would have been barred from visiting the very beaches that make up part of the congressional district I so proudly represent.

Just two years after my birth, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. momentously described his dream that one day his children would “live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but the content of their character.”

How proud he would have been on that November Tuesday in 2008 when Barack Obama was elected the 44th President of the United States. Clearly, Dr. King’s dream had come true. 

White voters across America had judged our President by the content of his character, not the color of his skin, and elected a man of color, whose very lineage with a black African father and white American mother, was a literal manifestation of the figurative melting pot of these United States.

The inauguration of our first black President, the highest office in the land, and perhaps the world’s most powerful office, clearly demonstrated to the world that race need not be a hindrance to success and achievement in America. The fact that Barack Obama won the largest share of white support of any Democrat in a two-man race since 1976 indicated the lion’s share of these voters made their decision based on his character, his vision of hope and change, and his ability to relate with everyday Americans.

Still, let us not ignore that white Democrats aren’t the only voters who are capable of making a decision based on character rather than color.

In the 2010 election cycle, 42 black Republicans were vying for seats in the House of Representatives, and 14 of them made it to the general election. Two of those candidates, myself as well as Tim Scott from South Carolina, carried that success all the way to the House of Representatives. I represent a Congressional District where more than 90 percent of my constituents are not black. A powerful movement of respect for black conservatism is brewing in this country, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. would be proud of it.

With all of this progress, why is it that we continue to hear charges of racism emanating from the left, and most disturbingly, from the White House itself? It seems anytime there is criticism of the President or any of his black members of his administration, such as Attorney General Eric Holder, that criticism is decried as racist.

Mr. Holder recently said of his critics, “This is a way to get at the president because of the way I can be identified with him, both due to the nature of our relationship and, you know, the fact that we’re both African-American.” In other words, he insinuated Republicans — along with Conservatives and Tea Party members — are incapable of judging anyone solely by their character, something I take very personally.

Mr. Holder and others need to know, the criticism of the President is not of his person, but of his policies, which have clearly failed our nation–and most tragically of all in this supposedly post-racial period –have failed the black community.

As of December 2011, black unemployment remained in double digits, nearly double the national average for men at 16.4 percent, and 14.1 percent for women.

According to a Washington Post poll in September 2011, the proportion of black Americans with a “strongly positive” view of President Obama has slipped from 83 percent to 58 percent. It would obviously be absurd to say the black community’s changing view of President Obama is racially biased, so how can one make the same claim about white members opposing his policies?

As we proceed into this general election cycle, it would be a disgrace if Mr. Holder’s comment is the first salvo in the upcoming campaign to deflect honest assessment of the President’s performance in office. This campaign must be about ideas, policy and the direction of this country, and the President must not hide behind a curtain of so-called racial bias.

All Americans, black or white – and every shade in between – must be allowed to voice their opinions, level their criticisms and engage in candid discussion without fear of being labeled “racist” simply because of the color of their skin. This is precisely what Dr. Martin Luther King spoke of so eloquently, and what we celebrate today.

My message to President Obama is this: “Mr. President, your very presence in office demonstrates Dr. King’s dream has indeed come true. But how devastated would Dr. King be to know the Americans who are still fomenting racism at the highest levels are the very people for whom he fought for and died?
”

OKLAHOMA CITY – Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin sent a letter Tuesday to President Barack Obama asking him to immediately approve the development of TransCanada’s Keystone XL Pipeline, a project which would transport oil from Canada to multiple points within the United States  including the Gulf of Mexico. Under current law, the president has until February 21 to declare the pipeline “not in the national interest” or it is automatically approved.  

The governor’s request followed a visit from TransCanada executives to Oklahoma City. Robert Jones, Vice President for Keystone Pipelines at TransCanada, today met with Fallin as well as executives from Oklahoma oil and gas firms including Devon Energy, Continental Resources, MidContinent Oil and Gas Association of Oklahoma and the Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association.  Jones also spoke with members of the Rotary Club of Oklahoma City and the Oklahoma City Chamber.

In a letter submitted to the White House, Fallin writes:
… The pipeline represents an enormous and undeniable opportunity for job-creation and economic stimulus at a time when the nation is sorely in need of both. The creation of the pipeline will also help to ensure our nation’s future energy needs are met with resources from politically stable regions of the world right here in North America.
 … Yet despite the obvious benefits of moving forward, some environmentalists seem bent on delaying or even preventing the construction of this pipeline.
… I enthusiastically recommend that your administration reconsider and embrace the considerable potential for economic stimulus represented by this project and approve it immediately.

The potential economic benefits of the Keystone pipeline include:
o    20,000 jobs during construction and a total of 250,000 permanent jobs in the United States due to long-term, stable oil supplies
o    A $1.2 billion economic investment in Oklahoma
o    Increases in personal income of $874 million in Oklahoma
o    An increase of $667 million in property taxes to county and other local governments during the operating life of the pipeline

Jones said he appreciated Fallin’s efforts and that he was hopeful the president would allow construction to begin.

“Keystone XL is a shovel-ready project that would put Oklahomans and thousands more Americans back to work once construction begins,” Jones said. “Part of that project would see us connect Cushing, Oklahoma to the U.S. Gulf Coast. As a result, once the pipeline is operational, Oklahoma could see more than $667 million in property taxes to county and other local governments during the operating life of the pipeline – money that could be used to build new roads, schools and hospitals.”

Jones added, “We appreciate the enthusiastic support of not only Governor Fallin, but the many members of the energy industry and the local community we met with here today. American’s have a choice, do they want their oil to come from U.S. and Canadian sources or do they want higher priced conflict oil from the Middle East and Venezuela – regions that do not share American values.”

Fallin said the time for the White House to delay was over.

“If the president is serious about job creation and economic stimulus, than he needs to get serious about the Keystone XL pipeline,” Fallin said. “This is a project that will deliver hundreds of thousands of good, private sector jobs, and it does so without the kind of big government programs that will put our nation further into debt. It’s time for the president to stop delaying and approve this project.” 

Analysis: Our Founding Fathers were certainly inspired by our Lord, but they were not God. So, it should come as no surprise that they did make some serious mistakes when drafting and enacting the Constitution of the United States. One of these was to allow presidents to put nine establishment political hacks in power, and then call them justices of our Supreme Court. This may sound extreme, but it is true. Just look at the just-released annual report on the federal judiciary, issued by none other than Chief Justice John Roberts, who was nominated to preside over the Supreme Court by George W. Bush, a so-called conservative Republican president no less.

In this annual report, Roberts – obviously writing for all of the nine justices, including “his eminence” – tries to head off a legal challenge to newly Obama-appointed Justice Elena Kagan hearing the upcoming constitutional challenge to Obamacare. In a New York Times front-page story on Jan. 1, 2012, titled “Chief Justice Defends Peers on Health Law,” the paper reveals:
 
In the face of a growing controversy over whether two Supreme Court justices should disqualify themselves from the challenge to the 2010 health care overhaul law, Chief Justice John G. Roberts on Saturday defended the court’s ethical standards.
 
The chief justice’s comments came in his annual report on the state of the federal judiciary. In it he made what amounted to a vigorous defense of Justice Clarence Thomas and Elena Kagan who are facing calls to disqualify themselves from hearing the health care case, which will be argued over three days in late March. … ‘I have complete confidence in the capability of my colleagues to determine when recusal is warranted,’ Chief Justice Roberts wrote. ‘They are jurists of exceptional integrity and experience whose character and fitness have been examined through rigorous appointment and confirmation process. …’
 
Chief Justice Roberts said the Supreme Court’s unique status made it impossible for the justices to follow the practices of lower court judges in recusal matters. Lower-court judges can be replaced if they decide to disqualify themselves, he said, and their decisions about recusal can be reviewed by higher courts.
 
"The Supreme Court does not sit in judgment of one of its own members’ decision whether to recuse. …" 

Beyond his apparent defense of Justices Thomas and Kagan, the chief justice used the report to fend off critics who say the Supreme Court justices should be bound by the same code of judicial ethics that applies to other federal judges. … The constitutionality of those laws remains on open question. … ‘A justice accordingly cannot withdraw from a case as a matter of convenience or simply to avoid controversy,’ he added.”
 
So there you have it. As confirmed by even the liberal New York Times, the nine justices of the Supreme Court are above the law, do not need to act ethically under the accepted legal standards for other federal judges and are in effect judicial royalty – answerable only to themselves for misdeeds and not “We the People.” In his annual report, Chief Justice Roberts, obviously speaking for his colleagues, flips the American people “the bird” and declares war on the noble vision of our Founding Fathers. Roberts’ arrogant and lawless statements are in effect an attack against ordinary citizens, who look to the Supreme Court to represent their interests against the tyranny of the other two branches of government, rather than having the nine justices represent only their own establishment interests.
 
How did we come to this; a Supreme Court that, notwithstanding the skewed political ideology of its members, believes that it is above the law and virtually the legal equivalent of God?
 
The sad reality is that to become a Supreme Court justice a lawyer must “kiss derriere” for most of his career, sucking up to the Washington establishment, never making terribly controversial remarks, or if he or she is a lower-court judge, never issuing a very polarizing decision. In effect, what we get – given that Supreme Court justices are chosen and nominated by the president – are politicians in black robes.
 
Chief Justice Roberts is a textbook example of this. He spent his entire career slithering around Washington, D.C., ingratiating himself with the powers that be, and was, thanks to establishment Republican grease, eventually nominated by President George W. Bush to the Supreme Court. Never having stuck his neck out for the American people (he did lobby for “homosexual rights” though), being of little controversy and the proverbial “yes man,” Roberts was easily confirmed, with even substantial Democratic support. For Roberts is one of the establishment’s own, not accountable to “We the People.” Indeed, the Washington, D.C., mega-law firm from which he hails, Hogan and Hartson, is chock full of Republican and Democratic lobbyist greasers of great “esteem” and influence. They demonstrated this influence in having one of their own named chief justice of the Supreme Court.
 
Last Thursday, I filed what is called an amicus curiae brief before the Supreme Court seeking to have Justice Elena Kagan either recuse herself or be disqualified by her fellow justices in the Obamacare case. See www.freedomwatchusa.org. In it, I directly challenge the statements of Chief Justice Roberts – obviously supported by the other eight justices – and argue that Justice Kagan should be disqualified because as President Obama’s solicitor general she advocated for and supported his health-care legislation. Thus, unlike Justice Thomas, who took no action either in support or opposition of the law (only his wife, Ginny Thomas, has been attacked for her so-called partisan advocacy), Justice Kagan has a textbook conflict of interest and may not ethically sit on the case. It does not take rocket science to figure this out!
 
While I am hopeful that the Supreme Court will declare Obamacare unconstitutional without input from Justice Kagan, the bigger issue is the one put in play by Chief Justice Roberts. For if “our Supreme Court” is indeed not “ours,” but theirs – meaning the establishment-appointed justices themselves – then “We the People” are truly defenseless from the evil deeds of government officials.
 
This is a formula for revolution, and in my amicus brief I laid it on the line with the justices. Either they shape up by representing us, or ship out!

About the author:  Larry Klayman is a former Justice Department prosecutor and the founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch. His latest book is "Whores: Why and How I Came to Fight the Establishment." 

Declaring “Game on” Rick Santorum accepted victory or thereabouts last evening with a personal, poignant, and passionate declaration of principles and traditional values.  His close rival, Mitt Romney, also declared victory, but sadly demonstrated his greatest weakness.

A vibrant Santorum said, “Thank you so much, Iowa, for standing up and not compromising, by standing up and being bold.  You have taken the first step toward taking back this country.”

In contrast, Romney has been running for president for at least 6 years, but to most careful observers still seems manufactured.  “Too slick” is the slam
most often heard in Tulsa and speaking after the Iowa Caucus vote
Tuesday night, Romney uttered mostly prepared catchphrases.   He
appeared stiff and uncomfortable – much like President Obama without a
teleprompter.  

Iowa Republican chairman Matt Strawn announced early Wednesday that Romney ended up with 30,015 votes to 30,007 for Santorum – the moral equivalent of a win according to the Santorum camp because their support grew so fast in the last couple of weeks.

“This is a Cinderella story,” said Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz, the only statewide elected official to endorse Santorum. “Two weeks ago we were in last place.”

Santorum’s surge was built on a traditional or “retail” caucus campaign.  He appeared often, met as many activists as possible, and paid attention to voters directly.

 “This has been an incredible journey – all 99 counties, 381 town hall meetings, 36 Pizza Ranches,” Santorum said.

“God has given us this great country to allow his people to be free,” Santorum added. “I offer a public thanks to God.”

As Santorum builds on a growing body of active conservative support nationwide, Romney hovers at about the same 25 percent of public support.  There is a problem with Romney national pundits don’t seem to want to recognize.  Romney is a bit effeminate or overly refined in manor.  He speaks of the politics of his electability, but not the foundational principles or purpose for his effort. 

Of course, all Republicans should recognize by this time that President Barack Hussein Obama is a Socialist or Marxist, or Communist – take your pick – a totalitarian actively asserting that the Rule of Law (the Constitution and Congress) does not limit his rule.  Running against Obama and knowing that whoever does will be relentlessly slandered and libeled by elitist media, bureaucrats, tree worshipers, and other fringe elements currently dominating national debate is no surprise.  We get that, Mr. Romney.  The question is do the voters trust you to bring small-government, conservative solutions to America should you be elected?  Trust in Romney…not so much the caucus results show.

This is also the fundamental reason Jon Huntsman hasn’t a snowflakes chance in hell – anyone who looked knew Obama’s policies were contrary to the Constitution, his background suspect, his honesty questionable – so why would Huntsman serve as a token Republican Ambassador?  The apparent answer:  Because Huntsman thinks more of his individual ambition than of his personal principles or character which is what he has in common with President Obama. 

Santorum vowed to offer something different than other Republicans by focusing on bolstering the nation’s industrial base.

“There is another vision that some Republicans offer which is just let’s cut taxes, let’s just reduce spending and everything will be fine,” he said.  Illustrating difference, Santorum called for a focus on industrial jobs.   Why are jobs leaving America he asked?  “…because government made the work uncompetitive by driving up the cost of doing business.”

For years elitist government and financial centers have praised “globalization” saying America didn’t need to make anything – we could just shuffle paper for a good living.  Funny thing, until the great international robbery of 2008 (crisis caused by crime) it worked for the most part, but evil was growing from the seed planted by Congress that everyone in America must own their homes, have a guaranteed; job, education, healthcare and nose wiping as government regulators may require each of us to blow.  In Oklahoma, we call that bullshit.

Santorum closed his campaign victory speech in Iowa with an appeal to young people for the obvious reason saying, the government must be reduced.  “It will crush your pocketbook in the future,” he said. “Hold the candidates accountable to the intractable problem of exploding government,” he added.

To hear Rick Santorum’s victory speech, click here.

Results for Iowa Republican Caucus (U.S. Presidential Primary)

Emily Miller of The Washington Times reports that Obama plans to violate the $1 trillion omnibus spending bill he signed on Friday. Instead, he issued a signing statement that he and Eric Holder’s Justice Department believe the bill is “subject to well-founded constitutional objections.” (Here’s the text of the statement.)
 
What are they? That Congress has asked to be notified if U.S. troops are placed under foreign command. It does not ban the practice of placing U.S. troops under foreign generals; it simply requires that Congress be notified beforehand.

Yet Obama whines the bill he signed “disallows the expenditure of funds
‘for any United Nations peacekeeping mission that will involve United
States Armed Forces under the command or operational control of a
foreign national,’ unless my military advisers have advised that such an
involvement is in the national interest, and unless I have made the
same recommendation to the Congress.”  

Placing U.S. troops under foreign command has been controversial for decades — and had been unthinkable for more than 100 years after the ratification of the Constitution. Then-Congressman Doug Bereuter, R-Nebraska, said on the House floor in 1995, “There is a serious question whether foreign command can ever be constitutional.” Even those on the Right who would allow the poissibility do so only under limited circumstances. Liberals in the Justice Department have argued for the president’s unlimited use of the military, under UN command, just as long. Evidently this president views Congressmen asking him for notification when he is violating their war-making powers beyond the pale.
 
Obama is also livid Congressional Republicans have “once again included provisions that would bar the use of appropriated funds for transfers of Guantanamo detainees into the United States.” Obama threatened to use executive powers to bring Guantanama Bay detainees to the mainland last December, before backing down.

The bill — which Obama signed — defunded four of his nine czars. Zero-funding these offices, Obama wrote, “could prevent me from fulfilling my constitutional responsibilities.”
 
Altogether, these acts, Obama writes, represent “constitutionally impermissible forms of congressional aggrandizement.”
 
Obama had criticized George W. Bush for using signing statements (rightly, in my opinion) but began using them himself shortly into his first year in office. As this author was the first to report, since losing control of Congress, Obama has ruled by executive order, regulation, and federal fiats, side-stepping Congress altogether.
 
This kind of move shows just how shameless Obama is: He is willing to use a signing statement to ignore provisions of a law he signed in order to preserve his ability to engage in a practice that almost certainly violates the U.S. Constitution. Quin Hillyer at The American Spectator summarizes:

This isn’t just a matter of choosing how to interpret unclear provisions of a law; this is explicitly refusing to abide by clear-as-day provisions in a law he just signed. As I have written repeatedly, this man has dangerously authoritarian tendencies. He is a menace.

Obama is a menace to our freedoms that must be removed from office.