Analysis: The Bush Administration made some mistakes in the War on Terror.  It was not just the name (perhaps “War to Prevent Mass Murder of Civilians” is too long, but terror is simply a tactic) that placed America at a disadvantage; it was the analysis. To avoid being terrorized, they pleaded for Americans to ignore the war and just go about their daily business.

Americans are far too participatory to take kindly to being patted on the head and told that others will tend to the business of the day.  We are willing to sacrifice to defend this land and people.  As the roar from the crowd suggested during John McCain’s nomination acceptance speech – We demand to participate in the fight.

To win the battle for peace, we can refuse products that fund instability.  Americans are willing to begin an Energy War not against any other nation or people, but FOR our nation and our people. 

We must do it–drill every domestic oil and gas field, expedite nuclear energy expansion, embellish tax incentives for alternative solar and wind development with installations large and small, forget ethanol (corn is best for food) in favor of other non-edible bio-material, and in other ways–change the paradigm powering peaceful progress.

As the Imperial Japanese military discovered in World War II, when the sleeping giant who greatly desires peace is awakened by war – America will win.

Unfortunately, the historic American tradition of ending politics at the water’s edge has been set aside by the most embittered, disingenuous, and corrupt Congress in American history.  Using lies and personal attacks; extreme Liberals funded by the convicted criminal George Soros (Insider Trading: France 2002) demonize real solutions. 

Congress is now the most hateful and hated institution in America and public opinion polls show that Congress’ popularity is less than half of that of President Bush. It is meaningful to remember that fully half of President Bush’s negative poll numbers are Conservatives in revolt over his failure to confront the corrupt blunder-mouths in Congress.  (See Nancy Pelosie and Harry Ried for more detail.)

Voters may well expel more members of Congress than pundits expect because many have seen as Stuart Jolly of Americans for Prosperity, Oklahoma recently wrote in an Oklahoman editorial that “our leaders in Washington have continued to debate increased drilling but haven’t passed any legislation to increase supply and lower prices."

He demands that, “America needs less rhetoric and more action.”

While Jolly does not believe we will ever be completely energy independent, (others are more hopeful) he writes:

“Surveys show that the vast majority of all Americans support increased development of resources in areas like the Outer Continental Shelf. We are tired of having Congress enforce high gas prices by restricting access to areas with known reserves … America is the only country that discourages development of its own domestic energy resources, artificially and unnecessarily inflating reliance on supplies from abroad. No other country does this because no other country could survive doing this, and we can’t either. Americans will continue to pay higher and higher energy costs until our citizens and Congress understand that common sense and logic must prevail over die-hard environmentalists on this issue.

Fortunately, we now have the technology to explore and develop our natural resources in ways that are environmentally safe and efficient. The use of advanced methods to drill and extract oil and natural gas means we can now cultivate our resources in a responsible fashion, and without any of the nightmarish scenarios that proponents would have you believe. In this way, Congress can stop harvesting resources from consumer pocketbooks and start harvesting resources from our oceans and elsewhere. The mere fact that the United States finally has gotten serious about combating our reliance on mported energy supplies will speak volumes to the world,” Jolly said.  

Nancy Farrier agrees and in a August 26 letter to the editor wrote:

“It is unfair that families and businesses in Oklahoma are being harmed by high energy costs while Congress bickers but has not passed meaningful legislation to give us relief. Every survey shows the vast majority of Americans want more drilling and fewer limits on domestic resources. We could easily increase the supply of oil and gas produced here at home. We could easily be less reliant on foreign imports.

American consumers are suffering.  Alternative and renewable energy will unquestionably play a huge role in the future, but we need quick action to reduce prices now. Opening of new resources can spark an immediate downward trend in prices with its impact on the markets and its eventual impact on global supply. America has the technology to drill efficiently and responsibly in an environmentally safe way. It is time to move past the rhetoric and develop our own energy sources,” she added.

It’s an “oil patch thing.” Oklahomans have been there and done it worldwide.

If Congress would get out of the way, our free people can and will win America’s War for Energy.  Maybe it is significant that this rally call is issued from Tulsa, Oklahoma formerly known as the “Oil Capital of the World.”  

Tulsans have seen the good and bad of the industry and our history is closely intertwined.  As the “capital” designation long ago migrated, Tulsa is a smaller dog in the fight, but we stand as witness that individual businessmen with private capital, creativity, and the will to win can build an environmentally sound energy bridge to the alternative energy future – if only Congress will get out of the way.  

We can get oil and gas flowing from almost anywhere in less than two years.

---

About the author: David Arnett began his career in professional journalism in 1985 and has published Tulsa Today since 1996 – before Al Gore invented the Internet.  He has won two national awards as a First Amendment Publisher.  Arnett is a Constitutional Republican, Public Information Specialist and Conservative Media Critic. This analysis may be reproduced without charge with proper attribution and links back to the original source.  Arnett is available for interview by recognized media.

Editorial:      Barack Obama is conservative. John McCain is radical.

It’s true, at least with respect to one issue: health care.

The dysfunctional state of health care delivery combined with rapidly escalating costs have framed the issue to be one of the most visible in the 2008 election season. Which party has the edge? Democrats have historically enjoyed large advantages in polls declaring that people "trust" them more than Republicans by wide margins. But there are unusual dynamics at play this time around.

A 2007 poll found a majority of respondents in favor of a single-payer government health system, while 77% simultaneously supported "reducing government regulation of insurance." This seemingly contradictory finding points to the fact that disgust with the current system overrides affinity for any particular reform agenda. As the Cato Institute’s Michael Tanner puts it, "Voters are saying that almost anything is better than the status quo."

In this climate, the conventional Democratic edge may not hold up. The field is wide open for whoever touts the more attractive reform package.

For all the talk of universal health care, Barack Obama’s proposals actually move us only slowly and not very far in that direction. He would enact government mandates requiring employers to insure their workers and parents to insure their children, while introducing extensive new regulations of the insurance sector, such as requiring health plans to cover all applicants. Even with these changes, however, Obama’s plan essentially preserves the employer-based system that has proved so troublesome.

By comparison, McCain’s reforms look radical. He calls for moving away from the employer-based system by shifting insurance tax credits from employers to individuals, giving people more control-and thereby more responsibility for-their own health care. Additionally, he proposes deregulating the insurance market, so that interstate competition increases.

Both schemes must deal with the question of financing, but there is another important question to pose. Most Americans are concerned that health care provision be characterized not only by economic efficiency but also by justice and equity. When vulnerable populations don’t have access to adequate health care, our obligations to the common good stand unfulfilled. Which plan aligns better with the demands of justice?

It is difficult to predict what the results of either approach would be. As incentives change, behavior changes, making calculations hazardous. Both McCain and Obama recognize that a problem as enormous as health care delivery is not easily soluble by a single reform program. But if we’re at a crossroads considering whether to move toward more government involvement or more market freedom, the latter direction is likely to lead toward a more efficient and equitable system.

History proves that large government programs covering high numbers of beneficiaries with diverse needs do not fare well. At the personal level, bureaucratic rules replace individual care and attention. At the economic level, price control would almost certainly be part of the package. Price ceilings, as long lines for gasoline in the 1970s should have convinced us, lead to shortages of supply. The generation of fewer doctors and nurses is not a prescription for improved health care.

The drawback of the market is its potential for unequal outcomes. It is important to remember, however, that inequality is not synonymous with injustice. Justice does not require that all people receive precisely equivalent levels of medical treatment; instead, it dictates that basic physical needs, including health care, are met. Perfect equality, moreover, is simply unrealistic. Even in those nations held up as models of universal access-Canada, for example-the wealthy and well-connected manage to secure better or faster medical treatment.

The more critical concern is that the people who are most vulnerable-children, the unemployed, the uninsured, the chronically ill-may fall through the cracks of a health care market built on a foundation of personal responsibility. This is where other institutions play indispensable roles. Many of America’s hospitals bear testimony to their religious roots: Mercy, Methodist, Good Samaritan. Provision of care for the ill has ever been intrinsic to the practice of Christianity, reflected in the traditional work of mercy, "visit the sick."

Neither presidential candidate’s reform plan highlights the extensive work performed by charitable organizations, but neither the market nor the government is going to care adequately for those on the margins. Whichever reforms (if any) are eventually implemented, the imperative to visit the sick will remain as a call to each of us to lend support in our families, churches, and communities.

---

About the author:
Kevin Schmiesing is editor of the Acton Institute’s Christian Social Thought Series.American Catholic Intellectuals, 1895-1955 (Edwin Mellen Press, 2002) and is most recently the author of Within the Market Strife: American Catholic Economic Thought from Rerum Novarum to Vatican II (Lexington Books, 2004). Dr. Schmiesing holds a Ph.D. in American history from the University ofPennsylvania , and a B.A. in history from Franciscan University ofSteubenville . Author of Within the Market Strife and American Catholic Intellectuals, 1895—1955 (2002), he serves as Book Review Editorfor the Journal of Markets & Morality . He is also executive director of CatholicHistory.net .

While full of details that will lead to prayerful concern about the future of the world’s greatest nation, Marc Nuttle’s “Moment of Truth” (Front Line: 241 pages with references and index, $21.99) also overflows with assurance that individuals can make a difference, and that America’s best days might still lie ahead.

Reading about the economic and political signs of our times can be a despair-inducing experience. Yet this new book from Oklahoma’s most respected national political consultant and analyst brims with hope and radiates a rational confidence needed in challenging times.

In a clear manner, Nuttle catalogues how cultural trends are changing our way of life. He states in no uncertain terms what many are saying in homes, churches, and boardrooms across America. In these days, "many people feel a measure of uncertainty about our nation’s future."

No other recent author has delivered such a readable, focused and graceful overview of American problems, and with such an unrivaled, measured and purposeful methodology. Nuttle’s writing compares favorably to great rhetorical calls to arms from the past, including Ronald Reagan’s prescient 1964 speech for Barry Goldwater, and William Simon’s “A Time for Truth.”

Nuttle outlines stressful influences in state and nation, and the impact of world developments on individuals, communities and the American psyche. Whatever one’s personal political preferences, there is comfort in Nuttle’s analytical description of the crisis of confidence many citizens feel. He argues that our nation is at the culmination of a normal political and cultural progression, a “forty year cycle” from despair (the 1960s) to confidence (the 1980s). And no we have reached the prelude to – whatever comes next. His point is that we can choose what comes next.

This year’s election, he says, "will determine what this nation will be and who we will become as a people from this year forward." We hear that every election, but this year it’s all there: from bitter cultural and moral divisions and crushing burdens of regulatory law and taxes, to the shock of technological change and the horrid intrusiveness of government and media in daily living. Leavening the depressing details is Nuttle’s determination that, with thought and care, we can do better as individuals and as a nation.
Nuttle calls for personal introspection and communal deliberation about how our government has lost sight of the people’s best interests, explains what we need to do to get back on track, provides a framework for clarifying each reader’s personal “grid” for policy and politics, and outlines the need for a new assessment of national priorities. 
As the book’s jacket make clear, Nuttle is unrelenting in assailing the addiction of government to spending, and the tendency of power to corrupt and undermine American greatness. Yet he outlines how to retain government as an asset, not a ruler, to forge the necessary balance between liberty and law, and to discern the limits of good intentions.

Nuttle relates a few endearing stories about his friend Milton Friedman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, who wrote "Nothing is inevitable about the course of history; however it may appear in retrospect. Because we live in a largely free society, we tend to forget how limited is the span of time and the part of the globe for which there has ever been anything like political freedom; the typical state of mankind is tyranny, servitude, and misery."

As Nuttle points out, Friedman went right to the heart of the great issues of our day. Freedom is a rare and precious jewel in human history, a treasure "to be protected at all costs and handed down to the next generation with loving care."

An experienced veteran of political warfare and international diplomacy, Nuttle has effectively dealt with the national news media for decades. While candidly documenting examples of liberal bias, Nuttle repeatedly demonstrates that many reporters are, like those they cover, seeking truth.

In one memorable exchange, a previously friendly journalist describes Nuttle as a liar. Naturally, this shreds their relationship. Yet Nuttle refused to close the door on reconciliation. Their eventual return to respect and friendship is not only a triumph for Nuttle, it is a fresh and contemporary revelation of the eternal power of forgiveness. Those active in politics and policy disputes will find endless sagacity in these pages.

Nuttle’s call for deep thought and discussion about our immediate political decisions are compelling as we prepare to vote in an election that could affect us and our children in ways we have only suspected, or feared, in the past. Nuttle is centered in the sunny tradition of Ronald Reagan. He is filled with happiness and hope, giving a plan of action to prevent circumvention of our freedoms, to counter increased abuses of power by privileged officials, and to bridge gaps that have polarized us as a society in areas such as religion, politics, and even the meaning of truth itself. 
 
Few Americans and even fewer Oklahomans have counseled political leaders in every corner of the world, and fewer still have distilled their experiences into as many golden nuggets of wisdom as Nuttle. His account of one experience in Asia gives the reader great food for thought in understanding the broad tides of history.

In conversation with a Chinese official, Nuttle is asked how he would define freedom. Citing the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and an elaborating on the rule of law, Nuttle felt as if he had defended his country properly. However, the Chinese secretary replies with "That’s nice … but one of our definitions is ‘the right not to starve to death.’" The Chinese official also asked Nuttle how he thought democracy was doing, but as he tried to give a sophisticated answer, the fellow interrupted him and said "Marc, it’s a trick question. The correct answer is: It’s too soon to tell!"

Fair enough, but this encounter between a country with more than six thousand years of history to one with little more than two hundred lends perspective. Nuttle was defiant and admirable in defending the history of the world’s greatest experiment in self-government that has served the people. He is right that our democratic Republican is living proof that freedom works, and a model for future governments. Yet, we live in a world of contrary values.

Lest we forget, China is still very much under Communist political control. Even as it emerges with its own stunning economic growth and prepares to host the Olympics, China continues to threaten brave little Taiwan, and to punish internal dissenters with jail and even death for exercising basic and cherished freedoms such as free speech.
Nuttle explores the consequences of political choices made in the past that have led us toward a more European-style, socialist economy. He lays out a plan of action for recovery of liberty through reasoned defense of American traditions. Nuttle’s insight into growing trends toward those European models comes from his up front and personal experiences abroad. While he credits America’s city, county and state governments for having the "best of intentions," he points out that they are adopting policies that will ultimately lead to higher taxes and a reduction in cherished constitutional rights. Federal officials, he writes, are "allowing the nation to slip toward the European model of a centrally controlled economy at a frightening pace."

In the end, this book is interactive. Early on, Nuttle provides a series of questions that might help individual readers determine their own political and cultural philosophy. Late in the work, he outlines areas of policy concern, and describes 12 steps that help a reader fashion his or her own “moral imperative” for direct involvement in restoring national greatness. Via the worldwide web, Nuttle draws the reader into what will no doubt be continuing and broadening dialogue about personal purpose and national goals, providing a code inside the cover jacket that allows access to his web site.

Nuttle’s devotion to faith, family and a better America shine through in his descriptions of the type of leaders our country needs.

For those who have lost faith in government, those who feel the world has outgrown their vote, and for those who simply need a "how to" on how to get involved for positive change, this is a must read. (Click here for the Amazon listing.)

About the author: Pat McGuigan is an editor at The City Sentinel, a weekly newspaper in Oklahoma City. He is a regular contributor to Tulsa Today since 2002 and once served as our Capital Editor – a position we hope McGuigan will fill again some day soon. This essay first appeared in Perspective magazine, the monthly publication of the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs.  pmcguigan@cox.net

On November 4, the American people had the opportunity to choose between two candidates with the character and temperament to be not just good presidents but great presidents.  John McCain ran the best campaign he could in a very difficult environment and he showed the country, once again, with his moving and gracious concession speech, what it means for a statesman and leader to put the interests of America and the next generation ahead of his own self-interest.

Barack Obama’s election last night was an historic victory not for any party or ideology but for America’s aspiration to be a country where anything is possible, and where all men are created equal.  His election also was a victory for democracy.  Even if many Americans don’t like the electoral results, his campaign proved that when the American people are inspired and mobilize they can seize the reins of government and demand change.

Our president-elect offered an olive branch to Republicans last night to ‘heal the divides that have held back progress.’  We would be wise to accept his offer, roll up our sleeves and work together on areas where we can agree.  The unmistakable mandate everyone in public office can take from this election is that it’s time to define a ‘new kind of politics’ with our actions, not just our words.   The space between the parties is a vast frontier of consensus and possibility.  The American people have always called this area ‘common sense.’  It’s time for elected officials to put aside their careerist aspirations in service to this ideal.

Conservatives should be reassured that our president-elect did not seek an ideological mandate in this election, nor did he receive one.  The failure of the Republican Party in this election does not represent the failure of conservatism, but of the big government Republicanism that took over our party in 1996.  Had the Republican Party not governed as the party of socialism-lite for the past 12 years, our candidates’ concerns about the excessive spending on the other side would have had more relevance.

Republican efforts to build a governing majority through spending and earmarks have ended in disgrace.  The Republican Party can either restore its identity as the party of limited government or go the way of the Whigs.  When Republicans decide to come home to the timeless conservatism present at our founding, the conservatism of Abraham Lincoln – which our president-elect graciously acknowledged last night – and the conservatism of Ronald Reagan that won the Cold War and led to unprecedented prosperity, they know where to find us.

Editorial:  In Virgil’s epic poem, the Aeneid, the story is told of Odysseus’s plot to conquer Troy, thus ending 10 years of defeat for the Greeks. The Greeks’ plan was to trick the citizens of Troy (the Trojans) into believing that the giant wooden horse they had constructed was a gift from the goddess Athena. They left their “gift” outside the city and withdrew their troops and ships, the better to convince the Trojans of their benevolent intentions.

At first wary and suspicious, the Trojans came out from behind their walls to inspect the enormous horse. Once outside, they met a man named Sinon, who gained their trust by telling them that he had escaped from the murderous Greek regime He was so credible that when he suggested to the Trojans that they bring the wooden horse inside the city, they did. But unbeknownst to the trusting Trojans, Sinon was a secret agent of the Greeks.

Once inside the city, the Greek warriors, under cover of darkness, emerged from hiding inside the horse and quickly opened the gates of Troy to allow the rest of the Greek armies to invade the city, whereupon they promptly slaughtered the Trojan men, enslaved the women and children, and completely destroyed the city of Troy.

The colossal ruse of the Trojan Horse – which resulted in the downfall of the great and mighty city of Troy – is similar to the ruse that increasing numbers of Americans believe Barack Obama has effected with his election to the presidency, specifically that the “warriors” of his campaign – including his longtime radical associates, a leftist media and a now-silenced conservative media, as well as far-left organizations like ACORN, et al. – have fooled a largely-gullible electorate into believing that the man who offered “hope” and “change” meant something quite different than they were led to believe.

Contrast Virgil’s poem to what is happening today. In the liberals’ epic scheme, the story is about conquering Republicans, thus ending almost 10 years of electoral defeat.

The liberals’ plan was to trick the citizens of the United States into believing that their moderate-toned, multi-racial candidate was a gift to America, a way to expiate their collective guilt over racial discrimination and “heal the wounds” that, in their view, our big bad country was guilty of inflicting. They and their media lapdogs presented this “gift” with grandiose language and warm-and-fuzzy images, the better to convince the electorate of his benevolent intentions. 

At first wary, Americans ultimately bought the media hype. Once they took a closer look, however, they were introduced to many Sinons – Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, Rashid Khalidi, Louis Farrakhan, et al. But the “gift” assured them that he was being victimized by these people, and so the American people bought the “victim” thing and rewarded him with the nomination to be president.

Once Obama became the putative president-elect, his minions emerged not under cover of darkness but in broad daylight, expressing their full intentions to follow his lead in converting America into their dreamed-of Socialist paradise, complete with nationalized banks, healthcare, the auto industry, etc.; the reinstatement of the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which would effectively annihilate all dissenting opinion; the institution of a domestic police force which has eerie echoes to the repressive goon squads of the Russian empire and other Communist and Socialist regimes; bringing about the massive redistribution of wealth, and spitting in the face of our most precious founding document, the U.S. Constitution.

Obama’s hope, it is now apparent, is for a “globalist” America. And his change, it is now apparent, is the polar opposite of free-market capitalism, a free press, freedoms of religion, assembly, etc., any semblance of respect for the United States Constitution, and, who knows, a resurrection of his revolutionary Marxist black liberation theology to replace the Judeo-Christian tenets upon which our country was founded.

“The most noticeable characteristic of Obama,” says Dr. Kate, in a chilling article entitled The Trojan Candidate, ”is his profound lack of respect for America as shown with his behavior on the flag pin, the failure to observe decorum regarding the national anthem, the fake presidential seal, the printed announcement of his speech in Germany, the upside down flag on the tickets and behind Biden at the Convention, his airplane with painted-over American flag, and his detached and callous appearance at Ground Zero. By this behavior, Obama is mocking America, cheapening its decorum and symbols.”

Dr, Kate reminds her readers that it was one of Obama’s role models, Saul Alinsky, who wrote Rules for Radicals and who believed that change “meant a Marxist revolution achieved by slow, incremental, Machiavellian means which turned society inside out. This had to be done through systematic deception, winning the trust of the naively idealistic middle class by using the language of morality to conceal an agenda designed to destroy it.”

She further asks why Obama’s close friend, the unrepentant domestic terrorist William Ayers, would quote the following poem in his blog just two months before the election:
The end of an empire is messy at best
And this empire is ending
Like all the rest
Like the Spanish Armada adrift on the sea
We’re adrift in the land of the brave
And the home of the free
Goodbye. Goodbye. Goodbye

“Do you think he knows something, or hopes for something that we don’t?” she asks. “Obama is not who he says he is…I also wonder about his Manchurian Candidate characteristics. What is inside this Trojan Horse? Who is he a front for?” 
  
WHERE THINGS STAND NOW

As I’ve written in five articles (which can be read on my website: http://www.joanswirsky.com/), the most crucial issue is the fact that Obama’s eligibility to be president is being seriously challenged by about 20 lawsuits, many of them waged by Democrats and Independents. Several of these suits have now reached the Supreme Court. They all claim that Obama does not meet one of the three criteria that the U.S. Constitution requires of anyone who runs for the presidency of the United States of America. That criterion is that he or she be a “natural born citizen” of the United States.

December 1, writes attorney Thomas J. Latino, was “the deadline for the Obama legal team to file their response to the Berg Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. There was nothing. Mr. Obama has done what hasn’t been done before…he] has blatantly ignored a request from the Supreme Court of the United States – our highest and most revered legal institution. Mr. Obama, quite frankly, has thumbed his nose at the highest court in our land.”

On December 5, Leo Donofrio, a plaintiff in Donofrio v. Wells, is scheduled to have his case heard by the nine Justices of the Supreme Court, who have agreed to hold a “Rule of Four” Conference. This means If four of the nine Justices agree that Donofrio’s case has merit, there is the potential for the Justices to issue a “stay” of the Electoral College vote on December 15, which would prevent the Electoral College members from casting their votes until this explosive issue has been resolved.

CONSPIRACY THEORIES

In one of my articles, I noted that it was not unexpected that the liberal media – who have been shilling for Obama for over two years – have covered up his shady, anti-American and anti-Semitic associations, his über-far-left voting record, and his questionable eligibility to be president. But it amazed me that conservative media hosts, who pride themselves on independence and probing inquiries, have been totally mute in covering this issue. Here is what I wrote:

I speculated that President Bush might have received highly credible evidence from our enemies that they had a number of devastating (probably nuclear suitcase) weapons – set up and ready to be activated in as many as six-to-10 of our major cities – unless he had his functionaries direct all media outlets to steer clear of the birth certificate issue or face Draconian consequences.

In literally hundreds of e-mails I received, there were other theories I found intriguing.
·   One said to “follow the money,” that conservative media honchos had been threatened with massive boycotts from the ACORN crowd to go after their advertisers. Money talks!
·   A graphic designer suggested that George Soros dipped into his billions and “treated” major media people to a cool $5 million each.
·   Another person suggested that the birth certificate “crisis” was a deliberate act on Obama’s part to change the U.S. Constitution, the better to enable foreign leadership to someday take charge of America and allow the Globalists to run our county and establish their New World Order.
·   Writer Michael Bresciani even suggested that the media’s “fear of embarrassment” may be at play. “He won a landslide…the idea is that winning is more important than keeping the rules…The next time a whistle blows on the field in a NFL game, won’t the whole game stop in its tracks and wait for the announcement of the referee? Isn’t [the Obama Constitutional question] a far more grave matter than a flag going down in a football game?”
·   Someone else suggested that the Democrats were holding the "Fairness Doctrine" gun to the heads of major radio station owners, striking a deal in which the Doctrine would not be revived if they collectively cooperated in avoiding the birth certificate story.

But the most compelling “conspiracy theory” came from a woman in California, who wrote:

“I don’t think it’s about pay-offs to this or that power-that be that accounts for the media blackout.  This could never explain the article in the Wall St. Journal by the staunchly dependable conservative James Taranto, who scoffed at the birth certificate issue.  Or why Limbaugh, Levin, Hannity, Ingraham and all the others, including Hugh Hewitt, have avoided this issue. Or why conservative radio icons Al Rantel and Tammy Bruce have so quickly done an about-face, even screeching and threatening their call-in audience never to mention the birth-certificate issue.  In fact Bruce seemed to experience a personality alteration by declaring loudly and angrily that if any bloggers on her site posted any material whatsoever that alluded to Obama’s birth certificate, they would be permanently banned from TammyBruce.com.

“To me, it’s reminiscent of the `German thing’ – where ordinary, proud, conservative, responsible Germans suddenly realized that their livelihoods and perhaps their lives depended upon supporting a powerful `new order.’  It was none other than Josef Goebbels who said that the way to take over a country by a relatively minute cabal of fascists was to gain control of two entities: the media and the armed forces.  That’s why we heard Obama promise to establish a national police force that was just as strong and well-funded and powerful as the U.S. military. He and his cabal know that they can’t turn the U.S. military, so they’re going to try to set up their own Gestapo.

“I suspect,” she continued, “that a memo went out en masse to the media from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) not to mention the birth certificate subject under penalty of losing their licenses to broadcast.  Now we have practically a national shutdown of the media, and the only entity that would have had the power to bring this about is the FCC – and not a Saudi who owns six percent of Fox News!  For the entire airwaves, in unison, to suddenly take the position that Obama’s birth certificate is out of bounds means that they’ve been ordered not to discuss it.

“Think about it…every single one of the major radio hosts rebuked callers at the same time – and on the same day in most cases!  My guess is that big guns from ACORN and also from the Nation of Islam have gotten to the FCC and have told them in no uncertain terms that if Obama is blocked from becoming POTUS, there will be hell to pay all over America.  And obviously these threats were deemed credible enough by those making the decisions at the FCC that they have succeeded.  This is nothing less than a political coup d’état!  Unless, that is, the Justices of the Supreme Court and the Electors of the Electoral College still take seriously their oaths to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution.”

Interesting, I must add, that while the American media have for the most part blacked-out this explosive story, none-other than Pravda has been covering it!

WHAT LIES AHEAD

According to legal scholar Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., “America is facing potentially the gravest constitutional crisis in her history.  Barack Obama must either stand up in a public forum and prove, with conclusive documentary evidence, that he is `a natural born Citizen’ of the United States who has not renounced his American citizenship – or he must step down as the Democratic Party’s candidate for President of the United States—preferably before the election is held, and in any event before the Electoral College meets….the burden of proof rests squarely on his shoulders.” Vieira further explains:

·   If Obama fails to prove his citizenship but the voters, the Electors, or the Members of the House purport to “elect” him, Dr. Vieira says, “he will be nothing but a usurper, because the Constitution defines him as such.  And he can never become anything else, because a usurper cannot gain legitimacy if even all of the country aid, abets, accedes to, or acquiesces in his usurpation.”
·   If Obama takes the Presidential oath, knowing that he is not a natural born Citizen, “he will commit the crime of perjury or false swearing.  So, even if the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court himself looks the other way and administers the oath, Obama will derive no authority whatsoever from it.”
·   If the Oath is perjured, “Obama’s every subsequent act in the usurped Office of President will be a criminal offense….”
·   If he is indeed a usurper, “Obama will not constitutionally be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States….therefore, he will be entitled to no obedience whatsoever from anyone in those forces.”
·   If he is indeed a usurper, “Obama will have no conceivable authority to make Treaties, or to nominate, and appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States…”
·   “Congress can pass no law while a usurper pretends to occupy the Office of President. Thus, if Obama deceitfully enters office as an usurper, Congress will be rendered effectively impotent for as long as it acquiesces in his pretenses as `President.’”
·   “If Obama does become a usurper posturing as the President, Congress cannot even impeach him because not being the actual President he cannot be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors…In that case, some other public officials would have to arrest him – with physical force, if he would not go along quietly – in order to prevent him from continuing his imposture.”
·   “If the Establishment allowed Obama to pretend to be the President and the people acquiesced in that charade, just about everything that was done during his faux tenure in office by anyone connected with the Executive Branch of the General Government, and quite a bit done by the Legislative Branch and perhaps the Judicial Branch as well, would be arguably illegitimate and subject to being overturned when a constitutional President was finally installed in office.”

Vieira ends by stating: “If he continues to dodge the issue, Obama will be dogged with this question every day of his purported `Presidency.’  And inevitably the truth will out…for the issue is too simple, the evidence (or lack of it) too accessible.  Either Obama can prove that he is a natural born Citizen who has not renounced his citizenship; or he cannot.  If Obama knows that he is not a natural born Citizen…then he also knows that he and his henchmen have perpetrated numerous election-related frauds throughout the country – the latest, still-ongoing one a colossal swindle targeting the American people as a whole.”

It is clear that Mr. Vieira is not alone in his thinking.  Gary Kreep, chief counsel for two California Electors and for  Alan Keyes in a lawsuit that  challenges Obama’s eligibility, and chief of the United States Justice Foundation, has said that he intends to challenge Obama continuously on the citizenship issue well past inauguration on “every order, every proposal, every piece of paperwork” that Obama produces. 

“We will file lawsuits on his actions, every time,” Kreep told WorldNetDaily.”  Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void, petitioners, as well as other Americans, will suffer irreparable harm in that (a) usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States, and (2) none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal.”

WND also interviewed Judge Roy Moore, the former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, who echoed the concerns of millions when he said:  “We can survive four years of any president; we cannot survive without a Constitution. This calls for a major investigation. Our Constitution is at stake.”

---

About the author:
Joan Swirsky (http://www.joanswirsky.com/) is a New York based author and journalist who can be reached at joansharon@aol.com.

Previous works by and referencing this author published by Tulsa Today include:

Is Barack Obama an American?  (October 27, 2008)
Obama’s contempt for the U.S. Constitution  (November 1, 2008)

America the beautiful, a Republican review  (November 10, 2008)  

The Great Birth Certificate Scandal/Cover-Up of ’08  (November 24, 2008)

Why Tulsa Today went dark  (November 27, 2008)