The flaming right

When “Republican” is a dirty word consciously used as a pejorative in major newspapers and broadcast media across the country it’s pretty easy to see that something’s wrong.

The root of what’s wrong is that the United States is a nation of law, but a small number of people who for various reasons hold themselves above the law have become a coalition of haters united only through their control of the Democratic party and the mass media it depends on - and now have no regard for consequence or law as they try to justify themselves by serially satisficing the entourage of nuts, hangers-on, careerists, and idealogues they picked up on their way to power.

Look at this politically, and what we have is the hyperpartisan Pelosi presidency in which the acting president continues to campaign because that’s what he knows how to do; Holder, Rahm, and other deeply corrupted partisans run the executive branch; and, the big media players who see their democratic prophecies failing double down on hatred for Republicans as the messengers of a rejected reality.

Worse, look at things from outside the political trenches and what you see is the weathermen in charge in Washington: people whose lifelong contempt for American values leads them to disregard the law in making and enforcing decisions aimed squarely at destroying the American Republic -and if you think that’s overblown: name one thing done by Messrs Obama, Reid, and Pelosi that Wright, Ayers, and Dohrn wouldn’t have done in their places.

So what to do? I see three interlocking strategies for Republicans: for the short term, the medium term, and the long term.

Short term

The strategy for 2010 is to focus campaigning and publicity heavily on law, the limitations of law, and the abuse of law by democrats.

In particular the tea party movement could be directed toward support for law and the widespread recognition of democrat contempt for it - simply by pointing out that realities like the political exemption from prosecution accorded ACORN and the illegal seizure of Chrysler and GM shareholder assets for transfer to the Unions, are part and parcel of the same political agenda leading the Democrats to significant new taxes and enormous deficits.

One of the subtler consequences of doing this would be longer term: almost every state Republican organization has a significant number of “states rights” members - people who hold that the United States is a union of states, not a kingdom assembled from collected fiefs. With minor exceptions, almost every unconstitutional action undertaken by the Pelosi democrats is also a contractual violation of the terms under which the states undertook the union and Republican leadership putting a real focus on law would almost certainly attract strong states rights support within the party.

In the short term, however, the highest profile example of democrat lawlessness, Mr. Obama’s legal ineligibility for the office he pretends to, also offers Republicans a direct path to an electoral sweep in 2010.

The facts on this are clear: every senator, every representative, has taken the same oath to defend the constitution. That oath is enforcible both in federal court and at the polls - with removal from office as the least of the available penalties.

The current administration commits arguable constitutional violations on a daily basis: every congressman and every senator accepting actions ranging from giving ACORN de facto control of the census to the Chrysler fiasco, is in violation of the oath of office.

More directly, Mr. Obama claims to be the son of a Kenyan holding British citizenship; therefore cannot meet the constitutional requirement that the president be a natural born citizen; and was accordingly ineligible to run for that office.

In addition, Mr. Obama is known to be the son of a woman who married an Indonesian Muslim and sent her son to a local Muslim school when doing so would not have been possible without first renouncing American citizenship for herself and her dependent son. Since he could have reclaimed his birthright on or after his return to Hawaii but apparently choose to express his mother’s contempt for American values by not doing so, Mr. Obama is most probably not legally a citizen of the United States - and was therefore ineligible to run for the presidency.

Notice that his place of birth has nothing to do with either issue, and that production of a real Hawaiian birth certificate naming an American father would mark him as a natural born citizen, but not address his failure to reclaim his American birthright and thus still leave him ineligible for office.

Notice too that there are people who believe that somehow, somewhere, there’s a loophole making him eligible, but because no sane person can deny that the question has been raised any congressman or senator who does not personally act to verify Mr. Obama’s eligibility is in violation of the oath of office - a failure to investigate which, independently of the likely outcome of that investigation, should technically be sufficient to get a federal court to order that person’s removal from office.

The strategy, therefore, is to repeatedly and forcefully raise this issue in the press as well as the house and the senate - and thus force every representative, and at least one third of the senators, to consider what’s at stake for them between now and November 2010.

Notice that this strategy works for Republicans whether or not congressional action invokes the silver bullet - frog marching Mr. Obama out of the Whitehouse, re-establishing a Presidential check on Pelosi and Reid by giving the presidency to McCain/Palin, and trading inner city riots now for re-establishing constitutional government and wiping out every order, every appointment, and every act of Congress Obama has signed since taking the office.

The mid range strategy

The mid range strategy is to bring honest reporting back to American news coverage.

To see how critical this is try to imagine what the outcome of the 2008 elections would have been had the media treated Sarah Palin, or Joe the plumber, fairly - or if the New York Times, which not only regularly attacked John McCain in articles presented as news but repeatedly raised the issue of his eligibility for office, had treated Mr. Obama the same way.

Most importantly, ask why if only 11.2% of Obama voters knew of his commitment to bankrupting the coal industry, the other 87.8% did not.

Tactically, the easiest and most effective way to do this is to put together a consortium to buy and run a company like Gannet Communications - owners of USAtoday, 21 television stations, 88 smaller newspapers, and eight properties, like The Army Times, serving DOD markets.

That consortium would not front for the Republican party; instead it would focus the business on making money through the practice of traditional, independent, journalism.

The financial opportunity here is enormous: the print media across the United States appear to be in deep trouble, but the actual losers are those which, like USAtoday and the New York Times Company (also owners of the Boston Globe and the IHT) act as proud sponsors and spokesmen for the far left wing of the Democratic party. In contrast, media players like Fox and the Wall Street Journal which have tried to maintain reasonable editorial balance have come under continuous attack from Democrats who see them as parts of some vast far right conspiracy, but generally held their own, both financially and in terms of audience share, during a period of radically increased web competition and reduced advertiser spending.

There are a lot of good people coming out of failing media companies - and a lot of assets coming for sale at pennies on the dollar. A player big enough to pay for solid editorial content and directed by people whose first focus is honesty in reporting, should experience significant, low cost, growth in American media markets.

And honest reporting is, of course, all Republicans need to win.

The long term strategy

The long term strategy is to position Republicans as the people who view education and science as the enablers of both liberty and economic productivity.

To rephrase Karl Popper in context, actions based on hypotheses that have been proven false through experience or experiment are contra-indicated - in other words rational people do not shut down free markets, double debt and taxes, release terrorists among their own people, increase abortion funding, or destroy national energy production on the basis of long discredited economic or social theories -unless their goals are to destroy whatever social structures exist.

Lining up Republicanism with the forces that improve life for mankind puts the democrat’s assumption of support from the lazy and illiterates in a context everyone can understand: teach a man to fish and you feed him for life, give him a fish and you create an entitlement program forcing you to take from those who know how to fish.

There is a long term tactical corollary to this strategy: the extreme green movement can legitimately be portrayed as a religion because its views run counter to observed reality and thus require faith the believe.

The polar bear, for example, didn’t just evolve in the last few hundred years - meaning that the genuine global warming experienced during the medieval warming period (800 - 1300) didn’t kill them off. The evidence on CO2 as a greenhouse gas doesn’t exist (the phrase comes from a paper on the effect of water vapor in the atmosphere on Venus) - and neither does evidence of anthropogenic warming, while the ability to use nuclear energy to reconstitute hydrocarbons from atmospheric gases and water makes today’s petrochemical based energy distribution system the most renewable and efficient one we know.

And here’s the zinger: if the short term strategy brings back the rule of law, and the mid range strategy provides an audience for reasoned debate, then it will become possible for the courts to see Gaiaism as a religion, and thus to enforce the constitutional separation of church and state by imposing some standard of rationality for environmental regulation and obstructionism.

As a regular reader of political blogs you’re certainly aware of the controversies surrounding Mr. Obama’s constitutional eligibility for the Presidency - and as an American you can’t help but know what Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and other leading Democrats have been doing to the country.

A lot of people will tell you that it’s too late to act: that the Pelosi-Reid attacks on the economy: on Detroit, on the financial system, on your job, can’t be stopped; that Obama’s abandonment of Israel and Taiwan are done deals, that his decision to simultaneously gut defense while sending more young Americans to die in Afghanistan is irrevocable.

two girl one cup

Others will tell you that a majority of Americans voted for this - that a government whose actions are so destructive of American value that it’s indistinguishable from what we’d get if the Reverend Wright were in the Whitehouse with Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn ruling Congress, is what the electorate wanted - and that any action you take to stop them is therefore anti-democratic.

All of that’s wrong - the current destruction of the American republic be stopped, it should be stopped, and you can help.

The reality on the electoral mandate claim is that only about 2% of those who voted for Mr. Obama were able to correctly answer 12 simple questions about the campaign - most of those who voted for him believed he would cut taxes, balance the budget, fix the economy, gain respect abroad, and reduce partisan conflict in Congress - instead, he’s letting Pelosi and Reid raise taxes, double the cumulative federal debt in less than one year, demonstrating vicious partisanship in his own appointments; and, making himself (and the country) a laughing stock abroad.

An electorate that’s been lied to should hold the liars responsible, not itself.

To do that, we need to get Congress to declare that Mr. Obama was ineligible as a candidate - because that would hand the election to McCain/Palin and cause every order, and every congressional action, he’s signed to be considered null and void.

As a result, the 2.4 trillion dollar Pelosi deficit would not be incurred, the economy would boom again, your job would be secured, America would once again assert moral leadership in the world, ACORN and some key democrats would face prosecution on electoral fraud - and we’d even have a good chance of eventually seeing people like Chris Dodds and Barney Franks jailed for their roles in the financial meltdown.

This strategy is obviously controversial and you’ll hear a lot of people tell you lots of nonsense about it; but the argument is simple:

• The Constitution requires that the President be a “natural born citizen:” not just an American citizen by birth, but one born on American soil to American parents.Since Mr. Obama claims to have had a British citizen from Kenya for a father, he does not qualify as natural born and therefore no votes cast for him in either the general election or the electoral college may be counted.

  Mr. Obama’s supporters will lie to you about this - usually claiming that the 14th amendment allows him in. It does not - and a quick google search will find you the definitions and the arguments needed to settle this.

• Mr. Obama’s America hating mother cannot have married, as he claims and the historical record validates, an Indonesian citizen and then sent the young Obama to a state approved Indonesian school without first renouncing both her own American citizenship and that of any dependent children, including Mr. Obama.In other words he could have been born an American, have an American father, and still be ineligible because he’s never bothered to reclaim an American citizenship renounced on his behalf by his mother.

So what can you do? simple: you know who your congress critters are, so get in their faces on this issue. Remind them first that their oath of office includes swearing to defend the Constitution of the United States; then ask how Mr. Obama meets the constitutional requirements for the Presidency; and finally remind them that the penalties for oath breaking include removal from office.

At first you’ll be dismissed by answering machines and third level flunkies - but if you stick to it: go to their campaign offices and their public meetings; get after the media people they depend on for positive publicity; write, fax, email, and telephone them; the answers you get will gradually improve from attacks on you as a birther, a nutcase, an ignorant redneck - to the usual list of excuses: from it’s too late (not true) and he was elected (irrelevant); to he’s a citizen because born in Hawaii (irrelevant).

Remember those little homilies you learned in grade school? - stuff like “the price of liberty is eternal vigilance”? and those uplifting little quotes - stuff like Franklin’s “We have given you a Republic, now see if you can keep it”? Well, now’s the time to add a little action to those.

Keep asking them the same questions: how can someone with a British father be natural born? How could his mother have married a Muslim in Indonesia and sent him to school there without renouncing his citizenship? and “as my representative, you swore to defend the constitution against all enemies, so why aren’t you acting against the usurper pretending to be president?”

understand up front that neither your senator nor your congressman is going to want to hear anything about eligibility because the discussion catches them between rocks and hard places: between having sworn to defend the constitution against people like Mr. Obama and being afraid to act; afraid to rock the boat; afraid of media reaction; afraid of violence by a thugish few; afraid of being seen wrong.

So be polite, but be persistent: show them there’s more to fear from inaction than action - ask them how they like the Pelosi presidency so far - and point out that they have both the silver bullet, and the duty, to put an end to it.

Dear Mr. McCain:

I’m a Canadian, but what happens in your country affects mine - and because what’s happening in your country is an unmitigated disaster I’m writing to ask you to stop it.

map

I don’t think you need a detailed litany; everywhere you look the Pelosi idealogues are in action: every dollar in new debt works against the economy, corruption and ignorance are rewarded, and every action they take in defense, in energy, in education, in international diplomacy is globally catastrophic.

And the President, meanwhile, does what he knows how to do: he campaigns - for himself.

Mr. McCain, it’s time to end this - and you have the means.

If you will suspend disbelief - and the fear of riots - for just a moment, I believe I can show you that Mr. Obama’s ineligibility for office is both real and the silver bullet needed to put an end to this.

It’s a silver bullet because, were you to put together a sufficient coalition of Republican, Independent, and “blue dog” Democratic Senators and Representatives to carry Mr. Obama’s impeachment and removal from Office on eligibility grounds, two things would happen:

1. most of the harm that’s been done to the United States over the last four months would simply go away, leaving significant new opportunities for reform as part of the hangover; and,
2. most importantly, your presence with Sarah Palin in the Whitehouse would re-establish the system of checks and balances that keeps America free - meaning that the Pelosi Democrats would lose any short term opportunities to retake control of the agenda.

Since these outcomes are highly desirable, the question is whether Mr. Obama can be proven ineligible to the satisfaction of a sufficient majority of the members of Congress - and with sufficient dispatch that he doesn’t simply resign and thus promote Biden and Clinton while leaving Pelosi and Reid in place.

To show you that the answer is a resounding “yes”, I want to start by quoting the entirety of a resolution introduced in the Senate by Mrs. McCaskill and other leading democrats including Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton:

RESOLUTION

Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a “natural born Citizen” of the United States;

Whereas the term “natural born Citizen”, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to American citizens serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;

Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the “natural born Citizen” clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term “natural born Citizen”;

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a “natural born Citizen” under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

This is cleverly worded to focus attention on this line from the March 26, 1790 Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization:

And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens:

while quietly establishing a recent Senate precedent for the claim that the founder’s failure to define “natural born citizen” in the Constitution leaves the term undefined.

In reality there are hundreds of undefined words and terms in the Constitution because, of course, Americans were expected to understand their plain English meaning. Today we don’t use the phrase “natural born citizen” much, but the meaning is clear from a comparable phrase we do use fairly often: “natural justice” - meaning justice according to God’s law, not Man’s.

To quote from the federalist blog

One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example), they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen. This leads us to defining natural-born citizen under the laws of nature - laws the founders recognized and embraced.

Under the laws of nature, every child born requires no act of law to establish the fact the child inherits through nature his/her father’s citizenship as well as his name (or even his property) through birth. This law of nature is also recognized by law of nations. Sen. Howard said the citizenship clause under the Fourteenth Amendment was by virtue of ‘natural law and national law.’

The advantages of Natural Law is competing allegiances between nations are avoided, or at least with those nations whose custom is to not make citizens of other countries citizens without their consent. Any alternations or conflicts due to a child’s natural citizenship are strictly a creature of local municipal law. In the year 1866, the United States for the first time adopted a local municipal law under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes that read: ‘All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.’

Rep. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means ‘every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.’ (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

All pleading to the contrary there’s no actual argument here: if, as Mr. Obama claims, his father was a Kenyan holding British citizenship, then he cannot be a natural born citizen and is therefore barred from holding the Office of the Presidency.

There are, however, two issues to consider with respect to Mr. Obama’s ineligibility under the natural born clause in the Constitution:

1. First, Mr, Obama does have a possible defense: he could explain his refusal to release his birth and educational records on the grounds of the embarrassment this would have caused his grandmother, and then produce a birth certificate showing his father to be an American - perhaps the activist Mr. Davis - because that, if true, would make him a natural born citizen.
2. and, second, Mr. Obama’s ineligibility is easily presented as merely a technical issue comparable to Mrs. Clinton’s ineligibility to serve as Secretary of State - something that’s obvious but too distasteful to enforce in light of his claimed electoral victory.

Fortunately, not for the United States but certainly for the silver bullet strategy, Mr. Obama is also ineligible on different grounds - grounds that produce a much stronger emotional reaction.

The issue here is simply that his mother married an Indonesian national and sent the young Obama to a government approved school at a time when this would not have been possible had she not first formally renounced her American citizenship and that of any dependent children, including the future Mr. Obama.

Since there is no record that he availed himself of the opportunity presented under American law to reclaim his birthright on or after his return to the United States, we are entitled first to assume that he is currently an illegal alien and secondly to speculate about his reasons for failing to take the simple steps needed to regain his status as an American - and the obvious speculation in light of his friendships with people like the Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers is that his long term adherence to an initial decision not to do this reverences his mother’s deep contempt for American values, American society, and the American people.

Again there is simply no issue of fact here: his mother’s actions are a matter of public record, and so are both Indonesian and American law then and since. Thus, always assuming he doesn’t suddenly produce records affirming that he did at some point reclaim his birthright, he most probably has no workable defense on this - except possibly claiming that his mother didn’t marry in Indonesia and that his return to Hawaii was precipitated by concern over his status in Indonesia.

Notice that both defenses: a different father, a fake marriage; force him to present himself as a life long convenience liar on major issues of character and background - making any victory on his part Pyhrric in the extreme and thus defanging him, and his allies, politically for the rest of his term.

So how to do it?

Well Sir, you know the process and the players far better than any outsider ever could; but I want to remind you that have a nuclear weapon here: the final vote will be a straight yea or nay on upholding the Constitution of the United States with all those voting having taken the same oath to do precisely that - this one, I believe, from U.S.C. 3331:

I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Since the penalties for oath breaking include removal from office, the arguments are all going to be about process and attempts to re-interpret reality in Mr. Obama’s favor - with, I think, a lot of abstainers but very few nays on the final vote.

And that brings us to a brief final discussion of five extraneous political issues that need to be faced head on:

1. first the media has been portraying the eligibility issue as tin foil hat stuff.In looking at major media coverage of the eligibility issue it becomes obvious that the major media players use the same talking points limiting the issue to deriding the so-called “birthers” - people who assume that Mr. Obama’s willingness to spend millions preventing the public release of his birth and educational records proves that these documents cast doubt on his claim to having been born in Hawaii.

   However, his ineligibility under the “natural born citizen” requirement depends on his father’s citizenship, not his place of birth - and the move by some of his associates to amend the Constitution to remove this stupidest provision suggests their knowledge of his vulnerability on this issue.

   Similarly, his ineligibility under his failure to reclaim an American birthright renounced on his behalf by his mother, has nothing to do with his place of birth - and his failure to follow up on his claims to having gained foreign policy expertise by traveling in Pakistan when it was illegal for Americans to do so, suggests that at least one of his handlers saw the vulnerabilities in doing this.

   It is possible, therefore, that the withholding of the birth certificate and the media focus on the much decried birthers are components of a plan to permanently side track any deeper scrutiny of the real eligibility issues discussed here by opportune production of an Hawaiian birth certificate.

2. the whole idea of impeaching and removing an elected president is distasteful.It is, but it’s the necessity of the thing, not the thing itself, that is so distasteful - and then only to Republicans: The New York Times, effectively the gravitas organ of the Democratic party, has, for example, repeatedly been pleased to question your own eligibility on much weaker grounds.
3. there’s the threat of riot;I have little doubt that some inner cities will burn if Mr. Obama is frog marched out of the Whitehouse - to me, the million man victory party he announced for Chicago last October was always at least in part a threat to burn down the city if he lost.

   History shows, however, that appeasement may slow, but certainly ensures, the process of defeat - and thus that capitulation to this threat now essentially guarantees the end of American democracy in the not too distant future.

   The cold bottom line on this is that major riots, accompanied by significant death and injury to both participants and bystanders, amount to nothing compared to the damage the Democrats are doing to the economy, to democracy, and to the continuation of the republic. Mr. McCain, every war has “collateral damage”, every revolution its share of death and destruction - let me urge you to consider first the greater good, and secondly the likelihood of riots as a siren call for honest reform in education, welfare, and justice.

4. on the issue of whether or not Mr. Obama’s claimed electoral victory trumps the Constitution, please consider:
   • that presidential elections are not part of the constitutional change process;
   • that his claimed total popular vote amounts to only 32% of the count of eligible voters - nowhere near a majority and hardly an overwhelming mandate;
   • that the two professional polls commissioned by John Ziegler suggest that 98% of the people who voted for Mr. Obama did so largely on the basis of media supplied mis-information about the issues and candidates - with Zogby reporting, for example, that only 11.2% of Obama voters were aware of his promise to bankrupt America’s coal industry;
   • that almost everything about his victory, from the role played by key media supporters, through fund raising practices, to the role of ACORN, has the smell of corruption, power politics, and manipulation about it;
   • and, consider too, please, the numerous losses suffered by good Republicans because of media dishonesty and Democrat manipulation of the courts: Senator Coleman, for example, won the election, but seems slated to lose in court - and Senator Stevens, of course, was the victim of such gross political misconduct by his prosecutors that even Mr. Holder found it more expedient to dismiss them, and thus the charges against Senator Stevens, than to defend them.
5. and, finally, there’s the issue of damage to the Republic and the Office of the President if you come to occupy that office as a result of ousting Mr.Obama. Really, can you function as President if your actions now bring Mr. Obama down?I believe you could, but I also think that pre-committing to resigning in Ms. Palin’s favor immediately after the swearing in ceremony would be the wooden stake to go with the silver bullet, something that by reducing and redirecting the media reaction ensures that your actions produce the greatest gift you could give the Republic: a new commitment to democracy and a fresh start with a popular and powerful new leader.

Mr. McCain your entire life has been one of honor and service to the Republic: you know you have the right, the means, and the duty to act.

Signed: Paul Murphy

People do what they know how to do. Obama knows how to campaign - and that’s what he’s doing.

He has no executive experience - and the Whitehouse is accordingly a shambles.

So what are we left with? President Pelosi - with Dodds, Rangel, and Reid as leading cabinet members.

And vice president Rahm - using the situation room for political briefings? - just part of burning down the economy while the whitehouse fiddles with its teleprompter.

The stimulus, the budget, the apologies to Hamas and Iran, the betrayals of Israel and Taiwan, the imposition of cap and trade, the destruction of both nuclear and coal options for energy generation, and the abandonment of any standard of decency in mass media political coverage - what one action by Mr. Obama would cement all this and more in place to the point that only an unparalleled and unlikely violent revolution could save the country?

He could resign.

It seems ridiculous, counter-intuitive, utterly absurd - but good strategic play often does - so let me explain.

Assume for the moment that Mr. Obama believes his role as President to be vulnerable on eligibility - that he sees, in other words, a real possibility that either a court of sufficient jurisdiction or public opinion could turn against him on this issue. If so, he should see his options in terms of the following major scenarios:

• public opinion turns against him, but no court of sufficient jurisdiction has the courage to order him forced out.

  In this situation, his term becomes the mother of all lame duck sessions, the “blue dog” democrats abandon him, Republicans prevent the implementation of most of his agenda, the democrats lose big in 2010, and he spends the rest of his life hoping to hide in obscurity.

• it goes to a court of sufficient jurisdiction but he’s allowed to resign before the verdict comes down.

  In this case he still loses any hope of returning to power in America, but Biden takes over as President; Mrs Clinton moves up; and a long running battle begins with Republicans and blue dogs trying to prevent implementation, Biden and Reid doing little either way, and Pelosi fighting Clinton for personal prominence throughout the remainder of their terms in office.

• The appropriate court makes the appropriate ruling and he’s effectively perp walked out of the Whitehouse.

  In this case he and his backers lose everything - while Republicans win big.

  McCain becomes president; Palin, Gingrich, and Romney take over on energy and the economy; the Dow doubles overnight; the foreign policy reversals get reversed; and there are suddenly enough blue democrats in the House and Senate to bring the Liebermann wing of the party back to power - sending leading democrats including Dodd, Franks, Reid, and Pelosi to jail or retirement.

  On the downside Wilkerson’s vision of inner city riots and looting comes true - but people like me point out first that history always rewards those who confront and resolve over those who appease, and second that the economic surge triggered by the CAFE repeal and Drill Here. Drill now program offers new opportunities for dealing with the underlying problem: educational failure.

• He resigns, claiming a sudden realization that he doesn’t meet the natural born requirement - and says that yes, it’s a mere technicality, but the President of the United States swears to uphold the constitution and so, with regrets, it’s both his duty and his honor to resign.

  In this case Biden takes over; Mrs. Clinton moves up; Obama’s powerbase is strengthened by huge worldwide media accolades; blue dogs become redder; opposition to the agenda withers; he gains public and party power over Pelosi and Reid, chairs a constitutional conference nominally called to remove the “stupidest” clause from the constitution but which also eliminates the 2nd (right to arms) and 22nd (term limits) amendments; and, nobody would dare raise the eligibility issue again before his triumphant return as President for life in 2012.

In other words, if he feels any vulnerability on eligibility, then resigning over the natural born clause now would be a strategic master stroke - and so the question is: does he feel vulnerable?

He should: he claims that his father was Kenyan holding British citizenship - and while his birth in Hawaii makes him a legal American citizen, his father’s citizenship denies him natural born status.

More subtly, his failure to reclaim American citizenship after his mother’s renunciation of that status in Indonesia makes him an illegal immigrant today.

I’ll have more on this tomorrow, but it’s his inability to meet the natural born criteria that counts here: first because it’s forgivable as in no way his fault; and more importantly because it’s mutable: meaning that he benefits from “noticing” it, resigning, and then getting the constitution changed to accommodate him.

What’s wrong with the stimulus?

There are three big problems with the Pelosi/Reid stimulus plan Mr. Obama has now signed into law:

1. the Keynesian macro economic ideas underlying the stimulus part of the bill do not fit the problem and will not work;
2. the bill is heavily loaded with unreviewed and undiscussed agenda spending; and,
3. there has been no significant discussion of alternatives on either the agenda or the economic policy issues.

At this point, of course, it would take a miracle to stop implementation of the bill - so that’s what this article is about: proposing an alternative and then discussing two ways of getting it accepted in place of this bill.

The Keynesian macro-economic idea: that an economy in trouble can borrow to spend its way out of recession, has a 100% record of failure. From American experience in the 1930s to Japan’s enormous public works programs in the 1990s, the application of Keynesian “levers of power” in national policy has consistently resulted in reduced employment, greater national debt, and longer term currency devaluation (expressed internally to the economy as inflation).

The reason for that becomes immediately obvious if you think about the stimulus strategy in the context of a large family in which one or two members lose their sources of outside income. In that situation the Keynesian recommendation is that other family members loan these people money in the expectation that they will use it to buy food, lodging, and other services from family members.

In the very short term this can help those who’ve lost their income, it can make the family feel good about taking care of their own, and it can transfer some of the family’s wealth to those providing the food and other support. Unfortunately, however, the longer term effect is to cause the family as a whole to lose wealth because the people providing that food and lodging have to get it by spending some of their money with strangers.

What’s wrong with the application of Keynesian economic theory, in other words, is that the theory assumes something that doesn’t exist in reality: an economy closed off from others by high tariff barriers - and what the dismal failure of every attempt to implement his ideas demonstrates is that even Japan’s barriers aren’t high enough. Some leakage always occurs, and making up for this by simply printing more money just devalues the currency as more and more of it is backed by less and less real wealth.

To really respond to the problem what the family has to do, and what the United States has to do, is to decrease short term spending while increasing earnings -at least until the lost income has been replaced and normal spending can be resumed.

The stimulus part of the Obama package does the opposite, and it can take a very long time for an economy damaged by this kind of thing to recover: eighteen years after Prime Minister Kaifu and his liberal democrats tried the stimulus idea Japan still hasn’t fully recovered; the damage inflicted by the Trudeau liberals in Canada during the Carter years didn’t get worked out until price change drove resource export revenues up over the last few years - and it took roughly seventeen years before the productive capacity built to fight World War II bought the United States out of FDR’s New Deal.

The economic plan

For a public policy response to a recession in an open economy to work, it has to create wealth rather than borrow it - and the recipe for doing that is well known: tax cuts lead to investment, investment creates jobs, the work done in those jobs creates wealth.

From the public’s perspective the cheapest and most effective tax cuts come as regulatory relief because these marginally reduce government spending, cost government nothing in lost taxes, and tend to produce new direct jobs with very high economic multipliers.

Canceling CAFE - the fleet fuel economy standards imposed on Detroit - would, for example, cost the taxpayer nothing while lifting the death sentence handed Detroit by congressional democrats: quickly putting tens of thousands back to work, protecting hundreds of thousands of jobs and pensions, and giving the American consumer back the right to choose which vehicle to buy.

But, doesn’t that endanger the earth?

There’s no doubt that repealing the CAFE rules would free Detroit to act rationally: making the big vehicles Americans want and the left professes to hate for environmental reasons, and any move to stand down the CAFE rules would therefore collide head on with three beliefs so deeply entrenched in the media psyche that questioning them looks politically impossible:

1. that CAFE responds to the economic cost and national security consequences of a reliance on imported oil;
2. that CAFE responds to the threat posed by global warming; and,
3. that CAFE is a forward looking response to the peak oil hypothesis - the idea that the world will run out of oil.

Fortunately, however, all three beliefs are unfounded:

1. America’s need to import energy is the direct result of regulation. Remove the regulatory barriers to American energy production and that production will happen.Implementing Newt Gingrich’s “Drill Here, Drill now” for everything from oil and gas to nuclear will make Americans more secure while redirecting the flow of consumer cash now going to foreign despots to American workers and investors - and in that process generate hundreds of thousands of American jobs, tens of billions in new American wealth, and enough new energy to shift the balance of world financial and manufacturing power back to the United States.

   The rationale for most of the regulations that would have to be weakened to let this happen is environmental - but:

   1. the alternative to American energy production is foreign energy production - without any of the environmental controls and expectations Americans take for granted. Pollution is a world problem: producing energy in a cash hungry dictatorship like Venezuela is a lot dirtier than producing it in the United States - meaning that the “pro-environment” regulations forcing Americans to import energy have the opposite effect: that of increasing pollution.
   2. the bad press Nuclear power always gets is ultimately traceable to a Soviet disinformation program intended to slow American progress to the hydrogen economy widely predicted in the 1950s - a program instituted after Kennedy’s election and subsequent collapse allowed Stalinist hardliners within the Soviet politburo to re-assert control.The China Syndrome, for example, was a hugely influential propaganda movie staring “Hanoi Jane” -an American who publically praised the Viet Cong for killing Americans and has since exerted considerable influence over CNN editorial direction- but has no basis in fact.

      In reality the safety and environmental record of the American nuclear program has been astonishingly good with no significant accidents in more than fifty years - even the Three Mile Island incident in 1979, although frequently cited by anti-nuclear activists as a community horror story, in itself produced no objectively verifiable harm to anyone.

      The Chernobyl hydrogen explosion did, of course, cause significant harm to tens of thousands of people but isn’t generally cited by environmentalists - presumably because everything about it, from substandard construction based on overscaling a 1943 American research reactor, to the inevitable response failure, illustrates both what’s wrong with the system of government they espouse and what’s right about the American approach to industrial safety.

   3. Al Gore to the contrary, using American hydrocarbon resources will not trigger a climate Armageddon.The fundamental claim: that changes in atmospheric CO2 levels cause superlinear change in atmospheric heat retention, has no scientific foundation.

      Adding CO2 to a flask of air does increase both the heat carrying capacity of the gas in the flask and its thermal opacity, but both effects happen because CO2 is denser than air, not because of any magical greenhouse properties - the phrase itself, by the way, comes from a 1969 technical publication by Dr. A.P. Ingersoll whose full title is: The Runaway Greenhouse: A History of Water on Venus, and refers to water vapor, not CO2 - and the popular misunderstanding that atmospheric CO2 traps thermal radiation was actually disproven by physicist R.W. Wood in 1909.

      Thus it’s not surprising that what is known of the historical record suggests that atmospheric CO2 increases follow, and do not lead periods in which global average temperatures have risen - and, of course, the average temperatures thought to have occurred in Europe and Asia during the medieval warming period not only preceded any significant human CO2 emissions, but completely failed to wipe out the polar bear or otherwise permanently affect the arctic ecology despite exceeding, over a continuous two hundred year period and by significant margins, average temperatures recorded in 1998 - the hottest year since the 1930s.

      Basically the entire gambit of selling human produced CO2 as a significant cause of negative climate change is scientific nonsense - something underlined by the tendency of climates on planets, including Mars and Venus, where there are no American SUVs, to move in near lock step with change on earth.

   4. On its surface the peak oil hypothesis looks reasonable: keep using oil and at some point we’ll run out of it - but this is a bit simple minded. In reality, the oil based infrastructure we have, with refined products like gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel powering most of our transportation system, is indefinitely sustainable.This seems absurd, but it’s high school chemistry: burning oil does not destroy any of its constituents, it just liberates some of the chemical energy stored in its molecular bonds - and because the earth is very nearly a closed system with respect to hydrocarbons, this means that any adequate energy source can be used to recombine those constituents to make as much fuel as we need from nothing more than seawater and atmospheric gases (particularly C02).

      Of course these plants will take years to design, prove, and build - so peak oil believers will tell you that the world doesn’t have time to get them in place - but in reality there’s no terrible urgency to this. In reality, free flowing oil and gas typically represent a few percent of the real reserve in each known field - and as scarcities produce price increases, tapping more of the rest becomes economically viable. Thus a field that’s 90% depleted at $30 oil, is usually less than 10% depleted at $90 oil - meaning that present levels of consumption can easily be sustained for perhaps hundreds of years - and certainly for however long it takes to get recombination technology into production.

   Thus the bottom line on this is simple: we have two groups of interacting regulations: those which, like CAFE, seek to ration energy use; and those which, like the tangle constraining drilling and nuclear, seek to limit energy production - but neither one has any basis in reality and both can therefore be rolled back without threatening the environment.

   But it’s too late - the bill is law

   Democrats would have you believe that the bill is law, a done deal - and there’s nothing you can do about it.

   That’s a lie: there are at least two, complementary, attack strategies:

   1. the first strategy is to fight each agenda item - like the attacks on states rights or the commitment to state controlled medical services rationing - in the traditional ways: using politics, the courts, and the press to slow spending and the imposition of change.This approach will mitigate the damage: slowing adoption of the worst excesses and eventually leading to some new and stable compromise - and of course we can all dream of full repeal after the election of a sensible Congress in 2010.
   2. the second strategy amounts to a Hail Mary pass - now that Obama has signed the bill into law, action on proof of his ineligibility for the office of the Presidency will both void the bill and create an enormous opportunity for reasonable people in Congress to put together a deregulatory alternative.

   Pursuing the first strategy is natural - difficult, but natural: and some people, particularly partisan Republicans and states rights advocates, will undoubtedly be doing this. However, theirs will be an uphill battle against a committed national media, a liberal judiciary, and significant democrat majorities in both houses of Congress.

   The Hail Mary pass should be absurd - but isn’t. There’s little doubt that the Obama campaign committed various financial frauds on its way to victory - the only real issues there are that the review and prosecution processes take a very long time and are likely, because Obama won, to focus almost exclusively on the junior players involved.

   The personal eligibility issue is more interesting; because you’d think this should be tin foil hat stuff - but then you find that there isn’t any actual doubt about his technical ineligibility.

   The constitution requires that the president be a “natural born citizen” - and while democrats would have you believe there’s some ambiguity about this, there isn’t. Think about the term “natural justice” - the idea that some concepts of right and wrong supersede the law - and you’ll understand the general usage of “natural” in this context to indicate the precedence of God’s law over Man’s.

   Thus what the term “natural born citizen” means today, and has meant for three centuries, is someone whose citizenship is established by right of birth, not right of law - and Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution therefore specifically bars anyone whose citizenship is established only by law, and thus not by nature, from the Office of the Presidency.

   There’s no issue here: someone whose father held British citizenship at the time of his birth is not a “natural born” citizen of the United States - thus Obama, by his own testimony, indisputably holds his American citizenship by right of law, (specifically the 14th amendment and consequent legislation),  not right of birth; and is therefore specifically excluded by both wording and intent from the Office of the Presidency.

   Given the fact that the senate choose to investigate John McCain’s citizenship status on far flimsier grounds, this means that the English citizenship Obama inherited at birth would surely have disqualified him from the beginning had he run as a Republican - but media inequities are what they are, and Obama’s obvious ineligibility for the office is being treated exactly like Mrs Clinton’s ineligibility to serve as Secretary of State: perfectly clear in law, but widely ignored because it’s seen as a unfair to a leading democrat in its application.

   Most of the challenges, however, don’t take this as their primary basis. Most of the challenges invoke, instead, one of three alternate theories to declare him ineligible:

   1. that he was born in Kenya, then returned to Hawaii by his mother and is ineligible by both birth and citizenship;This claim has no obvious factual support - other than eyewitness claims by interested parties including his Kenyan grandmother and the absence of birth documentation in Hawaiian hospital records - but cannot be disproven by the evidence at hand either:
      1. No one in the Hawaii government has said he was born there: what they’ve said is that they have the records.
      2. The certificate of live birth provided by the Obama campaign appears to be a crude forgery. Comparable certificates for other mixed race children born in Hawaii during that period have the words “Negro” or “Negroid” for the father’s race - not the apologetic modern “African” shown on Obama’s.
      3. The source for the newspaper announcements pointed to by those arguing for Obama’s Hawaiian birth is not known. If his grandmother placed them, she could have done so whether he was born in in her front parlor or in Kenya and on his way to her.
   2. that he knows his real father was a far left activist named Davis and is ineligible because he’s running under an alias;The “Davis” hypothesis raises some interesting issues, but on net would actually strengthen his claim to eligibility since Davis was an American - and would also provide cover for his refusal to provide documentation.

      What’s most intriguing about it, however, is that it’s also the only explanation anyone has offered for the extraordinary support that got him into, and kept him in, very expensive (and very left wing) private schools in Hawaii, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

   3. or, that his adoption in Indonesia and subsequent travel in Pakistan demonstrate that he was not, and did not consider himself to be, an American citizen at the time and is ineligible because he gave up, or his mother gave up on his behalf, his American citizenship.
      1. The Pakistan travel argument is simple: He claims to have traveled in Pakistan when it was illegal for Americans to do so. Therefore he didn’t travel on an American passport -and if he traveled in Pakistan as a foreign national then he’s ineligible either because he’s not American or because he traveled under a false passport without appropriate official sanction.Unfortunately, we only have his word for the travel: this was something he cited to give himself foreign experience during the campaign - something that can be easily dismissed as just one more lie on the trail to electoral success.
      2. His defenders claim that the Indonesian citizenship issue is obfuscated by a tangle of applicable law in both countries - basically, mid sixties Indonesian law on citizenship was in a state of flux (leading to serious bloodshed a few years later) - and American law has changed a few times too. This is true, but not relevant - what is relevant is that under Indonesian law, then and now, his mother could not have married into an Indonesian Muslim family without formally renouncing both her own American citizenship and that of any dependent children - including Obama.Since she did marry, did accept Islam, and did send Obama to a Muslim school, she had to have signed the renunciations - making Obama either British (Indonesian law at the time passed citizenship through the father) or Indonesian (Indonesian law after the citizenship reforms of the late sixties).

         Under American law, which allows dependent children whose parents renounce their citizenship to formally reclaim their American birthright on or after their return to America, Obama could have reversed this on or after his return to Hawaii - but no one has produced any evidence that he did.

         As a result his legal citizenship today is either Indonesian or British - and on this it doesn’t matter whether he born in Hawaii or Kenya, or whether his father was Obama or Davis - his failure to reclaim his citizenship on his return to the United States makes him ineligible for the Office he holds.

   The bottom line on these allegations is that the British citizenship inherited from his claimed father is certainly correct but a technicality which many feel would be unfair to hold against the son. The Davis as father hypothesis is interesting but embarrassing rather than determinative, and the travel in Pakistan business easily side-stepped by claiming the lesser lie.

   The failure to reclaim American citizenship is, in contrast, both indisputable on the record as we have it and easily seen as a continuation of his mother’s deep contempt for, and rejection of, American values -and not by a dependent child: by the young man who has since “brought a good speech” to his current role as President of the United States.

   It’s this continuation of his mother’s contempt for American values that makes the citizenship issue easily exploitable politically - and the vulnerability this creates probably explains his willingness to spend millions of other people’s dollars to prevent public release of the applicable records: most recently hiring the high profile law firm of Strumwasser & Woocher to intervene against a subpoena directing California’s Occidental College to produce his enrollment records by threatening those questioning his status with personal financial ruin.

   There are two important and disturbing notes to this:

   1. first, the whole birth certificate issue appears to be a sacrificial red herring - possibly even designed and prompted by the Obama campaign itself to ensure that if public scrutiny of his actual immigration status ever develops real momentum, it can be permanently derailed by production of the real certificate - even though his place of birth has absolutely nothing to do with either his inability to meet the technical standard as natural born, or his failure to reclaim his American citizenship after his mother renounced it on his behalf.
   2. second, Obama’s continued success in surpressing discussion of the eligibility question by disparaging those who raise it as “truthers” undoubtedly resonates with those who still see the 2000 Bush V. Gore decision as wrong, but is ultimately leveraged on the threat of riot if he is removed on constitutional grounds.Accepting this is an act of cowardice: here, as elsewhere, silence is acquiescence and the mass media’s failure to raise the issue a dishonourable act of appeasement with nothing less at stake than the foundations of American freedoms in constitutional law.

   There is no doubt that Obama’s forcible removal from office is a distasteful prospect, but there is equally no reasonable basis for doubt about his ineligibility for that office - and therefore that all of the orders and bills he has signed, or will sign while in office - including his appointments, overtures to Iran, abandonment of Israel, and the stimulus bill - are null and void in law.

   Getting the job done will be hard - but it’s a job that has to be done: the stakes are simply too high not to fight. Obama and the democrats have just handed America a ten to fifteen year economic setback, a trillion dollars in new public debt, and a sweeping social agenda guaranteed to seriously weaken America in the face of the world’s problems - all of which will naturally get worse: from a nuclear Iran and the collapse of Pakistan to the Communist takeover of Taiwan, the price for America’s failure will be paid in American freedoms, world progress, and generations of blood.

Here’s a terrible thought about Obama’s first couple of weeks: if America’s worst enemies were in control of the White House and Congress, what would they do differently?

Side with Hamas against Israel? Done. Release Al Quaida prisoners? In progress. Abandon American commitments to freedom worldwide - and particularly in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Taiwan? In progress.

Create internment camps inside the United States? In progress. Stack the courts to reduce legislative precedence in social regulation? In progress. Reduce military budgets? In progress. Reverse the educational trend toward teaching basic skills? In progress. Stage show trials for Bushies? in progress. Reduce impediments to illegal immigration and welfare? In progress. Increase the power of unions, and thereby decrease economic productivity? In progress. Reduce internal dissent by silencing right wing radio and the blogosphere? In progress.

And how about destroying the free market system? That’s been a longer term project, but it’s in progress too.

The housing collapse, subsequent credit crunch, and consequent loss of solvency by major banks all have direct roots in democrat congressional action and misguided government intervention in the markets. The timing of the collapse contributed to bringing Obama, Pelosi, and Reid to near absolute power - and their proposed response, an enormous spending binge, is about to make matters a lot worse.

The reason the stimulus will make matters worse is simple and easily understood: you don’t spend your way out of a financial crisis, you earn your way out. Consider the family analogy: if your primary income disappears, can you fix the problem by borrowing? No. You can use minimal borrowing to get yourself to the point where new income comes in, but you can only fix your financial problem by going out and earning more money.

For the U.S. economy to recover the U.S. has to produce, not borrow, wealth. The recipe for doing that is well known: tax cuts lead to investment, investment creates jobs, the work done in those jobs creates wealth.

In thinking about this we need to be very clear about one thing: regulations impose costs and are therefore economically like taxes - and, conversely, the removal of onerous regulations is economically indistinguishable from a tax reduction.

So what regulations could most usefully be reduced? The linchpin on that list is CAFE - the fleet fuel economy constraints imposed by congress.

After fifty years of marketing Americans have been conditioned to believe that Detroit makes big, inefficient, vehicles; Asia makes small efficient vehicles; and, Europe makes either cheap junk or high cost and high prestige stuff. There is very little truth to any of this, but it has a significant real consequence: a small car made by Ford won’t sell against one labeled “Toyota” - even if the latter is actually made by GM in California.

That reality combines with another historical artifact: the structure of management obligations to labor in plants run directly by the “big three”. That structure means the companies’ make money selling the vehicles Americans want: big, heavy, fast vehicles providing safety and convenience on today’s freeways - but lose money on the vehicles mandated by CAFE that few customers actually want: small and light collapsibles without the power to compete on today’s streets and highways.

Thus removing the CAFE standards would remove the death sentence handed Detroit by congressional democrats - putting hundreds of thousands back to work, protecting millions of jobs, and costing the taxpayer nothing while giving back the American consumer’s right to free choice.

But what about other costs? After all CAFE was sold to and by democrats as a joint response to the short term cost of importing energy, the need to reduce CO2 emission in response to global warming, and the need to adapt our energy use pattern in response to the peak oil hypothesis.

America’s need to import energy is the direct result of regulation: remove the regulatory barriers to American energy production and that production will happen. Implementing Newt Gingrich’s “Drill Here, Drill now” for everything from oil and gas to nuclear will generate billions in new American wealth along with hundreds of thousands of American jobs and enough energy to shift the balance of world financial power back to the United States.

Al Gore to the contrary, using these resources will not trigger a climate Armageddon: what is known of the historical record shows that CO2 accumulations follow, and do not lead periods in which global average temperatures have apparently risen; the average temperatures known to have occurred in Europe and Asia during the medieval warming period not only seriously exceeded those recorded in the same areas in 1998 (the hottest recent year) but completely failed to wipe out the polar bear or otherwise significantly affect the arctic ecology; and, the lock step atmospheric expansion seen on Earth, Mars, Venus, and Pluto in the twenty five years prior to about 2000 have now reversed to an equally lock step contraction - a reality that writes an absolute finis to the human causation argument.

The peak oil hypothesis makes the apparently reasonable argument that the earth’s oil and gas resources are finite and therefore that using them will eventually lead to scarcity - but this is wrong. In reality burning oil does not destroy its constituents, it merely liberates some of the chemical energy stored in its molecular bonds. As a result the long run answer is that nuclear energy can be used to make arbitrary amounts of oil from water and atmospheric gasses - and the short term answer is that free flowing oil and gas typically represent a few percent of the real reserve in each known field - and as scarcities produce price increases tapping the rest becomes increasingly economically viable.

Thus reversing CAFE and implementing the Drill Here, Drill now program would, together, stop the slide into depression - and leave only market uncertainty as the remaining economic threat.

That can only be dealt with through political action: through the stimulation of shared belief in a positive future: one in which the rules are known, government doesn’t play favorites, and business decisions are made by business people, not politicians, bureaucrats, or judges.

Thus for the battle of Obama to become the GOP’s finest hour - a battle generations of Americans will celebrate - two things are needed:

1. an absolute commitment to impeaching this president right after the 2010 elections put enough honest people into both houses of congress to do it; and,
2. an equally absolute commitment to oppose democrat missrule in all its forms, starting by forcing the repeal of the CAFE legislation and the implementation of the full Drill here, Drill now program instead of incurring a trillion dollar deficit, and ending only with the defeat and possible prosecution of corruption from Franks to Obama, and from Pelosi to Reid.

So how?

Attack Obama in every possible way, and on every possible ground: explore every vulnerability from  citizenship and eligibility to terrorist connections - throw gasoline on every misstep, expose the corruption of his allies and the moral bankruptcy allowing him to agree with both sides on everything while actually pursuing a far left agenda.

And do the same in congress: get people working now to target every democrat running in 2010: make gutting Obama and punishing those responsible for the current economic mess a centerpiece of every campaign - be clear with everyone: his agenda cannot stand scrutiny, so you will scrutinize. Make it absolutely clear that the GOP will move to impeach just as soon as it’s legally and electorally possible to do so. Make every congressional election, every senate election, about Obama: not about policies, not about local players and personalities: about Obama - about all the mistakes he’ll make, about the economic disaster his friends have created, about the  foreign policy setbacks and diminutions of freedom democrat reign is bringing about.

When you win, and you will, then you’ll face the next great challenge: helping rebuild the democratic party as an opposition to be proud of.

As you know the situation in the United States is an unmitigated disaster with phenomenal increases in the money supply now guaranteeing massive future inflation, partisan anti-energy agendas driving an inevitable move to impose crippling new taxes on energy use, and the people most responsible for the present financial crisis in charge of the recovery effort.

In reality, they could fix their economy simply by canceling the CAFE standards crippling the auto industry; freeing the energy industry to drill, build power plants, and abandon the expense chimeria of wind and solar power; limit federal fund usage to buying risk - risk imposed by Congress - out of the system; and finding some credible way to renounce their ambitions in terms of health care nationalization.

Unfortunately, of course, none of that is going to happen and so things are what they are - and Canada will have to deal with it as best we can.

Following them down the road to massive government expenditures is not the way to do this - think about it, a cumulative $60 billion in new federal deficit spending floating at the 18% rates we can expect by 2012?

Instead, good conservative government, including a continuing focus on budgetary discipline and deficit reduction, should strengthen the country and position us to benefit tremendously when the American pendulum swings back - as it will inevitably do.

So here’s some unsolicited advice on the current “coalition” crisis: replace the governor general with someone who can be trusted to call an election if your government loses the budget vote; introduce a responsible, conservative budget; and encourage the other parties to take their chances with the electorate.

It’s possible they’ll find the courage to challenge you, but I’d bet against it - and if they do? The liberals might gain a few seats but the NDP and separatists should lose some to you and some to them - putting you in a much stronger position afterward.

Wow, oh shit, holy mfgod - I just came from a meeting and, Dear Diary, I have to write this down NOW!! I’m on her senate payroll again - and headed for the Whitehouse!

Arnie thinks Obama’s going to say he wanted to appoint her SOS but the constitution stops him - but he’s the only one  -most think  Mr. Kim put the fix in, after those August meetings - and the law be damned.  She’ll be third in line - and then they’re going to drop the Indonesian passport thing on him. At worst she’s VP, at best: Hello! President Clinton.

And no election - no ACORN, no arm twisting, no vote cheating, no foreign cash on us - it’s all on him while she wears a golden halo riding to the rescue. It’s brilliant, diary, just fucking brilliant.

And I’m headed for the Whitehouse!

My name is Paul Murphy. I’m Canadian, but I have ODS - Obama Derangement Syndrome - and if you do too, here’s a program for 2010 you might find interesting.

I want to suggest a three part program aimed at restored sanity:

1. Deny Obama the halo of election.Attack, attack, attack: on electoral fraud, on financial fraud, on cronies, on abortion, on contacts with Hamas, on media bias, on eligibility, on anything and everything.

   Do what McCain wouldn’t: get down and dirty and make it clear that he will be impeached and removed from office the day after Republicans elected to the House and Senate in 2010 are sworn in.

2. Focus on 2010.Commit every party resource, every effort, to sweeping the House, the Senate races, and the governor’s mansions in 2010.

   Fight every action taken in congress to limit human and economic freedom: make repeal in 2011 the automatic corollary to anything that gets past the defenders in both the house and senate.

   Establish, and heavily advertise, a well staffed, Washington (DC) based, law firm committed to helping civil servants and other government officials understand and fight any illegal actions they’re asked to undertake as part of their jobs. For example, officials asked to help establish internet censorship could use this organization first to understand their responsibilities under the second amendment and second to protect themselves and their families from the consequences of refusing to go along.

3. Use the Office of the Presidency to protect the United States from Obama’s extremism.Mr. Bush has to act and can act - against tradition, but for the United States: on defense, on the economy, on appointments, and on electoral reform. In each case he can both do the right thing, and create situations in which the idealogues in the House and Senate will be forced to antagonize their “blue dog” colleagues while publically taking strong positions that can be exploited against them in 2010, 2012, and 2014.

   Some examples:

   • Appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Obama’s campaign finances. There’s no reasonable doubt that he received illegal contributions and did not reject them, there is no reasonable question about whether this was against the law. He should not get away with it simply because he appears to have won election.
   • Appoint a special prosecutor to look into vote fraud - from ACORN through to counting process issues in the various states. A federal investigation co-ordinated with the various states attorney’s general is needed to ensure the integrity of the voting result.
   • Appoint a special prosecutor to pursue charges, particularly with respect to executives and legislators acting on payoffs, against those involved in the Fannie/Freddie frauds.
   • On energy, the President can cite a national economic emergency to directly issue permits for drilling, recovery operations, and both nuclear and coal plant construction.
   • On the economy, the President can suspend the CAFE standards, suspend Sarbanes-Oxley (at a minimum suspend FASB 157), and direct that the mortgage bailout funds be spent entirely, or as nearly so as may now be possible, to support a new, and limited term, FHA initiative to bet on Americans through a leveraged buy up of home mortgage risk.
   • On defense, the President can order a number of purchases and deployments. For example, he could order that the tankers be purchased from Boeing, that SDI be allocated more funds, and that all forces personnel now stationed in Germany be brought home as quickly as possible.
   • On foreign affairs the President can order full recognition, including support for its membership in the United Nations, of Taiwan.
   • On show trials for Republicans, the President can issue a general pardon - allowing for prosecution only when clear criminal code violations have been proven to exist before his term expires.

Each one of these actions will enrage the press, enrage opposed interest groups, and draw the harshest possible condemnations from congressional democrats. But so what? Once they’re done, they’re done - and in both the House and the Senate there are enough sane democrats to make them almost impossible for Obama, Reid, and Pelosi to reverse.

And what of 2010 and beyond? Beyond 2010 we have the big issues - the ones Republicans like to fight about: God, Country, personal freedom, and community - but lets take care of the little things first: things like restoring the economy, restoring electoral fairness, and reversing whatever damage he’s done in international affairs and defense.