Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Media Finally Paying Attention to Eligibility? See which major networks plan on covering Cold Case Posse Results: WMD, Feb. 29, 2012



See which major networks plan on covering Cold Case Posse results

PHOENIX, Ariz. – Poll after poll in recent months has indicated that Americans have a high level of concern over Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president, with one poll showing fully half of the nation wants Congress to investigate the question.
But reporters for the traditional media – networks, major newspapers, major news corporations and conglomerates – mostly have giggled when talk turns to the serious question of just what the U.S. Constitution requires of presidents.
Nevertheless, media organizations from all political persuasions are seeking admittance to a news conference to be held by Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Ariz.
The event is tomorrow at 1 p.m. Mountain Standard Time in Phoenix, 3 p.m. Eastern, and will be live-streamed by WND.
The topic of discussion will be an investigation by Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse into concerns about Obama’s eligibility. It’s the first time an official law enforcement report has addressed many of the allegations about the presumptive 2012 Democratic nominee for president.
The issues include Obama’s eligibility under the U.S. Constitution’s requirements, questions about his use of a Connecticut Social Security number and the image of his purported birth certificate from Hawaii.
Top national media organizations have indicated their plans to attend, and bookings for radio and television reports are in the works. Expected are reporters from the Associated Press, Reuters, Univision, the Washington Times and NBC, CBS and ABC affiliates, as well statewide radio networks, among many others.
Because of the circumstances, a decision was made to hold the press conference at the sheriff’s training center on the outskirts of Phoenix, rather than at the downtown office.
The event is expected to draw protesters who object to the sheriff’s office review of allegations that Obama may attempt to use a fraudulent document to have his name placed on the 2012 presidential election ballot in Arizona.
Without releasing any details, Arpaio has said the findings “could be a shock.”
He constituted a special five-member law enforcement posse last year to investigate allegations brought by members of the Surprise, Ariz., Tea Party that the Obama birth certificate released to the public by the White House on April 27 might be a forgery.
The posse is made up of three former law enforcement officers and two retired attorneys with law enforcement experience. Members have been examining evidence since September concerning Obama’s eligibility to be president under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, which requires a president to be a natural-born citizen.
Among other issues, there also have been allegations of Obama’s use of a Social Security number that corresponds to a Connecticut address, even though the president apparently had no links there.
WND earlier reported a private investigation found that the Social Security number being used by Obama does not pass a check with E-Verify, the electronic system the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has created to verify whether or not someone is authorized to work legally in the country.
Arpaio’s investigation is the first official law enforcement look at the allegations surrounding Obama’s eligibility. Many of the private investigators who have examined it contend there are too many questionable circumstances to believe that everything regarding Obama is above-board.
Arpaio previously told WND that when he launched his Cold Case Posse it was with the possibility that he would clear Obama.
He said it wasn’t an issue he could ignore, after 250 members of the tea party organization “came to me and asked their sheriff to investigate Obama and the birth certificate.”
The WND TV live-streaming coverage of the news conference Thursday is possible through the support of the Western Center for Journalism.
The decisions in dozens of court cases over the last few years questioning Obama’s eligibility were typified by a recent decision in Georgia in which several individuals filed challenges to Obama’s name on the 2012 ballot and provided evidence to a hearing officer.
Even though Obama and his lawyer deliberately snubbed the case – the lawyer wrote the judge a letter in advance telling him Obama would not attend – the judge threw out the evidence presented by several attorneys and ruled in favor of Obama.
Similar ballot challenges are being filed in a long list of other states already.
The Arpaio investigators were given the case following a meeting held in the sheriff’s office Aug. 17, 2011, with tea party representatives from Surprise, Ariz., who presented a petition signed by more than 250 Maricopa County residents. The petitioners expressed concern that their voting rights could be irreparably compromised if Obama uses a forged birth certificate to be placed on the 2012 presidential ballot in Arizona or otherwise is found to be ineligible.
The tea party letter formally stated the following charge: “The Surprise Tea Party is concerned that no law enforcement agency or other duly constituted government agency has conducted an investigation into the Obama birth certificate to determine if it is in fact an authentic copy of 1961 birth records on file for Barack Obama at the Hawaii Department of Health in Honolulu, or whether it, or they are forgeries.”
The posse was constituted as a 501(c)3 organization, designed to cost the people of Maricopa County nothing, while enabling people from around the country to contribute to its mission.
Those wishing to send a tax-deductible contribution directly to the Cold Case Posse may do so by mailing a check or money order to: MCSO Cold Case Posse, P.O. Box 74374, Phoenix, AZ 85087.
WND has reported that dozens of experts with varying ranges of competency who have looked at the situation believe the birth documentation image released by Obama last year is not genuine.
A flying-banner and billboard campaign to let people know about the questions regarding eligibility that was started by WND CEO and Editor Joseph Farah also has raised the public’s awareness of the situation.
Farah wrote recently that the underlying question to be determined is whether the U.S. Constitution remains the law of the land, or whether it has become “an archaic old document that needs to be amended.”
“At its core, it’s really quite simple: Does Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution dealing with who can serve as president of the United States simply mean that any citizen age 35 or older is eligible? If so, why did the founders use a different term altogether – ‘natural born citizen’? What is a ‘natural born citizen’? Is it anyone born in the United States? If so, why have candidates born outside the United States been deemed eligible? Do we owe it to America’s future to go back in history to determine what that term actually means?
“Until now, as hard as it may be to believe, no official vetting of Obama’s credentials has been done – not by the 50 secretaries of state who oversee elections, not by the Federal Elections Commission that administers the nation’s elections laws, not by the Electoral College, not by any judge in America, not by Congress, not by anyone,” he continued.
Even before the results become public, Farah said he’s confident there will be a significant impact.
“I strongly believe it could be a game-changer,” he said.

How The Commerce Clause Will Be Used To STUFF ObamaCare Down Our Throats by Doug Book Feb. 28, 2012

How The Commerce Clause Will Be Used To Stuff ObamaCare Down Our Throats

barack obama52817 How The Commerce Clause Will Be Used To Stuff ObamaCare Down Our Throats
In 1942, one of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal Supreme Courts ruled that an Ohio farmer named Filburn was NOT permitted to raise the amount of wheat he wished on his own farm, for the purpose of feeding his own family. And for 70 years this and a handful of similar, overreaching decisions by the Court have resulted in the wholesale abuse of a power granted Congress in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, namely the “Commerce Clause.”
In the Wickard v Filburn case, the Court opened to Congress the nearly unlimited power to exercise legislative authority relating to virtually ANYTHING Congress may define as “commerce among the several states.” The Ohio farmer had been fined $117 because he grew winter wheat in excess of the quantity permitted by quota in the Agricultural Adjustment Act.
And even though it was for use on his own farm, the Court decided that Filburn had violated the law, ruling that  through the Act, Congress had the power to create quotas which “…not only embrace all that may be sold without penalty but also what may be consumed on the premises.”  (my italics) The Court considered such sweeping authority to regulate a “…‘necessary and proper’ implementation of the power of Congress over interstate commerce.”
Over the years, Congress has claimed almost unlimited authority to create and defend legislation under its Commerce Clause powers by manufacturing increasingly fanciful connections between congressional action and commerce among the several states.
In 1995 for example, the government claimed before the Supreme Court that authority supporting the federal law against possession of a gun within 1000’ of a school was derived from theCommerce Clause, arguing that school violence would impact negatively on insurance rates and limit travel to an area considered unsafe, both having an effect on commerce!  On this occasion at least,  the Court did not buy into the governments strained assertions.
Yet it is upon the powers wielded by Congress under the Commerce Clause that Barack Hussein Obama is depending for a favorable Supreme Court ruling on the Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act–ObamaCare. The Department of Justice will argue that the federal government has the authority to force American citizens to purchase healthcare coverage mandated by ObamaCare and apply a penalty to those who do not because it has the power to regulate commerce. And the sale and purchase of insurance are commerce.
In response to the government’s assertions, the Liberty Legal Foundation has filed an Amicus (friend of the Court) brief with the Supreme Court pertaining to the ObamaCare-related, “Health and Human Services v Florida” case. But rather than claim the Commerce Clause does not provide the authority required to support Obama’s assault on the liberty of the American people, Liberty Legal argues that the Court should recognize and correct the error made by the 1942 Court and overturn the Wickard v Filburn decision.
For as Liberty Legal rightly points out, “Wickard was a direct cause of exponential growth in federal spending, decreased faith in Congress, shocking growth in federal regulations and loss of freedom in America..”
Oral arguments pertaining to ObamaCare will begin on March 26th and continue for a record 3 days. We already know how 4 members of the Court will decide, including Justice Kagan who reveals the left’s well-known class and respect for rules of proper behavior by her refusal to recuse herself from the case even though she literally helped pass the legislation!
It will be upon the honor of the remaining 5 members of the Court that the liberty of the American public will depend.
Please see the excellent work done on behalf of the American people by the Liberty Legal Foundation at:

Iran's Underground Nuclear Sites Not Immune to U.S. Bunker-Busters, Experts Say: by Joby Warrick Feb. 29, 2012

Iran’s underground nuclear sites not immune to U.S. bunker-busters, experts say

By Updated: Wednesday, February 29, 3:30 AM

Western spy agencies for years have kept watch on a craggy peak in northwest Iran that houses of one the world’s most unusual nuclear sites. Known as Fordow, the facility is built into mountain bunkers designed to withstand aerial attack. Iran’s civil-defense chief has declared the site “impregnable.”
But impregnable it is not, say U.S. military planners who are increasingly confident of their ability to deliver a serious blow against Fordow, should the president ever order an attack.
U.S. officials say they have no imminent plan to bombard the site, and they have cautioned that an American attack — or one by its closest Middle Eastern ally, Israel — risks devastating consequences such as soaring oil prices, Iranian retaliation and dramatically heightened tension in a fragile region.
Yet as a matter of physics, Fordow remains far more vulnerable than generally portrayed, said current and former military and intelligence analysts. Massive new “bunker buster” munitions recently added to the U.S. arsenal would not necessarily have to penetrate the deepest bunkers to cause irreparable damage to infrastructure as well as highly sensitive nuclear equipment, likely setting back Iran’s program by years, officials said.
The weapons’ capabilities are likely to factor in discussions with a stream of Israelis leaders arriving in Washington over the next week. The Obama administration will seek to assure the visitors, including Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, of U.S. resolve to stop Iran if it decides to build a nuclear bomb. White House officials are worried that Israel may launch a preemptive strike against Iran with little or no warning, a move U.S. officials argue would be do little to stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions and may in fact deepen Iran’s determination to become a nuclear state.

In arguing their case, U.S. officials acknowledged some uncertainty over whether even the Pentagon’s newest “bunker-buster” weapon — called the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or MOP — could pierce in a single blow the subterranean chambers where Iran is making enriched uranium. But they said a sustained U.S. attack over multiple days would probably render the plant unusable by collapsing tunnels and irreparably damaging both its highly sensitive centrifuge equipment and the miles of pipes, tubes and wires required to operate it.
“Hardened facilities require multiple sorties,” said a former senior intelligence official who has studied the formerly secret Fordow site and agreed to discuss sensitive details of U.S. strike capabilities on the condition of anonymity. “The question is, how many turns do you get at the apple?”
U.S. confidence has been reinforced by training exercises in which bombers assaulted similar targets in deeply buried bunkers and mountain tunnels, the officials and experts said.
U.S. officials have raised the necessity of multiple strikes as they warn Israel against a unilateral strike against Iran’s nuclear installations, the officials said. While Israel is capable of launching its own bunker-buster bombs against Fordow, it lacks both the United States’ more advanced munitions and the capability of waging a sustained bombing campaign over days and weeks, U.S. officials and analysts said.
The U.S.-Israeli rift over the urgency of stopping Iran’s nuclear progress stems in part from the belief among some Israeli officials that their window for successfully attacking Iran’s nuclear installations is rapidly closing as it moves key assets into bunkers. Barak, in a speech this month, spoke of Iran’s progress in creating a “zone of immunity” for its nuclear program.
To U.S. military planners, the “zone of immunity,” if it exists at all, is still years away. The Obama administration, while not ruling out a future strike, regards military action as a last resort, preferring to allow more time for changing Iran’s behavior through economic and political pressure.
U.S. officials also remain unconvinced that Iran has decided to build a nuclear bomb, though they believe it is pursuing the capacity to do so. Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful energy production.
Fordow is in the barren hills of northwestern Iran just outside Qom, the ancient city that is the spiritual home of the 1979 revolutionary movement. U.S. intelligence officials believe that tunneling began nearly a decade ago for what was intended to be a secret uranium enrichment site that would operate parallel to the country’s much larger, declared enrichment plant at Natanz.
The CIA began monitoring the site at least four years ago, and in 2009, President Obama, flanked by other world leaders, publicly exposed the partially built facility and demanded that Iran come clean about its intentions.
Iran acknowledged that it was building a second uranium-enrichment plant and soon allowed the International Atomic Energy Agency in for a visit. The U.N. inspectors saw a series of chambers built into the side of a mountain and connected by tunnels with thick walls and blast-proof doors. Some of the bunkers were protected by as much 200 to 300 feet of mountain.
The underground plant — not yet fully operational — is relatively small, with space for only about 3,000 centrifuges, compared with the tens of thousands planned for Natanz. But analysts say it’s big enough to process the enriched uranium necessary for at least one nuclear weapon a year, should Iran decide to build them.
Iran started enriching uranium in the Fordow plant in January. A report by U.N. inspectors last week confirmed that the plant is making a purer form of enriched uranium that can be relatively easily converted to weapons-grade fuel.
Iran has publicly defended Fordow’s unusually robust fortification, citing repeated threats by Israel to destroy the country’s nuclear program.
Western analysts believe Fordow has not only the protection afforded by natural rock but also additional hardening that draws on North Korean bunker-building expertise. A report last week by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank, said the facility was believed to include multiple “blast-proof doors, extensive divider walls, hardened ceilings, 20-centimeter-thick concrete walls, and double concrete ceilings with earth filled between layers.”
“Such passive defenses could have a major impact” in blunting the impact of an aerial bombardment, said the report, written by Anthony Cordesman, a former director of intelligence assessment at the Defense Department and now the holder of CSIS’s Arleigh A. Burke Chair in strategy.
Cordesman acknowledged that reports about such fortification “are often premature, exaggerated, or report far higher construction standards than are actually executed.”
Still, current and former U.S. officials acknowledge that Fordow’s fortifications far exceed those of other facilities encountered in other conflicts, including the al-Taji bunkers that shielded Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein’s command posts on the eve of the 2003 Iraq invasion.
Against such a target, the United States has an array of conventional bunker-busting weapons. They include the 5,000-pound BLU-122, capable of penetrating more than 20 feet of concrete or 100 feet of earth before detonating, as well as the far more powerful Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or MOP, a 30,000-pound titan that can be delivered by the country’s largest strategic bombers. Although the weapon’s precise capabilities are classified, the MOP is estimated to be capable of boring through up to 200 feet of dirt and rock before exploding.
The Pentagon is investing tens of millions of dollars to further enhance the MOP’s explosive punch and concrete-piercing capabilities. Some also note that the weapon’s performance is partly dependent on geology, particularly the type and density of the rock through which the bomb passes.
It’s impossible to know precisely what the impact of a bomb would be against such a difficult target. Certainly, U.S. warplanes would set back Iran’s nuclear efforts, said Michael Eisenstadt, a former military adviser to the State Department and Pentagon.
But for how long?
“You never really know until you do it,” said Eisenstadt, director of Military and Security Studies for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “We may be so close to the outer performance limits of the current technology that it becomes a roll of the dice.”
Yet, ultimately, the ability to destroy the Fordow does not depend on whether a bomb physically penetrates the cavern where Iran’s centrifuges are operating, several analysts said.
“There are good outcomes short of destroying” the centrifuge hall, Cordesman said in an interview. Strikes against more accessible targets — from tunnel entrances and air shafts to power and water systems — can effectively knock the plant out of action. Repeated strikes will also make Iran fearful of attempting to repair the damage, he added.
Other analysts stressed the particular vulnerability of centrifuges, machines that spin at supersonic speeds to purify uranium gas into the enriched form usable in nuclear applications. Almost anything that upsets delicately balanced machines — from shock waves and debris to power disruptions — can render them useless, said one former Pentagon official who also requested anonymity in discussing potential Iranian targets.
“If you can target the one piece of critical equipment instead of the whole thing, isn’t that just as good?” the official said. “Even by reducing the entrances to rubble, you’ve effectively entombed the site.”

Your Offensive Obama Oil Policy Infographics of the Day... by Bill S. Feb. 28, 2012

Your Offensive Obama Oil Policy Infographics of the Day

If you’re looking for a single picture that captures the salient points of President Barack Obama’s oil policy, here it is. Courtesy of the Republican Study Committee:
This was timely, given Steve Maley’s excellent posting yesterday on the “10 Ways Obama Could Reduce Gas Prices Now“. Now some on the Left, including the President himself, are trying to convince us that there’s nothing he can do to bring gas prices down in the short term. And in fact it is pretty obvious that his administration’s policies are diametrically opposed to the idea of reducing prices in the first place (witness the Steven Chu quote cited in the infographic). But as my colleague Steve posted in his RedHot tweet last night, there is ample evidence that past Presidential actions have resulted in just such immediate relief as Obama and his minions deny are possible…behold, the second best infographic of the day:
Despite the feeble efforts of the Left to excuse Obama’s offensive energy policy as having little or no impact on gas and oil prices, the evidence speaks for itself. Not only have the policies of the Obama administration had an adverse impact on the price of oil, but theseanti-oil policies are probably hindering the economic recovery that the President supposedly seeks. But hey, Obama’s tree-hugging buddies are pleased as can be at his eco-pandering and continued efforts to use government money to shore up an “alternative energy” industry that is neither profitable nor practical.  While Obama and Chu continue to peddle lies about the oil and gas industry, they stick us with the price tag for follies like Solyndra.  As Marita Noon describes, it’s “Obama’s Fake Fossil Fuel Infatuation“:
While greens describe Section 1603 as a program that “provided grants in lieu of tax credits to small renewable companies,” free market, fiscal conservatives—who don’t like subsidies in the first place—would be outraged if they understood how the program is really used. The PTC gave owners of wind turbines a tax credit of 2.2 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity produced during the first 10 years of operation. A 50 MW installation operating at an average capacity factor of 30% would generate 131,000,000 kWh per year. The owner would receive a PTC of $2,891,000 per year or $28,910,000 over 10 years. However, Section 1603 allowed the turbine owners to take a “cash grant” equal to 30% of capital costs up front ($100-120 million, 30% = $30-36 million) that came directly from the US Treasury—whether or not the turbine ever produced any electricity. This removes the performance risk for the developer and allows projects with a marginal net capacity factor to get built—even though, like Solyndra, the project doesn’t attract enough private investment. Plus, the cash grant is a “grant,” not a loan. The government doesn’t expect any money back. With the money taken up front, rather than annually based on actual production, turbine owners do not have the incentive to keep up the costly maintenance, and the turbines can eventually be abandoned. Additionally, much of the money is given to foreign companies—not “small renewable companies.”
These brief samples of President Obama’s priorities, as outlined in his proposed budget, highlight the flaws of his ideology. Instead of building on strength, it builds on failure. Renewables have repeatedly proven that they are more expensive than traditional fuels and are unwanted—requiring mandates and government programs to create an artificial market. There are thousands of abandoned wind turbines rusting in the wind. There were no buyers for Solyndra. Their stock of solar tubes were tossed in the trash. Fledgling companies from all segments of the renewable industry have gone bankrupt. They were surviving solely on subsidies and couldn’t compete without the frequent cash infusions. Yet, the budget promises them billions more—good money thrown after bad.
Peter Morici, of the University of Maryland Smith School of Business sums it up well:
Under Mr. Obama’s stewardship, the U.S. economy is not recovering as it should. As per usual, the president distracts public attention from poor policy choices by blaming and ridiculing others.
After three years, the president, who promised Americans millions of clean energy jobs in place of a thriving petroleum industry and much lower unemployment, should own up to his mistakes. Most Americans are needlessly paying too much for gas and foreign oil, while federally subsidized solar and wind projects are filing for bankruptcy.
This November, poor judgment and weakness of character—such as the president’s repeated attacks on the petroleum industry and failure to take responsibility for the consequences of his actions—make the most compelling case for change.
Americans should not expect a perfect president but at least one who bases decisions on facts not whimsy, and learns from mistakes.
Americans are simply not getting fact-based leadership and good judgment from President Obama.
The infographic does tell the story:
  • Inauguration Day, 2009:  $1.92 a gallon.  Today: $3.72 a gallon.  
  • Chu: “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels of Europe” 
Yay, Obama Energy Policy!