The Road to 2012
JUNE 15, 2011
Venturing into the unknown future ---A  future that      
may or may not come ---Part 1 --- Installment 5

                            Road to 2012 by Dennis L. Pearson

(c) 2008/2009/2010/2011 by Dennis L. Pearson   All Rights Reserved --- No part of this work
may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopying and recording or by any information storage or retrieval system, without
permission from the author.

Conservatives for a long time have stated that  The
Environmental Protection Agency would encourage a
sweeping energy-rationing regime without asking
Congress. As it happened, predictions as what may
happen became reality  when the EPA,  cap-and-trade
legislation in Congress, and also,  global treaties  
restricted Americans' energy usage.
The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement linked to
the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change. The major feature of the Kyoto Protocol was that
it set binding targets for 37 industrialized countries and
the European community for reducing greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions .These amount to an average of five per
cent against 1990 levels over the five-year period 2008-
The major distinction between the Protocol and the
Convention is that while the Convention encouraged
industrialized countries to stabilize GHG emissions, the
Protocol commits them to do so.
Recognizing that developed countries are principally
responsible for the current high levels of GHG emissions
in the atmosphere as a result of more than 150 years of
industrial activity, the Protocol places a heavier burden on
developed nations under the principle of “common but
differentiated responsibilities.”
The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in Kyoto, Japan, on  
December 11 1997 and entered into force on  February
16,  2005. 184 Parties of the Convention have ratified its
Protocol to date. The detailed rules for the
implementation of the Protocol were adopted at COP 7 in
Marrakesh in 2001, and are called the “Marrakesh
The Kyoto mechanisms
Under the Treaty, countries must meet their targets
primarily through national measures. However, the Kyoto
Protocol offers them an additional means of meeting their
targets by way of three market-based mechanisms.
The Kyoto mechanisms are:
•        Emissions trading – known as “the carbon market"  
•        Clean development mechanism (CDM)
•        Joint implementation (JI).
The mechanisms help stimulate green investment and help
Parties meet their emission targets in a cost-effective
Monitoring emission targets
Under the Protocol, countries’ actual emissions have to be
monitored and precise records have to be kept of the
trades carried out.
Registry systems track and record transactions by
Parties under the mechanisms. The UN Climate Change
Secretariat, based in Bonn, Germany, keeps an
international transaction log to verify that transactions are
consistent with the rules of the Protocol.
Reporting is done by Parties by way of submitting annual
emission inventories and national reports under the
Protocol at regular intervals.
A compliance system ensures that Parties are meeting
their commitments and helps them to meet their
commitments if they have problems doing so.
The Kyoto Protocol, like the Convention, is also designed
to assist countries in adapting to the adverse effects of
climate change. It facilitates the development and
deployment of techniques that can help increase
resilience to the impacts of climate change.
The Adaptation Fund was established to finance
adaptation projects and programs in developing countries
that are Parties to the Kyoto Protocol. The Fund is
financed mainly with a share of proceeds from CDM
project activities.
The road ahead
The Kyoto Protocol is generally seen as an important first
step towards a truly global emission reduction regime that
will stabilize GHG emissions, and provides the essential
architecture for any future international agreement on
climate change.
By the end of the first commitment period of the Kyoto
Protocol in 2012, a new international framework needs to
have been negotiated and ratified that can deliver the
stringent emission reductions the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) have clearly indicated were
The 2009 Copenhagen Meeting
Briefing the press at the end of the two-week conference,
Yvo de Boer said December 19, 2009 that  an accord has
been reached that had significant elements, but that were
not legally binding.
He described the accord as “politically important,”
demonstrating a willingness to move forward. It brings
together a diversity of countries that have put in place a
letter of intent with the ingredients of an architecture for a
response to climate change.

The key points of the accord include the objective to keep
the maximum temperature rise to below 2 degrees
Celsius; the commitment to list developed country
emission reduction targets and mitigation action by
developing countries for 2020; USD 30 billion short-term
funding for immediate action till 2012 and
USD 100 billion annually by 2020 in long-term financing,
as well as mechanisms to support technology transfer
and forestry.
The challenge now is to turn what is agreed into
something that is legally binding in Mexico one year from
that date
At Copenhagen, President Obama announced what he
called a "meaningful and unprecedented" climate change
deal with China and other key nations that was sealed
before the president headed home from the Copenhagen

Obama told reporters.:  "For the first time in history, all
major economies have come together to accept their
responsibility to take action to confront the threat of
climate change,"

The president added that  he met with leaders from India,
China, Brazil and South Africa, and "that's where we
agreed ... to set a mitigation target to limit warming to no
more than 2 degrees Celsius."

Admitting that It's a nonbinding goal, and the emissions
targets would not  by themselves be sufficient to get to
where we need to get by 2050, Obama said, however, it
is a first step, and that for many countries "this is going to
be the first time in which even voluntary they offered up
mitigation targets.

And as it happened, the Obama Administration did
attempt to implement the  principles stated at
Copenhagen through the issuance of Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Regulations, again trying to
avoid having the U. S. Senate have to approve the
Climate Change Treaty. The thought was  that the U. S.
Senate at a later date with its filibuster proof Democratic
Majority would be able to ratify the Climate Change treaty
that Conservatives say would devastate the U.S.
economy, sending billions of dollars in tax money to
foreign countries, and costing millions of American jobs if
approved ...
The contentious point these last few years is that not only
is the Obama Administration   trying to promote this
charade of "global warming", but they are also trying to
destroy our sovereignty and substitute international law
for our Constitution.

Admittedly , Mr. Obama faced a major hurdle in the U. S.
Senate, where he needed 67 votes for treaty ratification.
But as it stands right now, that looks impossible, given the
partisan nature of votes that have occurred in the Senate
these past few year.  And the scare that was given the
Democratic Party in the mid-elections of 2010. But don't
be too sure. Former Liberal Democratic Senate Majority
Leader Harry Reid has shown, in passing the Senate
version of OBAMACARE, that he will do, and say,
anything to pass the Obama Socialistic agenda, by cutting
any deals necessary, no matter the financial cost, no
matter the damage to America. Just look at Senators
Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson, who came  "on board,"
after being "bribed" with special funding and special
"perks" for their states, with OBAMACARE.. The new
Senate Majority Leader is a clone of Harry Reid.

The 2009 Energy Bill: Anti-Market and Anti-Consumer
By Nicolas Loris and Ben Lieberman for the Heritage
On March 31, 2009 Chairman Henry Waxman (D–CA) of
the House Energy and Commerce Committee and
Chairman Edward Markey (D–MA) of the House Energy
and Environment Subcommittee introduced draft
legislation that included clean energy investment, energy
efficiency mandates, a cap-and-trade program, and
protectionist policies that would supposedly help the
consumer cope with higher energy prices.  
Presented as a comprehensive energy bill, the American
Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES)  offered
nothing more than subsidies and mandates for
unsuccessful, unproven energy sources coupled with
taxes on reliable energy sources that falsely claim to
stimulate the economy by investing in clean technology
and creating green jobs. This government-centric
approach according to critics will destroy jobs and drive
up energy prices for years to come.
Title 1: Clean Energy
ACES includes a renewable electricity standard (RES)
that requires 6 percent of electricity to come from
renewable energy by 2012. This requirement will increase
to 25 percent in 2025.
A federally mandated RES is proposed only because
renewables are too expensive to compete otherwise. In
effect, Washington is forcing costlier energy options on
the public. Since renewables are lavished with substantial
tax breaks, a national mandate will cost Americans both
as taxpayers and as ratepayers. Any incentive proposed
by government should in truth be read as a handout.
Moreover, subsidies are poor policies because they
distort normal market forces and encourage government
dependence. By subsidizing a portion of the actual cost of
a non-competitive project, the government is artificially
making it cheaper and distorting the allocation of
resources by directing capital away from more
competitive projects.
Title 1 of ACES also includes incentives to develop
cleaner energy technologies and facilitate the transition to
a smart grid, as well as authorization for the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to take control of
building new transmission lines.
While upgrading the nation's electric grid has merit, such
a project cannot be approached bureaucratically, nor can
it be used as a subsidy to advance renewable energy
sources. More efficient grid technology should be an
investment made by the private sector, and if upgrading
the grid will save consumers money—as Congress
purports it will—consumers will respond to price signals
and buy it.
Although a new grid could help store large amounts of
electricity for the first time, which would benefit
intermittent sources such as wind and solar power, smart
grid investment is not automatically coupled with
transmission investment. If companies believe the benefits
to such an investment will outweigh the costs, they will
make the investment. Instead, any federal policy should
focus on removing regulatory barriers to upgrading the
grid to allow for more consumer choice and protect
private property rights.
Title 2: Energy Efficiency
ACES includes new energy efficiency standards for new
buildings, rebates to low-income families to buy Energy
Star-rated manufactured homes, appliances, and
Energy efficiency can be beneficial for consumers, but it
rarely does good when Washington tries to force it on
them. Energy-efficient appliances and mechanisms will
not painlessly lower electricity bills: These measures
impose costs, and consumers benefit only if the energy
savings outweigh such expenses. Mandatory
improvements in efficiency usually raise the purchase
price of appliances; sometimes the increase is more than
enough to negate the energy savings. In addition, the
forced reduction in energy use can result in decreased
product performance, features, or reliability, which
destroys value for the consumer.
The law of supply and demand is perfectly capable of
determining the proper balance between energy efficiency
and other product attributes. Rigid federal standards give
efficiency priority over all other concerns, often to the
detriment of families and businesses.
Title 3: Global Warming Regulation
Although the rest of ACES is bad enough, the most
alarming section is the government's attempt to regulate
carbon dioxide. The third title of the bill introduces a
"market-oriented" cap-and-trade program that would
reduce carbon dioxide by 20 percent below 2005 levels in
2020 and by 83 percent below 2005 levels in 2050.
Furthermore, it calls for strict oversight by FERC and calls
on the Environmental Protection Agency to use the Clean
Air Act to reduce black carbon and hydroflurocarbons.
Despite Washington policymakers' best attempt to call
cap-and-trade a market-oriented approach, the reality is
that any carbon capping plan is a costly energy tax in
disguise—raising energy prices and unemployment with
little, if any, environmental benefit. A global warming tax
could generate as much as $1.9 trillion in tax revenue over
eight years, which amounts to an annual tax of nearly
$2,000 on every American household.
Since 85 percent of U.S. energy demand is met by fossil
fuels, taxing the lifeblood of the American economy would
have disastrous consequences. The Heritage
Foundation's Center for Data Analysis's study of the
Lieberman–Warner cap-and-trade bill found that
legislation would result in aggregate real GDP losses of
nearly $5 trillion and job losses of 400,000 and 800,000
jobs per year.  The targets and timetables in the ACES
discussion draft are considerably more stringent than
those in Lieberman–Warner and thus would be costlier.
Title 4: Transitioning to a Clean Energy Economy
Because ACES would put manufacturers at a
disadvantage, the last title of the bill attempts to lessen
that burden by rebating money to "sectors that use large
amounts of energy, and produce commodities that are
traded globally" or by having "foreign manufacturers and
importers ... pay for and hold special allowances to
'cover' the carbon contained in U.S.-bound products." The
bill also stipulates that if countries reach an international
treaty on global warming, the U.S. will provide aid
assistance to developing countries for clean technology.
In essence, raising the costs on foreign manufacturers
and importers is a carbon tariff. As a result, not only will
energy costs increase, but now everything Americans
import will be more expensive too. Furthermore, imposing
a carbon tariff could lead to a trade war among a number
of countries on which the U.S. depends for affordable
goods. Protectionism begets more protectionism: Other
countries will view such measures as unfair and respond
by implementing more tariffs. Also, any international
carbon reduction plan would likely reverse progress made
in the developing world—even with the proposed U.S. aid
for clean technology. Developing countries' prosperity
relies heavily on free trade. Exporting goods in which
countries hold a comparative advantage is critical to their
economic growth, just like it is to America's.
Counting the number of green jobs created by a transition
to a clean energy economy while ignoring the jobs
destroyed by any such shift ignores the legislation's net
effect on employment: Support for renewable energy
would likely cost more jobs than it creates. For example,
subsidies for wind and solar energy would, at least from
the narrow perspective of the wind and solar industries,
create new jobs as more of these systems are
manufactured and installed. But the tax dollars needed to
help pay for them cost jobs elsewhere, as would the
pricey electricity they produce. Proponents of renewable
energy, however, argue that these energy sources create
more jobs per kilowatt hour and thus are a good
investment.[7] But this logic should not be the measuring
stick for implementing new energy sources—it proves
only that clean energy sources are an inefficient use of
human capital and these resources could be more
beneficial in other sectors of the economy.
Not the Right Prescription for an Ailing Economy
The architects of ACES argue that the bill will create
millions of clean energy jobs and help Americans save on
energy costs, but in reality it will do just the opposite.
Using taxpayer dollars to invest in inefficient energy
sources while artificially driving up the costs of reliable
energy with a cap-and-trade program will only cause
more economic pain for the consumer—with no
environmental benefit to show for it.
Nicolas Loris is a Research Assistant and Ben Lieberman
is Senior Policy Analyst in Energy and the Environment in
the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies
at The Heritage Foundation.

President Obama, White House Climate Czar Carol
Browner, and their Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) are not waiting for Congress to pass cap-and-
The enormous grassroots reaction to the Waxman-
Markey energy tax bill passing the U.S. House has
slowed Senate progress to a crawl. While cap-and-trade
remains a major threat (especially with new "tri-partisan"
negotiations between Senators Graham, Kerry, and
Lieberman), the biggest threat of huge new energy taxes
and government controls right now comes not from
legislation, but regulation.
Based on a legal theory originally conceived by Climate
Czar Carol Browner in the late 1990s, Obama's EPA is
moving ahead with greenhouse gases regulations under
the 1970 Clean Air Act even though in 1970 global
warming hadn't even been invented yet, and the doom-
saying scientists were instead warning of an impending
ice age!
Even the 1970 Clean Air Act's original author, Rep. John
Dingell of Michigan, who supports cap-and-trade, stated a
belief the Obama Administration's latest move may be  a
recipe for disaster:
We are looking at the possibility of a glorious mess being
visited upon this country. This is not what was intended by
the Congress and by those of us who wrote the Clean Air
Act. We are beginning to look at a wonderfully complex
world, which has the potential for shutting down or
slowing down virtually all industry and all economic activity
and growth.
— Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.)
And so writes Mr. a EPA Overreach: Tailoring
Themselves into a Corner ... A statement by Valvo  who
isthe  government affairs manager at Americans for
President Obama has promised the world that the United
States will take definitive action on carbon emissions and
he needs to have something to show for this promise at
the looming global climate conference in Copenhagen.
One problem, the American people hate greenhouse gas
regulations and they’ve been talking to their
representatives in Congress—that’s why cap-and-trade is
stalled in the Senate. That’s where the Environmental
Protection Agency comes in. The Obama administration is
so desperate to regulate greenhouse gas emissions that
they are willing to illegally rewrite statutes without
authorization from Congress.
In an obvious administrative overreach, EPA wants to
rewrite the 1970 Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse
gases. The agency just released a proposed rule that
would allow them to “tailor” the Act to regulate
greenhouse gases from stationary sources that have the
potential to emit more than 25,000 tons per year. This
rule is a clear violation of the black letter law of the Act,
which states that major stationary emitters are classified
as “stationary sources with the potential to emit 250 tons
or more of any pollutant.”
EPA is in a bind because if they enact their long-sought
greenhouse gases regulations as the Clean Air Act
actually instructs, they will have to regulate 1.2 million
businesses, manufactures and farms, this according to a
study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. This regulation
would place a crippling burden on the country and tie the
EPA in knots trying to administrate the avalanche of new
permits. This result would also raise a political firestorm
that would force the Obama administration and/or
Congress to step in and stop the runaway regulators.
EPA is well aware of the statutory language and is trying
to sidestep its responsibility in the proposed rule by
claiming that “absurd results” and “administrative
necessity” require it to rewrite the law on the back of a
napkin, absurd indeed. The proposal suggests a “phased
approach” that would cover emitters at 25,000 tons now
and give the agency six years to strangle emitters all the
way down to the legally-mandated 250 tons.
Ever since the Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v.
EPA that the agency had to make a greenhouse gas
determination based on the language in the Clean Air Act,
EPA has been trying to find a way to bend over
backwards to shoehorn it in. But what Massachusetts v.
EPA and today’s EPA back flips really show is that the
Act is poorly suited for greenhouse gases regulation. EPA
should have responded to the Court by determining that,
due to “absurd results” and “administrative necessity,” the
Clean Air Act is the wrong vehicle for the task. This would
leave Congress to decide what, if anything, to do about
global warming.
Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), the author of the original Act,
has been clear that he never envisioned it being used for
greenhouse gases. The fact that EPA has to illegally
ignore the plain language of the Act to avoid regulating
churches, schools, farms and warehouses all across the
country is evidence to this point.
Congress over this issue has been  engaged in a healthy
and heated debate over the proper role of the federal
government in regulating greenhouse gases. The House
has already passed a cap-and-trade scheme and
Senators Boxer and Kerry have released their version of
the bill . To many, this has been an unthinkable
administrative overreach for EPA to issue new regulations
that are in clear violation of their statutory authority while
Congress was in the midst of addressing the issue.
Therefore,  Members of Congress should  step in and
stop the EPA, the sooner the better.
The fact is, The 1970 Clean Air Act has been such a bad
vehicle to address greenhouse gases that EPA has
attempted, illegally, to rewrite the law to suit its purposes.
EPA wants to handpick which industries and carbon
emitters it will regulate, instead of following the law as
written. Not only is it illegal, but it's also ineffective,
because state regulators and courts will still be able to
use these regulations to shut down the whole U.S.
Newspaper reporter Gordon Gordonsson offers us a
pause to  reflect on the predicament we have put
ourselves in :  "Never before had a century, the Twentieth
Century, been blessed with the means to abolish war,
pestilence, inequality among peoples and their nations,
famine, poverty, prejudice greed, anger, overwhelming
political tyranny and a thousand other ills of humanity and
instead indulged itself in so many of these maladies to a
greater extent than ever before. We even managed to
mess ourselves up how we manage our energy resources
Ralph Nansen wrote in Energy Crisis - Solution From
Space that historically, when the Grand Coulee Dam rose
on the Columbia River during the Great Depression of the
20th Century, it not only employed thousands of people
but also provided an abundant source of cheap energy for
the Pacific Northwest, ushering in a long era of economic
prosperity for the region. But concerning the present,
Nansen contends that the United States having confronted
an economic crisis approaching the scope of the Great
Depression, we are forced to confront the severe
consequences of our addiction to finite fossil fuel sources.
In Energy Crisis - Solution From Space, Nansen presents
a bold solution for the problems we face today:
dependence on oil as our primary energy source, global
climate change caused by the proliferation of carbon
Dioxide, and the threat of wars over diminishing oil
supplies. The book explores how our energy situation is
driving these major world problems, and how developing
energy from space could bring unprecedented economic
prosperity and opportunity to the world, just as Grand
Coulee Dam did for the Pacific Northwest in the 1930"s.
As we said earlier in this manuscript Dennis Kennethsson
on the road marveled at what he saw at the Grand
Coulee Dam and he delved into Nansen's book with eyes
wide open and an intellect ready to absorb it and analyze

The Problem -  As stated by Ralph Nansen in "Energy
Crisis --- Solution from Space " is that we must develop
an energy system that can replace oil and the other fossil
fuels as the primary source of energy ... A solution that
will eliminate the pollution of our atmosphere , free us of
dependency of foreign oil, and provide the ample low-cost
clean energy that the developing nation and undeveloped
nations need to emerge to a better standard of living. The
Solution - This energy is solar power satellites. Solar
energy generated in space on giant satellites that will
deliver electricity to the earth 24 hours a day to any nation
on the earth.

The fact is, our scientific and engineering community is
well aware of this technology ... What is lacking at the
moment is that politically the will in the U.S  to pursue it;
and clearly, if the U.S. does not take a lead in this
endeavor, and lets another nation develop the next energy
source. we will no longer be the strongest nation on earth.
Nansen maintains that oil is a finite item that will be
depleted worldwide at some point. That its peak is
actually occurring in the United States. And predicts that
when  the peak oil production worldwide occurs it will be
followed by a traumatic economic dislocation as
permanent energy prices rise to unbelievable levels  when
people and nations compete for available oil.

Unfortunately, alternative energy systems cannot be
developed fast enough to prevent economic dislocation
from happening. It may take 30 to 40 years to bring this
technology to common day use . So the time is now for
the United States to get downright serious and move on
our future ... And our solution will come from space in the
fourth energy era of man.

Comments Kennethsson: Let's see , Nansen says the first
energy era  of man was the use of wood as the primary
energy source ... Then in  the second energy era of man
we had coal ... The third energy era of man becoming oil
because oil is easier to store and transport then coal...
And finally, in the fourth era Nansen predicts Solar
What Criteria or rubric does Nansen say  is needed for
Solar Energy or any other energy source to  prevail ..
•         Low  Cost - (ex  --- Nuclear energy in the U.S.
didn't prevail because  the cost of gas was so cheap that
nuclear power couldn't compete)
•         Nondepleteable
•         Environmental clean
•        Available to everyone, and
•        Be in a usable form
Looks like something I must look into seriously ... I
wonder where President Obama is at on this suggestion?

Advocates of using satellites to beam solar power from
space to Earth hoped U.S. President Barack Obama's
campaign promise to develop alternative energy sources
would help resurrect NASA's interest in the technology.
NASA has been without an official space solar power
program since 2002, although a coalition of government
and private industry volunteers had kept alive visions of
demonstrating how the United States might one day draw
energy from the sun and transmit it to Earth via
microwave beams.
The volunteers again were disappointed in December
2009 upon learning that NASA would not provide $55
million they had asked for to conduct a solar power
beaming experiment they had devised for the International
Space Station. Undaunted, The experiment's designers
are hoping it will get another look by the Obama
But before they blame the current Spaceman in Chief,
that would be bad manners, racist and poor etiquette,
they would blame the favorite whipping boy for many ,
George W. Bush...After all, hadn't he left NASA without
an official space based solar power program since 2002.
Obama early in his first term hasn't exactly resurrected
the program but at least he is thinking about ground
based solar energy
The experiment entails placing a system that includes
traveling wave tube amplifiers, which amplify radio
frequency signals, outside the space station on the
Japanese Experiment Module's Exposed Facility. The
amplifiers, donated by the U.S. Air Force Research
Laboratory, would be moved to another location on the
space station to draw power from the station's solar
arrays and beam them to Earth in microwave form.
While Obama has not identified space based solar power
as an alternative energy source he would pursue,
advocates are encouraged by his appointment of longtime
space solar power proponents Alan Ladwig and George
Whitesides to senior positions at NASA. And Obama's
transition team specifically asked NASA about the space
station power beaming experiment.  But George W These
NASA concerning this space based power beaming
experiment for the ISS ... Unfortunately, the experiment is
notable by its absence in Fiscal year's 2010 budget.  
Whitesides has since moved on to a position with Virgin's
Galatic's Private sub-orbital rocketplane program.
John Mankins, who worked at NASA for 25 years and
managed the space-based solar power program, said
NASA should play a part in U.S. attempts to achieve
energy independence. "I don't see how NASA or the
space program can stand aloof from these [alternative
energy] efforts," Mankins said. "Whether or not there's
opportunity for space solar power, I think it's premature
to say ."
Just above the Moon was a slender silver thread.
Together they watched as the tread , seemingly keeping
time with the majestic music (music from Holst's The
Planets) , rotated slowly in its lunar orbit like a brilliantly
illuminated spoke on an otherwise invisible, gigantic Ferris
Wheel rolling along the lunar surface.
"Watching the moon rise is sure a lot more interesting
than it used to be a few years ago," said Rose
"Wait until my Rotovator Division gets the next two
Lunarvators  installed in their oblique orbits." replied
Randy. "Then one of them should always be visible in the
sunlight, even during a new moon."
The above a passage from Robert L. Forward's Science
fiction book called the Timemaster  
One of the most interesting chapters in the book details a
U.S Congressional Hearing where Randy, the designer,  
describes how the new futuristic low-cost earth to space
transportation system called the Terravator would work
.... A system whose potential for low-cost access to
space is dozens of times greater than other systems ...  
Instead of a bring it on or that a boy  greeting from
Congress, Randy is challenged by a senator named
Oscar who won't accept the responsibility for letting what
he calls a whirlygig  threaten the United States without
protecting the populace... A bullheaded Oscar told Randy:
"I will inform the Secretary for the Environment that
Congress insists on a full environmental-impact report on
the effects of the operation of the Terravator on all parts
of the United States and the territories." Truly a move by
Oscar to kill the project. On one count, the impact report
would take too long and thus mess up Randy's time table
for construction and second, Oscar wants to feed into
available financial resources for the project by requiring a
excessive degree of insurance coverage. To which Randy
responded, that his project wouldn't  need a full
environmental-impact report because his company will  
now use a different constellation of ports  which at no
time would any portion of the Terravator  touch the
atmosphere above the United States or its Territories  
and what is more Havana Airport will be one of their
gateway airports to our operations not Honolulu . Then,
Randy said it was very sad that the Congress of the
United States had become an impediment to economic
innovation for its unwillingness to take risks in order to
expand our last frontier. Randy was not asking Congress
to provide funding for the project just their approval to do
it. Which brought out a shout of disbelief from  Dusty
Miller another member of the Congressional Panel and
some finger pointing against Oscar. He said that Castro's
nephew would be chortling rum over this. He'll want
diplomatic relations, relaxation of sanctions, probably,
even aid, before he opens up his airports to U.S.
travelers. The end result being that the United States
won't reap the benefits of the new technology. A missed
opportunity that is shocking in that America has lost a lot
of its industrial base due to overseas transfer.
Forward's Book is science fiction, but it serves as a
reminder that it is the responsibility of government to
promote and encourage commerce ... It is not the
responsibility of Congress to tear down our industrial
base and deny new technologies a chance to secede .
A 6 month  moratorium on oil production in the Gulf of
Mexico may not sound very devastating ... But
businessmen being businessmen still seek to make money
and will move the rigs to places they still can make money
... The Gulf Coast's loss  may be Brazil gain and if the
Conservative hosts are right ... George Soros will be
making money in the bank... The commercial fishermen of
New Foundland and Labrador know full well the effects of
what was supposed to be a short-term moratorium on
Cod fished out of the Great Banks ... Commercial Cod
fishing has never recovered in Canada as there still is a
What Obama should do in Space is encourage the
electric utility industry  to build a nationwide electrical grid
big enough to handle the microwaves beaming  down to
earth from a space based solar energy satellite,
encourage private industry to expand its operations in low-
earth orbit for communication, navigation and tourism ,
and  charge NASA to go to the Moon, Mars and the
Asteroids as fast as they could do it safely.
When campaigning for office Obama promised the
As president, Barack Obama would establish a robust
and balanced civilian space program. His NASA not only
will inspire the world with both human and robotic space
exploration, but also will again lead in confronting the
challenges we face here on Earth, including global climate
change, energy independence, and aeronautics research.
In achieving this vision, Obama would reach out to include
international partners and to engage the private sector to
amplify NASA’s reach. Obama believes that a revitalized
NASA can help America maintain its innovation edge and
contribute to American economic growth There is
currently no organizational authority in the Federal
government with a sufficiently broad mandate to
oversee a comprehensive and integrated strategy and
policy dealing with all aspects of the government’s space
related programs, including those being managed by
NASA, the Department of Defense, the National
Reconnaissance Office, the Commerce Department, the
Transportation Department, and other federal agencies.

This wasn’t always the case. Between 1958 and 1973,
the National Aeronautics and Space Council oversaw the
entire space arena for four presidents; the Council was
briefly revived from 1989 to 1992. Barack Obama will re-
establish this Council reporting to the president. It will
oversee and coordinate civilian, military, commercial and
national security space activities. It will solicit public
participation, engage the international community, and
work toward a 21st century vision of space that
constantly pushes the envelope on new technologies as it
pursues a balanced national portfolio that expands our
reach into the heavens and improves life here on Earth.


Closing the Gap

Since 1981, the Space Shuttle has been NASA’s
workhorse. Its retirement will leave NASA without human
spaceflight capability until the first elements of the
Constellation program are operational, some five years
later. This gap between the retirement of the Space
Shuttle and the entry into service of its replacement is a
serious concern. Barack Obama is committed to making
the necessary investments to ensure we close this gap as
much as is technically feasible and to minimize reliance on
foreign space capabilities. He also will work with the
space industry to ensure retention of workforce and
technical capabilities during the transition from the shuttle
to its successor.
• Retaining Options for Additional Shuttle Flights: Barack
Obama supports Congressional efforts to add at least
one additional Space Shuttle flight to fly a valuable
mission and to keep the workforce engaged. He will work
to ensure there is adequate funding to support that
additional flight so that it does not interfere with
developing the Shuttle’s successor.
• Speeding the Next-Generation Vehicle: Obama will
expedite the development of the Shuttle’s successor
systems for carrying Americans to space so we can
minimize the gap. This will be difficult; underfunding by the
Bush administration has left NASA with limited flexibility to
accelerate the development of the new systems.
• Using the Private Sector: Obama will stimulate efforts
within the private sector to develop and demonstrate
spaceflight capabilities. NASA’s Commercial Orbital
Transportation Services(COTS) is a good model of
government/industry collaboration.
• Working with International Allies: Obama will enlist
international partners to provide International Space
Station (ISS) cargo re-supply and eventually alternate
means for sending crews to the ISS.

Completing and Enhancing the International Space Station

The International Space Station is an outstanding example
of what can be accomplished through international
cooperation. Though we have spent billions to build the
station, the microgravity research it was intended to
facilitate has fallen victim to funding cuts. Barack Obama
would ensure that NASA and other federal agencies are
fully utilizing the ISS to conduct research that can help
address global challenges such as public health and
energy independence and can develop technologies that
can provide economic benefits to Earth. Obama also
will enable research on the ISS to support long-term
human exploration and planetary research needs.

• Partnering to Enhance the Potential of the ISS: Barack
Obama will enlist other Federal agencies, industry and
academia to develop innovative scientific and
technological research projects on the ISS
• Enabling Human Exploration: Obama will use the ISS for
fundamental biological and physical research to
understand the effects of long-term space travel on
human health and to test emerging technologies to enable
such travel.
• Enhancing International Cooperation: The ISS has been
a model for international cooperation to achieve peaceful
objectives in space, helping develop positive relations with
Russia during the 1990s. America must take the next step
and use the ISS as a strategic tool in diplomatic relations
with nontraditional partners.
• Retaining Options for Extended Operations: Barack
Obama will consider options to extend ISS operations
beyond 2016. After investing so much in developing the
ISS, it would be a shame not to utilize it to the fullest
possible extent.

Embracing Human Space Exploration
Human spaceflight is important to America’s political,
economic, technological, and scientific leadership. Barack
Obama will support renewed human exploration beyond
low earth orbit. He endorses the goal of sending human
missions to the Moon by 2020, as a precursor in an
orderly progression to missions to more
distant destinations, including Mars.

• Continuing Research and Development Investments to
Support Future Missions:

Barack Obama will support a robust research and
technology development program that addresses the long-
term needs for future human and robotic missions. He
supports a funding goal that maintains at least 10 percent
of the total exploration systems budget for research and

• Drawing in International Partners: Obama will encourage
a cooperative framework for the conduct of a long-term
and sustainable international exploration initiative. This will
enable the United States to leverage its resources and to
use space exploration as a tool of global diplomacy. As
this framework is
developed, Obama will continue NASA’s architecture
studies and advanced planning to ensure the American
space workforce remains engaged and that America can
lead the world to long-term exploration of the Moon,
Mars, and beyond, in a collaborative and cost-effective
• Partner to Improve Basic Capabilities: Obama will
evaluate whether the private sector can safely and
effectively fulfill some of NASA’s need for lower earth
orbit cargo transport.

Conducting Robotic Missions

Exploring our solar system and the universe beyond has
helped us address profound questions. Barack Obama
supports a robust program of robotic exploration that
supports the major cross-cutting themes and the
recommended new missions established by the decadal
survey of the National Research Council.
• Leveraging Robotic Capabilities to Explore the Solar
System: Obama supports increased investment in
research, data analysis, and technology development
across the full suite of exploration missions including the
Mars Sample Return mission and future missions to the
Moon, asteroids, Lagrange points, the outer Solar
System, and other destinations.
• Supporting Space-Based Observatories: Platforms like
the Hubble Space Telescope, the Chandra X-Ray
Observatory, the Gamma Ray Observatory, and the
Spitzer Space Telescope have yielded some of the
greatest scientific discoveries of the last century. Obama
is committed to a bold new set of such platforms and
programs to expand our knowledge of the cosmos

But Kennethsson and Gordonsson agree that these are
only words that Obama said before he became President,
and must see more to see where he is now...  He may
talk about alternative energy but not space based solar
Summary of Key Findings
The Committee summarizes its key findings below.
Additional findings are included in the body of the report.
The right mission and the right size: NASA’s budget
should match its mission and goals. Further, NASA should
be given the ability to shape its organization and
infrastructure accordingly, while maintaining facilities
deemed to be of national importance.
International partnerships: The U.S. can lead a bold new
international effort in the human exploration of space. If
international partners are actively engaged, including on
the “critical path” to success, there could be substantial
benefits to foreign relations, and more resources overall
could become available.
Short-term Space Shuttle planning: The current Shuttle
manifest should be flown in a safe and prudent manner.
The current manifest will likely extend to the second
quarter of FY 2011. It is important to budget for this
The human-spaceflight gap: Under current conditions, the
gap in U.S. ability to launch astronauts into space will
stretch to at least seven years. The Committee did not
identify any credible approach employing new capabilities
that could shorten the gap to less than six years. The only
way to significantly close the gap is to extend the life of
the Shuttle Program.
Extending the International Space Station: The return on
investment to both the United States and our international
partners would be significantly enhanced by an extension
of ISS life. Not to extend its operation would significantly
impair U.S. ability to develop and lead future international
spaceflight partnerships.
Heavy-lift: A heavy-lift launch capability to low-Earth orbit,
combined with the ability to inject heavy payloads away
from the Earth, is beneficial to exploration, and it also will
be useful to the national security space and scientific
communities. The Committee reviewed: the Ares family of
launchers; more directly Shuttle-derived vehicles; and
launchers derived from the EELV family. Each approach
has advantages and disadvantages, trading capability,
lifecycle costs, operational complexity and the “way of
doing business” within the program and NASA.
Commercial crew launch to low-Earth orbit: Commercial
services to deliver crew to low-Earth orbit are within
reach. While this presents some risk, it could provide an
earlier capability at lower initial and lifecycle costs than
government could achieve. A new competition with
adequate incentives should be open to all U.S. aerospace
companies. This would allow NASA to focus on more
challenging roles, including human exploration beyond low-
Earth orbit, based on the continued development of the
current or modified Orion spacecraft.
Technology development for exploration and commercial
space: Investment in a well-designed and adequately
funded space technology program is critical to enable
progress in exploration. Exploration strategies can
proceed more readily and economically if the requisite
technology has been developed in advance. This
investment will also benefit robotic exploration, the U.S.
commercial space industry and other U.S. government
Pathways to Mars: Mars is the ultimate destination for
human exploration; but it is not the best first destination.
Both visiting the Moon First and following the Flexible Path
are viable exploration strategies. The two are not
necessarily mutually exclusive; before traveling to Mars,
we might be well served to both extend our presence in
free space and gain experience working on the lunar
Options for the Human Spaceflight Program: The
Committee developed five alternatives for the Human
Spaceflight Program. It found:
•        Human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit is not
viable under the FY 2010 budget guideline.
•        Meaningful human exploration is possible under a
less constrained budget, ramping to approximately $3
billion per year above the FY 2010 guidance in total
•        Funding at the increased level would allow either an
exploration program to explore Moon First or one that
follows a Flexible Path of exploration. Either could
produce results in a reasonable time frame.

The last time an American set his foot on the Moon was in
1972 ... Nixon canceled the two or three  remaining flights
because of international politics ... He felt bad that we
were succeeding so well in the Moon Race that he didn't
want the Soviets to feel bad.

My generation never went beyond Low Earth Orbit ...
Thanks to short sighted Congresses and Presidents ...
Even the U.S. proposed successor to SkyLab ... Space
Station Freedom was Cut back ... So what we got is the
current ISS and a smaller Space Shuttle which was also
reduced .

I am saddened that my generation will never go to the
Moon ... But that was expected... Now  children of the
next generation and the next generation may not get their
either and neither will American's get to Mars...

Our political leaders speak with a forked tongue when it
comes to manned missions beyond Earth Orbit.

Last year the Obama Administration gave stimulus money
to NASA to enable it to move on with the Moon program
,,, Now it cancels it ....

A John F. Kennedy Obama is not ... And indeed you are  
not even a Queen Isabella ... But you want to turn the
American Space Program into a Viking like phenomenon
... The Vikings were the first Europeans in America but
Columbus gets the credit...You are opening the door for
historians to rewrite history ... Someday when the
Chinese get there ... Historians will write that they were
first ...

You seem to love the poor so much that you want
everyone to be brought down to that level ... You want to
promote engineering , science and math ... You show
your dedication to that principle by canceling programs
where that knowledge is needed

P.S. --- The last day I taught at Southern Lehigh High
School --- A student kidded me whether I visited my
alledged property on the Moon ... I told him that I did not
as no transportation exists that would be able to  get me
there ... And  I add that I still won't get there for some
time, if ever within my life span as heroic Obama just
canceled the transportation that could take us there  and I
predicted it that day that this would happen... If someone
got mad at me for that statement I stand by it.

Mike Griffins Statement on this matter:

If Obama does cancel the Constellation program, it
"leaves NASA and the nation with no program, no plan
and no commitment to any human spaceflight program
beyond that of today," said former NASA Administrator
Michael Griffin in a statement.
He said this would be recommending "that the nation
abandon its leadership on the space frontier," Griffin said.

OF THE July 20, 2009 - Where we stand As we reach the
40th Anniversary of the first manned Moon Landing by the
Apollo 11 crew, we still do not know what direction NASA
will be ordered to take by the Obama Administration. The
directive to establish a permanently manned moonbase,
given to NASA by former President George W. Bush, has
been essentially gutted byCongress through insufficient
budgeting. It is possible that the anemic Moon program
will be allowed to hobble on. It is also possible that NASA
will be redirected to Mars.The Society cannot entrust
fulfilment of its Goals to an Agency that has no control
over its own direction.
NASA has already been forced by Congress to retrench
its goals to a permanent structure that could be revisited,
a structure without biological life support, and without a
program to learn how to use on-site materials. NASA has
been forced into a position where, once again, it is
designing a rung without consideration of how it will lead
to the next rung above in the ladder to human occupation
of the Solar System. Similarly, von Braun's dream of a
space station that would serve as a depot and staging
point for missions beyond Earthorbit has been forced into
quite a different role: Earth observation and remote
sensing. While that research is unquestionably valuable,
this first rung in the ladder now leads nowhere.

Buzz Aldrin's opinion in Octobe 2009

Below are key excerpts:.
In a new global effort to use the Moon to establish a
global space consortium with a lunar surface facility as its
epicenter, ;... competition, in an Apollo-style race back to
the Moon, would be a fruitless exercise in national hubris
whose rewards, if we won  again, would prove fleeting
I am proposing a different way back to the Moon:
international collaboration. - the goal of creating a new
public-private partnership to develop the Moon. I call it the
Lunar Infrastructure Development Corporation (LIDC).The
purpose of the LIDC would be to enable the nations of the
Earth to join together and return to the Moon as an
international cooperative venture. The LIDC will pool the
financial, technical and human resources of its member
nations to build the lunar communication, navigation and
transportation systems needed for human exploration of
the Moon. It would be a public/private global partnership
to make the Moon accessible to all humanity. The LIDC
will build the communication and navigation satellites
needed by future lunar travelers, develop fuel depots
using lunar LOX  perhaps derived from the recently
discovered lunar water-and construct habitats that will
shelter space travelers while on the surface. It will enable
a sustainable human presence on the Moon that will be
accessible to all the nations on Earth. Unlike the
International Space Station (ISS), which is governed by
complex treaties, the LIDC will have the same flexibility as
an NGO in working with different nations and private
entities to finance build and operate the facilities and
equipment needed for lunar exploration. To do so [i.e.,
honoring the astronauts of the Apollo Era Missions] doesn
require rerunning a long-ago Cold War race in which
America plays the role of a space-going Colonial power.
Probably the main reason the ISS is still aliveand
supported by Congress is that it is part of a number of
international agreements. Backing out of these agreement
would have financial, political and diplomatic
repercussions on the US. Therefore, having an
international component helps large complex programs
survive the transition to different administrations and
different congressional moods. The international angle
gives long-term;sustainability to the Lunar Infrastructure
Development Corporation.

Consequently, the legacy of the Obama Administration
thus far while having some unnoticed successes for a few
special interest groups is one of mostly missed
opportunities,  but few unmitigated failures. And the
stress of the American Presidency has made Obama look
older then his years … but looking older does not
necessary make one wiser. Especially in times when two
of America's big three auto makers became subjected to
Obama government micro-management... Obama said at
the time that the government did not want to run GM or
Chrysler but at the same time he  forced both of them into
bankruptcy, fired and supervised the management of GM
and ordered Chrysler to be bought by Fiat; in addition,
engineered energy shortages and transportation
difficulties made it difficult to get the products of America’
s bread basket to market. … Not to mention a man-
caused environmental related water use restriction in
California related to agriculture that harmed and
threatened agricultural  productivity.
There are those who believe that a large national army
sometimes puts freedom in danger. In some countries,
army leaders have taken over the government and done
away with the people's rights ... Fearing such an army,
our people wanted the right to have a state militia. or a
citizens army ... (The National Guard of each state is
made up of volunteers who are citizens) This was the
reason for Amendment 2 to the U.S. Constitution
“        A well regulated militia being necessary to the
security of a free State, the right of the People to keep
and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This was the reason for Amendment 2 to the U.S.
Constitution. It keeps the federal government from
passing rules forbidding the state militia to use arms in
lawful ways.
To state it in another way, this Amendment denies to the
federal government the power to interfere with your
ownership and use of weapons for lawful purposes.
And you get protection against the wrong use of power by
a national army.
U.S. Supreme Court Cases

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876). This
was the first case in which the Supreme Court had the
opportunity to interpret the Second Amendment. The
Court recognized that the right of the people to keep and
bear arms was a right which existed prior to the
Constitution when it stated that such a right "is not a right
granted by the Constitution . . . Neither is it in any manner
dependent upon that instrument for its existence." The
indictment in Cruikshank charged, inter alia, a conspiracy
by Klansmen to prevent blacks from exercising their civil
rights, including the bearing of arms for lawful purposes.
The Court held, however, that because the right to keep
and bear arms existed independent of the Constitution,
and the Second Amendment guaranteed only that the
right shall not be infringed by Congress, the federal
government had no power to punish a violation of the right
by a private individual; rather, citizens had "to look for
their protection against any violation by their fellow-
citizens" of their right to keep and bear arms to the police
power of the state.
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886). Although the
Supreme Court affirmed the holding in Cruikshank that the
Second Amendment, standing alone, applied only to
action by the federal government, it nonetheless found the
states without power to infringe upon the right to keep
and bear arms, holding that "the States cannot, even
laying the constitutional provision in question out of view,
prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, as so
to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for
maintaining the public security and disable the people
from performing their duty to the general government."
Presser, moreover, plainly suggested that the Second
Amendment applies to the states through the Fourteenth
Amendment and thus that a state cannot forbid individuals
to keep and bear arms. To understand why, it is
necessary to understand the statutory scheme the Court
had before it.
The statute under which Presser was convicted did not
forbid individuals to keep and bear arms but rather
forbade "bodies of men to associate together as military
organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and
towns unless authorized by law . . . ." Thus, the Court
concluded that the statute did not infringe the right to
keep and bear arms.
The Court, however, went on to discuss the Privileges
and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,
noting that "It is only the privileges and immunities of
citizens of the United States that the clause relied on was
intended to protect." As the Court had already held that
the substantive right to keep and bear arms was not
infringed by the Illinois statute since that statue did not
prohibit the keeping and bearing of arms but rather
prohibited military-like exercises by armed men, the Court
concluded that it did not need address the question of
whether the state law violated the Second Amendment as
applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894). In this case, the
Court confirmed that it had never addressed the issue of
the Second Amendment applying to the states through the
Fourteenth Amendment. This case remains the last word
on this subject by the Court until now.
Miller challenged a Texas statute on the bearing of pistols
as violative of the Second, Fourth, and Fourteenth
Amendments. But he asserted these arguments for the
first time after his conviction had been affirmed by a state
appellate court. Reiterating Cruikshank and Presser, the
Supreme Court first found that the Second and Fourth
Amendments, of themselves, did not limit state action.
The Court then turned to the claim that the Texas statute
violated the rights to bear arms and against warrantless
searches as incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment.
But because the Court would not hear objections not
made in a timely fashion, the Court refused to consider
Miller's contentions. Thus, rather than reject incorporation
of the Second and Fourth Amendments in the Fourteenth,
the Supreme Court merely refused to decide the
defendant's claim because its powers of adjudication
were limited to the review of errors timely assigned in the
trial court. The Court left open the possibility that the right
to keep and bear arms and freedom from warrantless
searches would apply to the states through the
Fourteenth Amendment.
U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). This is the only case
in which the Supreme Court has had the opportunity to
apply the Second Amendment to a federal firearms
statute. The Court, however, carefully avoided making an
unconditional decision regarding the statute's
constitutionality; it instead devised a test by which to
measure the constitutionality of statutes relating to
firearms and remanded the case to the trial court for an
evidentiary hearing (the trial court had held that Section
11 of the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional). The
Court remanded to the case because it had concluded
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that
possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less
than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some
reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of
a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second
Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such
an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that
this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment
or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be
constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-
type arm.
The case also made clear that the militia consisted of "all
males physically capable of acting in concert for the
common defense" and that "when called for service these
men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by
themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." In
setting forth this definition of the militia, the Court implicitly
rejected the view that the Second Amendment guarantees
a right only to those individuals who are members of the
militia. Had the Court viewed the Second Amendment as
guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms only to "all
males physically capable of acting in concert for the
common defense," it would certainly have discussed
whether, on remand, there should also be evidence that
the defendants met the qualifications for inclusion in the
militia, much as it did with regard to the militia use of a
short-barrelled shotgun.
Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 95 (1980). Lewis
recognized -- in summarizing the holding of Miller, supra,
as "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep
and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable
relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-
regulated militia'" (emphasis added) -- that Miller had
focused upon the type of firearm. Further, Lewis was
concerned only with whether the provision of the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 which
prohibits the possession of firearms by convicted felons
(codified in 18 U.S.C. 922(g) in 1986) violated the Second
Amendment. Thus, since convicted felons historically were
and are subject to the loss of numerous fundamental
rights of citizenship -- including the right to vote, hold
office, and serve on juries -- it was not erroneous for the
Court to have concluded that laws prohibiting the
possession of firearms by a convicted felon "are neither
based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they
trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties."
United States v. Verdugo-Urquirdez, 110 S. Ct. 3039
(1990). This case involved the meaning of the term "the
people" in the Fourth Amendment. The Court unanimously
held that the term "the people" in the Second Amendment
had the same meaning as in the Preamble to the
Constitution and in the First, Fourth, and Ninth
Amendments, i.e., that "the people" means at least all
citizens and legal aliens while in the United States. This
case thus resolves any doubt that the Second
Amendment guarantees an individual right.
The Supreme Court  leaving no doubt that the Second
Amendment guarantees an individual right for all citizens
and legal residents to own firearms for legal purposes, in
2009 and 2010 moved on to decide whether the right to
keep and bear arms secured by the Second Amendment
protects Americans from overreaching state and local
governments in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago.
A case of paramount importance to American citizens,
especially gun-owners,  to see if that their constitutional
rights are respected not only by the Congress, but by
state and local governments.
In 2008, in the landmark case of District of Columbia v.
Heller, the Supreme Court held that the Second
Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and
bear arms. However, as that case concerned the actions
of the District of Columbia government, a federal entity,
the high court was not called upon to decide whether the
right bound states and local governments. Over the years,
almost the entire Bill of Rights has been held to apply to
state and local governments by incorporation of the
Fourteenth Amendment.
In the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, at issue is a
27-year-old Chicago law banning handguns, requiring the
annual taxation of firearms, and otherwise interfering with
the right of law-abiding individuals to keep guns at home
for self-defense. The case was brought on behalf of four
Chicago residents, the Second Amendment Foundation,
and the Illinois State Rifle Association.
"The freedoms we enjoy as Americans are secured to us
against violation by all levels of government," noted Alan
Gura, of Gura & Possessky, PLLC, lead counsel for the
McDonald plaintiffs. "State and local politicians should be
on notice: the Second Amendment is a normal part of the
Bill of Rights, and it is coming to your town."

Otis McDonald, a Chicago resident since 1952 who led
the fight to integrate his union local in the 1960s and is a
plaintiff in the case, welcomed the news.

"I am grateful the Supreme Court has agreed to hear this
case," McDonald said. "I now pray that the Court secures
me and all other law-abiding citizens the right to defend
ourselves and our families."

Chicago attorney David Sigale commented, "The City of
Chicago cannot take from millions of Americans the
fundamental freedom of self-defense in one's own home.
We are confident the Court will stand on the side of the
law-abiding citizens and the Bill of Rights."

"We're pleased to hear that the Supreme Court has
decided to take a look at Chicago's gun laws," added
ISRA President Don Moran. "In this time of economic
uncertainty and increasing lawlessness, the good people
of Chicago ought not have to choose between violating
Chicago's gun ban, and protecting themselves and their
loved ones."

The Chicago gun ban challenge was among the most
closely watched constitutional law cases in decades. At
stake were not just the question of whether the Second
Amendment secured the right to arms against state and
local governments, but also the extent to which the
Supreme Court preserved individual liberty against
encroachment by state and local governments.
The opening brief to the Supreme Court was filed
November 16, 2009. The brief advocated breathing new
life into the moribund Privileges or Immunities clause of
the 14th Amendment. Specifically, an originalist reading of
the 14th Amendment dictates that the right to keep and
bear arms is a "privilege" and "immunity" that a state must
not abridge.
Barrack Obama made public his clear anti-gun agenda in
March 2004 in Chicago. Obama voted against Illinois
Senate Bill 2165 allowing citizens the right to protect
themselves and instead worked for local ordinances
against handgun possession. The measure passed the
Illinois Senate by a vote of 38-20 without Obama's vote...
Opponents to Obama's apparent  Anti-Gun Agenda
before and after Obama's Inauguration as the 44th
President have expressed the immediate urgency to stop
Obama's apparent Anti-Gun Agenda  ASAP before he
can appoint any additional anti-gun judges to the Bench.
Of course, one so-called anti-gun Supreme Court Justice
that Obama had appointed to the bench was Sonia
Sotomayor; and her decision and dissent Opinion made  
in regard to McDonald v. City of Chicago was well
publicized in the American media.
The  long-awaited challenge to Chicago's handgun ban
was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on March 2, 2010
and a decision announced in June of that  year. Given the
philosophical division of the Court at that time, no one on
both sides of the issue  were surprised  that the justices
would rule that the Second Amendment was incorporated
through the 14th Amendment as a barrier to local gun

Even those of the Anti-Gun Agenda  realized the
consequences of  the notion that the Amendment is
incorporated, but hoped the justices would leave enough
wiggle room in their ruling to allow most, if not all, existing
gun control laws to stand. For those of the Anti-Gun
Agenda their salvation would be if Obama would be able
to appoint enough Anti-Gun Justices to the Supreme
Court and throughout the Federal Court System that the
issue could be revisited with a different result
That attitude left many hard-core gun rights advocates
once again demanding, "What part of shall-not-be
infringed don't you understand?"

In response to the Supreme Court Decision on McDonald
vs. City of Chicago, Obama  said: "I'm not going to take
your guns away" and "Lawful gun owners have nothing to
fear...  I think people can take ne at my word."
Obama sent his Attorney General, Eric Holder to the
Senate to detail his support for a national gun owner
registration scheme and authorizing the government to
ban firearm possession for any person by merely adding
that person's name to the terror watch list.

Attorney General Holder aggressively detailed the Obama
anti-gun agenda in his  public statements before the
Senate Judiciary Committee:
•        Holder wanted national, permanent gun registration
•        Holder wanted new federal authority to prohibit any
person on the federal watch list (reported to be 400,000
names) from buying guns and supports confiscating guns
from those on the list that possess them.
As it evolved, law-abiding gun owners have nothing to fear
unless they own sport-utility rifles, semiautomatic
shotguns, handguns and any other firearm that Obama
and his anti-gun attorney general don't like.
And now to the International front on the U.S 2nd
Amendment Issue ...
..“…world leaders must accept the fact that we cannot let
the free market rule the international arms trade”..... so
says Oscar Arias, .President of Costa Rica and. Nobel
Peace Prize laureate
The United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs
Undeniably, too many arms still end up in the wrong
hands. Shipments appear in countries with dismal human
rights records or where they exacerbate conflict or
facilitate repression. These may be direct deliveries which
might be considered irresponsible.

The misuse of arms could also be the result of activities
of illicit arms brokers and traders who conclude their
deals by exploiting legal loopholes, evading customs and
airport controls and falsifying documents . Such illicit
activities have violated every United Nations arms
embargo, with small arms and ammunition as the main
items transferred.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has identified as a
“recurring problem” the absence of a normative
framework for all states to guide decisions regarding
arms transfers. He underlined that regional examples of
such agreed standards have proven useful in preventing
the transfer of arms to areas of conflict or repressive

In 2006, the General Assembly requested the Secretary-
General to establish a group of governmental experts to
look into “the feasibility, scope and draft parameters for a
comprehensive, legally binding instrument establishing
common international standards for the import, export and
transfer of conventional arms”.  

The report of that group, concluded in 2008, has
prompted the General Assembly to start discussions
focused on a possible arms trade treaty, open to all
Member States. Two one-week meetings per year were
held from 2009 to 2011.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced late in 2009
that the Obama Administration would be working hand in
glove with the UN to pass a new “Small Arms Treaty.”
Disguised as legislation to help in the fight against
“terrorism,” “insurgency” and “international crime
syndicates,” many 2nd Amendment advocates had
convinced themselves that the UN Small Arms Treaty was
nothing more than a massive, GLOBAL gun control
scheme... To them,
there is no question that The 2nd Amendment of the U.S
Constitution remains under attack concerning individual
gun rights ... To them , the UN’s Small Arms Treaty is
designed to register, ban and CONFISCATE firearms
owned by ordinary private citizens like YOU or me ...
Admittedly, when Secretary of State Clinton spoke, the
so-called gun-grabbers have successfully kept the exact
wording of their new proposal under wraps. The same
exact strategy that proponents of Nation Health Care
Reform had utilized
But looking at previous versions of the UN “Small Arms
Treaty,” one could get a good idea of what’s likely in the

If passed by the UN and ratified by the U.S. Senate, the
UN “Small Arms Treaty” would almost certainly FORCE
national governments to:

*** Enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-
abiding citizens cut through even more bureaucratic red
tape just to own a firearm legally;

*** CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL “unauthorized”
civilian firearms (all firearms owned by the government
are excluded, of course);

*** BAN the trade, sale and private ownership of ALL
semi-automatic weapons;

*** Create an INTERNATIONAL gun registry, setting the
stage for full-scale gun CONFISCATION.

As believed by these people, rightly or wrongly, the
United Nations has been hell-bent on bringing the United
States to its knees ever since its founding almost 65
years ago.

To the so-called petty dictators and one-worlders who
control the UN, the U.S. isn’t a “shining city on a hill” -- it’s
an affront to their grand totalitarian designs for the globe.

These anti-gun globalists know that so long as Americans
remained free to make our own decisions without being
bossed around by big government bureaucrats, they’ll
NEVER be able to seize the worldwide oppressive power
they crave.

And the UN’s apologists also know the most effective way
to finally strip people of their freedoms would be to
DESTROY their gun rights.

The truth is, to both sides there’s no time to waste... The
fact is, the last thing the gun-grabbers in the U.N. and in
Washington, D.C. wanted was for the people to have
enough time to react and digest what was happening so
as to mobilize gun owners to defeat this radical  

The so-called gun grabbers had made that mistake
before, and the people  made them pay, defeating
EVERY attempt to ram the “Treaty on Small Arms” into
law since the mid-1990s.

But in 2009, spokesman for those who believed in 2nd
Amendment rights feared that the task to defeat these
measures would be tougher, due the set of political
circumstances that there no longer existed a pro-gun
Republican Senate to kill ratification of the treaty.... There
was no longer any Republican in the White House who
had stated opposition to the treaty.... And everyone
seemed to know  how Germany, Great Britain, France,
Communist China or the rest of the anti-gun members of
the United Nations were going to vote.

So for these people, the only option for  stopping the UN’s
“Small Arms Treaty” was during the ratification process in
the U.S. Senate when 67 votes rather than a super
majority or a simple majority of one-half plus one of those
voted was required for ratifying a proposed Treaty

But, Dudley Brown, Executive Director, National
Association for Gun Rights explained in a fund raising
letter that while Republicans comprised 40 members in
the 111th Congress -2010 Session of the Senate  ,
enough to defeat any proposed Treaty ... The
Republicans had to stand together with all 40 members or
at the least 34 members to guarantee the defeat of one
and all  Small Arms Treaties.  But on this issue not all the
remaining Republicans in the Senate were considered
“pro-gun” in any sense of the term.

They looked at ratifying treaties much like approving the
Presidents’ Supreme Court nominees.  And if one
recalled, there were NINE Republicans who voted to
confirm anti-gun Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor;
and,  a dozen more GOP Senators only voted against
Sotomayor after receiving massive grassroots pressure
from the folks back home.

And the Democratic leaders of Congress still can't
understand why the Tea Baggers are so critical of where
this neo-progressive government has been  taking us ...
And Great Scott ... The confident Obama team so brilliant
in 2008 had a sinking feeling in late 2009 and 2010 ...  
Like the 2000 Yankees  who needed only 1 strike and 1
out to move to the World Series over the Boston Red Sox
....  The Obama team only needed reconciliation between
the House and Senate on Health Care Overhaul to send
the package  to the White House for the President's John
Hancock --- Mission complete as GeoGeore wrote off as
local phenomenon's, a 2010 Special Election reversal in
Massachusetts, could not be ignored.
Consider Massachusetts.  before January 19, 2010,  no
Republican Senate candidate in Massachusetts had won
since 1972.  The seat that was contested that evening  
had been held by Ted Kennedy for almost 50 years and
the Kennedy family was on the campaign trail against the
Republican candidate.  All 10 congressional districts in
Massachusetts were held by Democrats.  In 2008, the
congressional Democrat in Massachusetts with the lowest
winning percentage was Barney Frank - and he won with
68%!  Just 12% of voters in Massachusetts are said to
be registered as Republicans.  
Who is that 50 year old truck-driving everyman  in  the  
pick-up truck that did the impossible?  Of course,  we are
not certain what the make and color of his pick-up truck
was, but let us assume it was the color "Brown." Who
was that triathlete, that political surprise from  Wrentham,
Massachusetts?  .... The Brown Shirt he was wearing had
the number 41 on it in blue.
But, Scott Brown did not win because voters suddenly
loved the Republican Party.  He won not with a message
of "Send more Republicans to Congress."  Instead, his
most salient message was "send me to Washington to be
the 41st vote against the health care takeover."  
Apparently, it worked well in a state that already has a
public health insurance plan.
Consequently, the Obama team in 2010 let their filibuster
proof Senate slip away from them  in Massachusetts...
The victory of this so-called political lightweight
complicated plans for the Obama team to finish the job in
2010 and election defeats in November 2010 would make
it more difficult, if not impossible, for the Obama team to
pass Obama's health care overhaul bill in Congress during
the remainder of his current term in office if nothing was
able to be achieved in 2010
Oh,  the democratic brain trust would get together to
come up with some innovative legislative approaches to
deal with the last need pieces to make their effort to pass
health care reform reality. And how would they deal with  
Democratic politicians more concerned about their
political survival than taking one for the Barack-man once
they  knew exactly what the new mercurial political reality
was.  And this new political reality, this earthquake of
political opinion so to speak, struck in the same week  a
massive earthquake in Port-au-Prince, Haiti compelled the
beleaguered Obama team to dispatch military units to the
stricken nation to maintain Civil Control or Security and to
give aid to the victims and restore some measure of
economic activity in that impoverished land.  For the U.S.
Military, already engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan, it now
had a new responsibility in Haiti .. A more peaceful
responsibility , nevertheless, but one under certain
circumstances could deteriorate into violence. It would be
interesting to learn whether any of the troops ultimately
dispatched  to Haiti were actually destined to be part of
the Afghanistan Surge announced by the President late in
2009. How many of these troops ultimate destinies will be
changed because they went to Haiti rather than
Afghanistan or Iraq at this time. In a different era, a
soldier who hailed from Pennsylvania but stationed in
Colorado had orders to go to Vietnam, but these orders
were changed because riots had broken out in such
American cities as Detroit and Chicago in the late Sixties,
and his military unit was re-assigned to restore civil peace
in these cities. This re-assignment made a difference for
this soldier, after that he never received orders to go to

The Obamacrats knew this as well as a result of political
polls that indicated that political trouble was brewing in
Massachusetts. Consequently, Barrack Obama felt
compelled to jump into Air Force I jet for an emergency
campaign junket to Massachusetts to stop the new shot
around the world from being fired ....  But interestingly,
when President Obama campaigned with Martha
Coakley, neither of them said one word about health care
-- the issue on which the President has staked
everything.  They knew that even in Massachusetts -- the
liberal bastion of the nation -- their health care takeover
had been rejected by a majority of the people.  
In Massachusetts, Health Care Overhaul had fallen off the
wall and splintered into many pieces and all the King's
men could not put it  together again.  Oh that man in the
pick-up truck who had the audacity to compare himself to
Edward Kennedy's revered brother, the late President
John F. Kennedy ... That man, Scott Brown, also muddied
the water for Health Care Overhaul in Washington, D.C.

However, in Washington D.C.  this health care battle did
not end immediately.  Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader
Reid were at work with plans  to jam the health care
takeover through before Senator-elect Brown  could be  
seated. One plan considered was to have the House pass
the Senate's Health Care Overhaul bill in short order so
the President could quickly sign it into law before his
scheduled first State of Union address before a Joint
Session of Congress. Then introduce new legislation later
or at the same time  to make revisions to the health care
overhaul plan that would be more agreeable to House
members and would have Senate support. It being
important to advocates of health care overhaul that the
infrastructure for health care overhaul be set in place at
that time so it couldn't be easily reversed later on by
another Congress.  
President Obama showing some Common Sense warned
Democrats in Congress  not to "jam" a health care reform
bill through,  this being the consequence of the fact that
they've lost their commanding majority in the Senate, and
said they must wait for newly elected Massachusetts
Republican Scott Brown to be sworn into office.
At the same time the President also gave his take on
what happened in Massachusetts. He said the same voter
anger that swept him into office in 2008 carried Brown
into office on a stunning upset victory over heavily favored
Democrat Martha Coakley.
In the Presidents words said in an exclusive interview with
ABC News' George Stephanopoulos  : "Here's my
assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts, but the
mood around the country: the same thing that swept Scott
Brown into office swept me into office...People are angry
and they are frustrated. Not just because of what's
happened in the last year or two years, but what's
happened over the last eight years...Here's one thing I
know and I just want to make sure that this is off the
table: The Senate certainly shouldn't try to jam anything
through until Scott Brown is seated ...(The) People in
Massachusetts spoke. He's got to be part of that
process. ...I think point number two is that it is very
important to look at the substance of this package and for
the American people to understand that a lot of the fear
mongering around this bill isn't true,"
Conservative radio host, Rush Limbaugh in responding to
Obama's anger statement said: "What! ... Massachusetts
anger against George Bush has resulted in the election of
a Republican. Does that make sense!"
Despite Massachusetts, President Barack Obama and
top congressional Democrats continued to push ahead
with efforts to overhaul health care. What once was
considered a certainty, a movement on the fast track,  
became bogged down in quick changing political reality so
much that it became a uphill fight. The president
acknowledging  that the effort ran into a "bit of a buzz
saw" of opposition.
At a town hall meeting in Elyria, Ohio on January 22,
2010, Obama said on Health Care: "There are things that
have to get done. This is our best chance to do it. We
can't keep on putting this off," His intent was to warn
listeners that spiraling medical costs threaten to bankrupt
them and the country unless Congress acts. The motto of
Obama's social program --- Never waste an existing real
or perceived emergency to advance one's cause and
also, if there is no emergency create or suggest one.
In 2010, so early in his Presidential term, Obama had
used immense political capital to advance the health care
overhaul and remake a system that has frustrated past
administrations, most recently Democrat Bill Clinton in
1994. In 2012, the debate is still open whether he can
succeed where others have failed is now anything but
clear, the beat still goes on.
What does it mean for Obama? Is he weakened? Will he  
survive this? Is this just a bump in the road?  Obama said
at time:  "But I want you to understand, this is not about
me. This is about you."...
The question is, what does the so called "you" want? If
this was the game of gulf, and Obama was putting on the
green, would he judge correctly the path his ball must go
to get into the hole, or would he misread it.
What message or warning should Obama and his
democratic party get from their Massachusetts
House Republican leader John Boehner warned that the
Massachusetts election sent a very loud warning to
"My home state of Ohio has endured nine straight months
of double-digit unemployment ... And for the better part of
those nine months, Democrats in Washington have been
focused on this government takeover of health care that
working families just can't afford and want nothing to do
So what has been happening with you .. According to
Boehner "a political rebellion" has been brewing for
month's because of opposition to greater government
control over the economy and people's lives. That
rebellion propelled Republican Scott Brown to victory in
the Massachusetts special election.
Political pundits after the 2008 political debacle for the
Republican party said that the Grand old Party was going
to be in the minority in both houses of Congress for a long
time. That it would be possible that the Democratic
Majority would remain solidly in control for decades .... If
the late 2009-2010  "political rebellion" dissipates that
could still happen ... and that would mean events would
occur that will be detailed later in this report ... On the
other hand, if the political rebellion does not dissipate and
it in fact expands, it could spell trouble for the Democratic
Party and Obama. And who is to say whether this political
anger will also in the end be directed towards the
Republican Party as well. Which means that both
established political parties would diminish in political
power and a new force would arise to successfully
challenge them for power.
All we can say now is, lucky that Obama constitutionally
as President has a set term of office because if he had
the status of a prime minister then things would be more
interesting than they are now. The fact is, a Prime
Minister who loses the faith of his Party may either step
down to allow another party member to govern or call a
new election ahead of the scheduled timetable ... Then
too, a Prime Minister who perceives that the public has
turned against him might be forced to call a new election
ahead of the required election timetable ... But equally so,
when a Prime Minister perceives that the popularity of  his
party has risen, they may be tempted to hold a sudden
election to capitalize on this popularity ...
The fact is, at the start of his Presidency, Barrack Obama
had a lot of good will among the American people ... For
many months in his first year this high level of good will
remained high... But as winter moved into spring and
spring moved into summer and summer moved into fall
and fall moved once again into winter and the new year,
Obama's personal popularity took a plummet. One
wonders how an individual so short in his term can
become so out of touch with the American people so
soon...He campaigned on the theme Hope and Change
and his motto was Yes we can.... But more and more
Americans no longer have hope and see no change in
how Washington does business. And by their political
rebellion are telling the President, no you can't ... We ask,
is this so or are we seeing a mirage? But we note -- even
if it is not a political mirage, it is also possible for the
President to make a remarkable political recovery . The
title of this report is Road to 2012 - Venturing into the
unknown future --- A future that may or may not come. If
Obama indeed makes a political recovery then the so-
called fictional happening as detailed later in this report
may happen. However, if the President continues to
disappoint many and many of his supporters abandon
him, the Road to 2012 will follow a different highway. And
Secretary of State Hilary Clinton might be a key figure to
watch. And see what the President's reaction would be to
any challenge by Mrs. Clinton.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is the
independent regulatory agency charged with administering
and enforcing the federal campaign finance law. The FEC
has jurisdiction over the financing of campaigns for the U.
S. House, the U.S. Senate, the Presidency and the Vice
Federal campaign finance law covers three broad
• Public disclosure of funds raised and spent to influence
federal elections;
• Restrictions on contributions and expenditures made to
influence federal elections; and
• The public financing of Presidential campaigns.
Historical Background
As early as 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt
recognized the need for campaign finance reform and
called for legislation to ban corporate contributions for
political purposes. In response, Congress enacted several
statutes between 1907 and 1966 which, taken together,
sought to:
• Limit the disproportionate influence of wealthy individuals
and special interest groups on the outcome of federal
• Regulate spending in campaigns for federal office; and
• Deter abuses by mandating public disclosure of
campaign finances.
In 1971, Congress consolidated its earlier reform efforts
in the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), instituting
more stringent disclosure requirements for federal
candidates, political parties and political action
committees (PACs). Still, without a central administrative
authority, the campaign finance laws were difficult to
Following reports of serious financial abuses in the 1972
Presidential campaign, Congress amended the FECA in
1974 to set limits on contributions by individuals, political
parties and PACs. The 1974 amendments also
established an independent agency the Federal Election
Commission (FEC) to enforce the law, facilitate disclosure
and administer the public funding program. Congress
made further amendments to the FECA in 1976 following
a constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court case
Buckley v. Valeo ; major amendments were also made in
1979 to streamline the disclosure process and expand the
role of political parties.
Public funding of federal elections originally proposed by
President Roosevelt in 1907 began to take shape in 1971
when Congress set up the income tax checkoff to provide
for the financing of Presidential general election
campaigns and national party conventions. Amendments
to the Internal Revenue Code in 1974 established the
matching fund program for Presidential primary
The FEC opened its doors in 1975 and administered the
first publicly funded Presidential election in 1976.

The Campaign Finance Law
The Federal Election Campaign Act
The basic provisions of the FECA are described below.
The FECA requires candidate committees, party
committees and PACs to file periodic reports disclosing
the money they raise and spend. Candidates must
identify, for example, all PACs and party committees that
give them contributions, and they must identify individuals
who give them more than $200 in a year. Additionally,
they must disclose expenditures exceeding $200 per year
to any individual or vendor.
Contribution Limits
The FECA places limits on contributions by individuals and
groups to candidates, party committees and PACs. The
chart below shows how the limits apply to the various
participants in federal elections.

Prohibited Contributions and Expenditures
The FECA places prohibitions on contributions and
expenditures by certain individuals and organizations. The
following are prohibited from making contributions or
expenditures to influence federal elections:
• Corporations;
• Labor organizations;
• Federal government contractors; and
• Foreign nationals.
Furthermore, with respect to federal elections:
• No one may make a contribution in another person's
• No one may make a contribution in cash of more than
In addition to the above prohibitions on contributions and
expenditures in federal election campaigns, the FECA
also prohibits foreign nationals, national banks and other
federally chartered corporations from making
contributions or expenditures in connection with state and
local elections.
Independent Expenditures
Under federal election law, an individual or group (such as
a PAC) may make unlimited "independent expenditures" in
connection with federal elections.
An independent expenditure is an expenditure for a
communication which expressly advocates the election or
defeat of a clearly identified candidate and which is made
independently from the candidate's campaign. To be
considered independent, the communication may not be
made with the cooperation or consent of the candidate or
his or her campaign; nor may it be made upon a request
or suggestion of either the candidate or the campaign.
While there is no limit on how much anyone may spend on
an independent expenditure, the law does require persons
making independent expenditures to report them and to
disclose the sources of the funds they used. The public
can review these reports at the FEC's Public Records
Corporate and Union Activity
Although corporations and labor organizations may not
make contributions or expenditures in connection with
federal elections, they may establish PACs. Corporate
and labor PACs raise voluntary contributions from a
restricted class of individuals and use those funds to
support federal candidates and political committees.
Apart from supporting PACs, corporations and labor
organizations may conduct other activities related to
federal elections, within certain guidelines. For more
information, call the FEC or consult 11 CFR Part 114.
Political Party Activity
Political parties are active in federal elections at the local,
state and national levels. Most party committees
organized at the state and national levels as well as some
committees organized at the local level are required to
register with the FEC and file reports disclosing their
federal campaign activities.
Party committees may contribute funds directly to federal
candidates, subject to the contribution limits. National and
state party committees may make additional "coordinated
expenditures," subject to limits, to help their nominees in
general elections. Finally, state and local party
committees may spend unlimited amounts on certain
grassroots activities specified in the law without affecting
their other contribution and expenditure limits (for
example, voter drives by volunteers in support of the
party's Presidential nominees and the production of
campaign materials for volunteer distribution).
Party committees must register and file disclosure reports
with the FEC once their federal election activities exceed
certain dollar thresholds specified in the law.
The Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act
Under the Internal Revenue Code, qualified Presidential
candidates receive money from the Presidential Election
Campaign Fund, which is an account on the books of the
U.S. Treasury.
The Fund is financed exclusively by a voluntary tax
checkoff. By checking a box on their income tax returns,
individual taxpayers may direct $3 of their tax to the Fund
(up to $6 for joint filers). Checking the box does not
increase the amount a taxpayer owes or reduce his or her
refund; it merely directs that three dollars from the U.S.
Treasury be used in Presidential elections. Checkoff funds
may not be spent for other federal programs.
The funds are distributed under three programs:
Primary Matching Payments
Eligible candidates in the Presidential primaries may
receive public funds to match the private contributions
they raise. While a candidate may raise money from
many different sources, only contributions from individuals
are matchable; contributions from PACs and party
committees are not. Furthermore, while an individual may
give up to $1,000 to a primary candidate, only the first
$250 of that contribution is matchable.
To participate in the matching fund program, a candidate
must demonstrate broad-based support by raising more
than $5,000 in matchable contributions in each of 20
different states. Candidates must agree to use public
funds only for campaign expenses, and they must comply
with spending limits. Beginning with a $10 million base
figure, the overall primary spending limit is adjusted each
Presidential election year to reflect inflation. In 1996, the
limit was $30.91 million.
General Election Grants
The Republican and Democratic candidates who win their
parties' nominations for President are each eligible to
receive a grant to cover all the expenses of their general
election campaigns. The basic $20 million grant is
adjusted for inflation each Presidential election year. In
1996, the grant was $61.82 million.
Nominees who accept the funds must agree not to raise
private contributions (from individuals, PACs or party
committees) and to limit their campaign expenditures to
the amount of public funds they receive. They may use
the funds only for campaign expenses.
A third party Presidential candidate may qualify for some
public funds after the general election if he or she
receives at least five percent of the popular vote.
Party Convention Grants
Each major political party may receive public funds to pay
for its national Presidential nominating convention. The
statute sets the base amount of the grant at $4 million for
each party, and that amount is adjusted for inflation each
Presidential election year. In 1996, the major parties each
received $12.36 million.
Other parties may also be eligible for partial public
financing of their nominating conventions, provided that
their nominees received at least five percent of the vote in
the previous Presidential election.
On March 27, 2002, President George W. Bush signed
into law the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002
(BCRA),Law No. 107-155. . (AKA 2002 McCain-Feingold
campaign finance reform law)... During  ensuing years
(2002 -2009)  provisions of this act dictated what
practices were permitted or not permitted for
Presidential, Congressional or Senatorial campaigns
conducted in those years.
At a hearing held Wednesday September  on 'Hillary: The
Movie,' conservative justices repeatedly asked whether
limits on corporate contributions in federal elections are
too broad and amounted to censorship of free speech...
At issue  was whether the court should strike down two
legal precedents that bar corporations from spending their
general treasury funds on political speech during
campaign season... We don't put our First Amendment
rights in the hands of FEC bureaucrats," Chief Justice
John Roberts said at one point, referring to staff
members of the Federal Election Commission which
enforces the campaign finance laws. Three justices,
Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas,
are on record opposing the two provisions. And after oral
arguments it appeared that Chief Justice Roberts and
Justice Samuel Alito were prepared to vote with their
colleagues on the court's conservative wing,,, At the same
time, the court's liberal wing remained united in the view
that the corporate restrictions were justified by
Congressional concern about the corruptive and distorting
influence of corporate dollars in federal campaigns. Some
also suggested that it was unfair for corporations to use
shareholder money to pursue political goals... Then too,
the court's liberal wing remained united in the view that
the corporate restrictions were justified by Congressional
concern about the corruptive and distorting influence of
corporate dollars in federal campaigns. Some also
suggested that it was unfair for corporations to use
shareholder money to pursue political goals...Justices
John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen
Breyer, and the court's newest justice, Sonia Sotomayor,
repeatedly stressed that the court should identify
narrower grounds to decide the case rather than
overturning established legal precedents...But the
conservatives – including Roberts and Alito – seemed
determined to correct what they view as an error of
constitutional import.
The 'Hillary' documentary

The case, Citizens United v. Federal Election
Commission, involves a decision by the FEC to block
video-on-demand broadcasts of a 90-minute documentary
attacking the potential presidential candidacy of Hillary
Rodham Clinton...The film, "Hillary: The Movie," was
produced by a conservative nonprofit group called
Citizens United. The group complained that the FEC
action was an unconstitutional form of government
censorship of political speech...The government
responded that the documentary was similar to a pre-
election broadcast attack advertisement and thus could
be regulated by the government under the 2002
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA).. Citizens United
filed suit, arguing before a three-judge panel that the
McCain-Feingold law was unconstitutional in the way it
was being enforced by the FEC against “Hillary: The
Movie.”... The panel disagreed. It ruled that the
documentary was the functional equivalent of
electioneering and that Citizens United must disclose the
documentary’s financial supporters if it wanted to run
broadcast ads during election season.
.The high court is considering whether to overturn the
section of BCRA that deals with corporate spending
before and during elections. In addition, the court is
considering overturning a 1990 decision in a case called
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce. The 1990
case established the legal foundation for the corporate
restrictions later adopted in BCRA.
'Corporate electioneering'?
In a joint statement, Sens. John McCain (R) of Arizona
and Russ Feingold (D) of Wisconsin, the two cosponsors
of BCRA, warned that overturning the corporate
restrictions in the law would be a "drastic step."..."At
stake in this case are the voices of millions and millions of
Americans that could be drowned out by large
corporations if the decades-old restrictions on corporate
electioneering are called into question," the senators said.
"During his confirmation hearing, Chief Justice Roberts,
whom we both voted for, promised to respect precedent,"
Senators McCain and Feingold said. "If he casts the
deciding vote to overrule [the two legal precedents] it
would completely contradict that promise, and could have
serious consequences for our democracy."
Others according to a report of the Christian Science
Monitor of September 10, 2010 were pleased with the
apparent direction of the court.
"Based on today's argument, free speech advocates can
be optimistic for a broad vindication of First Amendment
rights," said Steve Simpson, a lawyer with the Institute for
Justice. "Several justices recognized that a piecemeal
approach to free speech is insufficient to protect vital
constitutional rights.",,, Mr. Simpson added, "Corporate
speech bans are nothing more than government
censorship of selected speakers. The simple fact is it
takes money, including corporate money, to speak up and
be heard. Under the First Amendment, the government
has no business deciding which speakers gain admittance
to the marketplace of ideas."
Doug Kendall, president of the Constitutional
Accountability Center, holds a different view.
"Since the dawn of the Republic, the court has recognized
that corporations are artificial entities that enjoy unique
advantages and must therefore be subject to greater
government oversight," Mr. Kendall said. "If the court
turns back on this constitutional text and history, it will
blatantly disregard the will of the people and unleash
corporate influence on elections."
On January 21, 2010, The US Supreme Court struck
down a major portion of a 2002 campaign-finance reform
law, saying it violated the free-speech right of
corporations to engage in public debate of political
issues... In a landmark 5-to-4 decision announced
Thursday, the high court overturned a 1990 legal
precedent and reversed a position it took in 2003, when a
different lineup of justices upheld government restrictions
on independent political expenditures by corporations
during elections.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the 57-page majority
opinion: "Government may not suppress political speech
on the basis of the speaker’s corporate identity. No
sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the
political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations."
Warren Richey in his report in the Christian Science
Monitor of January 21, 2010 suggests: "The decision
opens the gates for what campaign reform advocates
warn will be a flood of corporate spending in future
elections. The ruling is expected to permit similar political
expenditures from the general treasuries of labor unions,
as well."
As expected, there was vocal displeasure with the
decision ... Fred Worthheimer, president of Democracy
21 said: “This is the most radical and destructive
campaign-finance decision in the history of the Supreme
Court.” ... Bob Edgar, president of Common Cause
added: “Today’s decision is the Super Bowl of really bad
decisions. It returns us to the days of the robber barons,”
Patrik Jonsson  wrote in the Christian Science Monitor of
Sat Jan 23 :
"In unusually testy language, Mr. Obama vented his
frustration at the end of a tough week for liberals that saw
the election of a Republican in dark-blue Massachusetts,
the potential demise of broad-based healthcare reform,
and the crash of the liberal radio network Air America. But
the Supreme Court’s ruling, which lifted some limits on
corporate and union campaign spending, represents
perhaps the gravest threat of all to Americans since it
could mean the end of “common sense legislation”
regarding healthcare or the environment, Obama said.
Republicans, meanwhile, hailed the ruling as a tribute to
free speech, which GOP chairman Michael Steele said
“strengthens democracy.”
From the White House, President Obama also  called the
ruling a “major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health
insurance companies and other powerful interests that
marshal their power every day in Washington to drown
out the voices of everyday Americans.”
At issue was a provision of the Bipartisan Campaign
Reform Act (BCRA), commonly referred to as the McCain-
Feingold law. Section 203 of the law barred corporations
and labor unions from using general treasury funds to pay
for advertisements or other broadcasts that mention a
political candidate in a way that Federal Election
Commission officials might view as electioneering. The
ban applied 30 days before any primary and 60 days
before a general election.
Campaign-reform advocates said the provision was
necessary to prevent a proliferation of noncandidate
advertisements (paid for by wealthy corporations and
unions) from crowding out the candidates’ own campaign
Critics of the regulation said it amounted to
unconstitutional censorship. They argued that
corporations should enjoy a First Amendment right to
spend money and advocate political and policy positions
during election seasons just as individuals can.
And as it came down, the Supreme Court agreed with the
critics. “Rapid changes in technology – and the creative
dynamic inherent in the concept of free expression –
counsel against upholding a law that restricts political
speech in certain media or by certain speakers,” Justice
Kennedy wrote. “The First Amendment does not permit
Congress to make … categorical distinctions based on
the corporate identity of the speaker and the content of
the political speech.”
In a 90-page dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens
denounced the majority opinion as a dangerous rejection
of common sense. “While American democracy is
imperfect, few outside the majority of this court would
have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate
money in politics,” he wrote.
“The court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of
elected institutions across the nation,” he said.
The high court decision leaves intact campaign
contribution regulations – including laws barring campaign
contributions to federal candidates from corporations and
unions. It also leaves intact laws barring so-called soft-
money contributions to political parties.
In a second portion of its decision, the Supreme Court
voted 8 to 1 to uphold a portion of BCRA requiring
corporations and others to disclose their involvement in
political advertisements. Those disclosures include
identifying who is responsible for the content of an
advertisement and who contributed money to support the
making of the advertisement... The lone dissent in that
portion of the decision came from Justice Clarence
In the main portion of the decision, Kennedy was joined
by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Thomas,
Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alito.
Justice Stevens’ dissent was joined by Justices Ruth
Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor.
In reaching its decision, the court invalidated a 1990
Supreme Court ruling, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of
Commerce, which first established the legal approach
adopted in Section 203 of BCRA. The Austin decision
justified restrictions on corporate expenditures to prevent
wealthy special interests from distorting the campaign
playing field and dominating the marketplace of ideas.
The majority justices said the government restrictions
interfered with the open marketplace of ideas rather than
protected it. “By suppressing the speech of manifold
corporations, both for-profit and non-profit, the
government prevents their voices and viewpoints from
reaching the public,” Kennedy wrote.
When government seeks to use its full power, including
the criminal law, to command where a person may get his
or her information or what distrusted source he or she
may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This
is unlawful,” Kennedy wrote. “The First Amendment
confirms the freedom to think for ourselves
In its ruling on Thursday, January 21, 2010 the high court
upheld the lower court’s ruling on the disclosure issue but
reversed on the constitutional challenge.
On a grace centered Christian Forum a person identified
as Stucky made comment December 23, 2009 in regard
to an Obama Administration action that he regarded as
Obama's first wag the dog operation. He said that On
Thursday, December 17 2009 when President Barack
Obama’s most important policy agenda of his
administration appeared to be in jeopardy, a delay in
Health Care Reform passing in the Senate, the U.S
helped execute an attack on an “alleged” Al-Qaida camp
in Yemen that reportedly caused the death of civilians,
women, and children.
This was before Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab's failed
attempt to bomb a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas
Day in which Osama bin Laden claimed responsibility...
The claim of responsibility suggested the al-Qaida leader
wanted to appear in direct command of the terrorist
group's many affiliates around the world at time when
some analysts have suggested he was mostly a
Bin Laden asserted: "The message delivered to you
through the plane of the heroic warrior Umar Farouk
Abdulmutallab was a confirmation of the previous
messages sent by the heroes of the Sept. 11...America
will never dream of security unless we will have it in reality
in Palestine.God willing, our raids on you will continue as
long as your support for the Israelis continues."
On Christmas Day, Nigerian Abdulmutallab attempted to
blow up his Northwest Airlines flight as it approached
Detroit Metro Airport. But the explosive powder he was
hiding in his underwear failed to detonate.
He told federal agents shortly afterward that he had been
trained and given the explosives by al-Qaida in the
Arabian Peninsula, an al-Qaida affiliate in Yemen.
Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula originally claimed
responsibility for the failed plot. But bin Laden suggested
he was the one who ordered attacks, rather than just put
his seal of approval on events afterward.
In conducting its own attack in Yemen, the United Stated
used unmanned Predator Drone weaponry similar to that
it used in operations in Pakistan. An operation that had
prompted some concern from the Pakistani government
because of observable collateral damage to civilians' that
was produced from these attacks. Which prompted
another voicer to question whether this was an example
of American terrorism?
Surprisingly, Stucky who initially raised the question of a
Clinton like Wag the Dog operation defended the
American attack when he said: "Civilian casualties are an
unfortunate aspect of war.  When Japan attacked Pearl
Harbour they attack a well identifiable humongous military
base on the edge of the ocean.  Moslem terrorists live
and fight among civilians.  All their weapon stockpiles are
kept in houses right next to civilian housing.  This war
against cowardly Islamic terrorists is unlike any other war
we've ever fought.  The other countries learned from the
communists of the Viet Nam war that posed as citizens to
kill our troops in cities and in the small villages.  Now the
terrorists do it on a grander scale than Viet Nam.

War is terrible but the Muslims yell and scream that the
American infidels are indiscriminately killing civilians when
our military does their best to avoid civilian casualties. The
Muslims kill thousands of innocent civilians on both sides.  
Where is your outrage at that?
As an aftermath of the attempted attack, Yemeni security
forces stormed an al-Qaida hide-out in a principle militant
stronghold in the country's west, setting off clashes,
officials said, as a security chief vowed to fight the
group's powerful local branch until it was eliminated. A
government statement said at least one suspected al-
Qaida member was arrested during the fighting in
Hudaydah province. The province, along Yemen's Red
Sea coast, was home to most of the assailants in a
bombing and shooting attack outside the U.S. Embassy in
2008 that killed 10 Yemeni guards and four civilians.
The group's growing presence in Yemen, an impoverished
and lawless country on the edge of the Arabian Peninsula,
had drawn attention with the attempted attack on a U.S.
airliner. U.S. investigators said the Nigerian suspect in the
attack had told them that he received training and
instructions from al-Qaida operatives in Yemen.
Could this potential disaster in the air been averted?

The U.S. government claimed it had sufficient information
to disrupt an al Qaeda plot to bomb an airliner on
Christmas Day, but failed to identify Umar Farouk
AbdulMutallab as a potential bomber, a White House
review of the incident showed...In the end, the six-page
report found, it was the inability of the intelligence
community to "connect the dots" in putting all the pieces
of information and analysis together.

But from our standpoint, a few years in the future --- Was
there any connection between the alleged Yemeni attack
against Al-Qaeda of December 17, 2009 and the
attempted bombing December 25, 2009...  

Interestingly, in regard the unmanned drones, Militants in
Iraq have used $26 off-the-shelf software to intercept live
video feeds from U.S. Predator drones, potentially
providing them with information they need to evade or
monitor U.S. military operations.
Senior defense and intelligence officials confirmed that
Iranian-backed insurgents intercepted the video feeds by
taking advantage of an unprotected communications link in
some of the remotely flown planes' systems. Shiite
fighters in Iraq used software programs such as
SkyGrabber -- available for as little as $25.95 on the
Internet -- to regularly capture drone video feeds,
according to a person familiar with reports on the matter.
U.S. officials maintained at the time there was no
evidence that militants were able to take control of the
drones or otherwise interfere with their flights. Still, the
intercepts might have gave America's enemies battlefield
advantages by removing the element of surprise from
certain missions and making it easier for insurgents to
determine which roads and buildings are under U.S.
The drone intercepts marked the emergence of a shadow
cyber war within the U.S.-led conflicts overseas. They
also pointed to a potentially serious vulnerability in
Washington's growing network of unmanned drones,
which have become the American weapon of choice in
both Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The Obama administration had come to rely heavily on
the unmanned drones because they allow the U.S. to
safely monitor and stalk insurgent targets in areas where
sending American troops would be either politically
untenable or too risky.
The stolen video feeds also indicated that U.S.
adversaries continue to find simple ways of counteracting
sophisticated American military technologies....And this
was the message that Kim Dunniger of CBS News and
James Logan staff reporter of Chicago Tribune at a
September 2009 Society of Professional Journalist
Conference in Indianapolis, Indiana confirmed focusing on
a troop carrier used in Iraq that could deflect the state of
art road bombs used by enemy combatants thus saving
American lives... However such technology used in
Afghanistan is not as effective due to terrain and the use
of heavier ID road bombs ... These heavy weight vehicles
are not as effective in hillier roads where road bombs
while not destroying them may turn them over ... And the
situation is that the enemy is constantly working to
develop bigger bombs to counteract this technology and
also developing little land mines to freeze American units
when one of their members loses a limb by a small
pressurized land mine devise.
As events went down, The U.S. Justice Department
announced  January 7,  2010 that Umar Farouk
Abdulmutallab, a 23-year-old Nigerian national, would be
charged  with a six-count criminal indictment returned in
the Eastern District of Michigan for his role in the
attempted Christmas day bombing of Northwest Airlines
flight 253 from Amsterdam, the Netherlands, to Detroit...
Some debate the legal status of Abulmutallab -- Whether
he should be treated as an illegal enemy combatant and
be tried in military court or be given all the rights and
privileges of the accused in the American Court System.
Is there a difference? Yes! ...
If  Abulmutallab was held in military court, U.S.
intelligence could question the suspect without a lawyer
present as long as it took to get valuable information from
him concerning future plans of terrorist groups to attack
the American homeland or its interests ... However,
should he be held in either the Federal or State Civilian
Court System, the rules of evidence were different . In the
Civilian court system, Abulmutallab had to be advised of
his right to remain silent and have an attorney represent
him  on all legal issues he confronted; and what-is-more,
if he could not afford an attorney the State or Government
would have to provide him one... Unfortunately, to those
who wanted to obtain all the information they could from
Abulmutallab, the use of the ladder option would cause
the needless loss of a lot of potential intelligence due to
the fact that the suspect could remain silent on the advice
of his attorney to all questioning.
According to the indictment, Northwest Airlines flight 253
carried 279 passengers and 11 crewmembers.
Abdulmutallab boarded Northwest Airlines flight 253 in
Amsterdam on Dec. 25, 2009 carrying a concealed bomb.
The bomb components included Pentaerythritol (also
known as PETN, a high explosive), as well as Triacetone
Triperoxide (also known as TATP, a high explosive), and
other ingredients.

The bomb was concealed in the defendant’s clothing and
was designed to allow him to detonate it at a time of his
choosing, thereby causing an explosion aboard flight 253,.
Shortly prior to landing at Detroit Metropolitan Airport,
Abdulmutallab detonated the bomb, causing a fire on
board flight... Abdulmutallab was subdued and restrained
by the passengers and flight crew after detonating the
bomb. The airplane landed shortly thereafter, and he was
taken into custody by U.S. Customs and Border
Protection officers. Abdulmutallab required medical
treatment, and was transported to the University of
Michigan Medical Center after the plane landed.
On other issues,  behind the scene off and on tensions
between Pakistan and India still remain a concern and the
Bloc Quebecois still has ambitions to separate itself from
Canada. But on a brighter side, Israel SUDDENLY made
peace with Syria and Palestine without explanation from
the Obama Administration, with the result that the Third
Jewish Temple is presently being constructed on Mount
Mariah also known as the Temple Mount. The press and
the Obama Administration have no clue that something big
and wonderful is about to happen there … The real push
for peace began with the appearance of an unexplained
Monolith on the Temple Mount not any push by the
Obama Administration or the United Nations. Israel’s push
into Gaza against Hamas occurred in the latter days of
the Bush administration. In this crisis Obama was no
more then a bystander. But In Iran, when there was a
spark of hope that a new peaceful revolution would
replace the Theocracy. But Obama fumbled the football,
struck out and made a bogey. Only after pressure, his
idea of punishing the government for unmercifully cracking
down on protesters was to forbid Iran officials to attend
the annual hot dog/hamburger and fire work picnics at U.
S. embassies around the world. Iran still denies the
Holocaust of Jews in Germany and Central Europe in the
late 1930's and early 1940's ... As stated by Kenneth
Cragg in Muhammad and the Christians  - A Question of
Response Chapter 2, p.25 :

".... Muhammad's  purpose turned on a vigorous marriage
of Medina's occasions with   Mecca's ultimacy. ... Among
the occasions were the building of prestige, the
recruitment, or the confiscation, of resources, the
enlistment , or if need be the intimidation of the tribes.
Inevitably the conflict with Mecca meant suspicion, or
accusation, of connivance or conspiracies with the
parties. It is painful to sort out the truth in the welter of
change and counter-change that embittered the
combatants and bedeviled their neighbors. Even neutrality
is suspect where strife intensifies. The Jews particularly
were in the cross-fire of partisanship if only because the
Prophet's earlier anticipations of their acceptance of him
had been more evidently denied and because, in Medina,
the separate autonomy of Islam was more totally

So in Iran, the origin of their hatred toward the Jews also
seems to center on the decision of many adherents of
Judaism to reject the prophet Muhammad's new found
faith in the early 7th century . Interestingly,  President
Obama in initially seeking the outward neutral course in
regard the Iranian election, drew partisan barbs from the
party or movement out of power in the U.S. and even
raised eyebrows among partisans of his own party. And
in Iran, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad mocked
President Obama for challenging Tehran's brutal
crackdown on protesters, calling him a poor imitation of
former U.S. President George W. Bush.  "Correct
yourself," Ahmadinejad said in remarks aimed at Obama.
"Show your repentance." But Obama declined to take the
bait, blowing off Ahmadinejad's demand for an apology
and saying it would not lend credence to the Iranian
regime's campaign to blame foreign influences for its
domestic  situation.. Therefore, Iran like North Korea
remain Rogue nations ... Rogue nations that remain
steady on their course to develop nuclear weapons ...
Indeed, there are no perfect candidates.  They, like all of
us, are all flawed.  But we must prayerfully examine the
policies of the candidates, from those seeking the Oval
Office to those seeking local offices, and go to the polls
to support the men and women who best uphold the
political and social values we hold dear.

The need is clear --- Let us fearlessly stand up for the
unborn, the biblical family, strong national defense and
unswerving support for Israel. .

And moreover, Americans must not allow the Soul of
America to be abused, sold short or talked down.  Our
hearts should not be troubled by the Culture of Malaise
which takes advantage of troubled times and seeks to
make Americans submit to new rules they never would
have tolerated in less troubled times.

In 1979, Democratic President Jimmy Carter said the
following: “I know, of course, being President, that
government actions and legislation can be very important.
That’s why I’ve worked hard to put my campaign
promises into law, and I have to admit, with just mixed
success. But after listening to the American people, I
have been reminded again that all the legislation in the
world can’t fix what’s wrong with America. So, I want to
speak to you first tonight about a subject even more
serious than energy or inflation. I want to talk to you right
now about a fundamental threat to American democracy.
I do not mean our political and civil liberties. They will
endure. And I do not refer to the outward strength of
America, a nation that is at peace tonight everywhere in
the world, with unmatched economic power and military
The threat is nearly invisible in ordinary ways.
It is a crisis of confidence.
It is a crisis that strikes at the very heart and soul and
spirit of our national will. We can see this crisis in the
growing doubt about the meaning of our own lives and in
the loss of a unity of purpose for our nation.
The confidence that we have always had as a people is
not simply some romantic dream or a proverb in a dusty
book that we read just on the Fourth of July. It is the idea,
which founded our nation and has guided our development
as a people. Confidence in the future has supported
everything else -- public institutions and private enterprise,
our own families, and the very Constitution of the United
States. Confidence has defined our course and has
served as a link between generations. We’ve always
believed in something called progress. We’ve always had
a faith that the days of our children would be better than
our own.
Our people are losing that faith, not only in government
itself but in the ability as citizens to serve as the ultimate
rulers and shapers of our democracy. As a people we
know our past and we are proud of it. Our progress has
been part of the living history of America, even the world.
We always believed that we were part of a great
movement of humanity itself called democracy, involved in
the search for freedom; and that belief has always
strengthened us in our purpose. But just as we are losing
our confidence in the future, we are also beginning to
close the door on our past.
The erosion of our confidence in the future is threatening
to destroy the social and the political fabric of America.
In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families,
close-knit communities, and our faith in God, too many of
us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption.
Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but
by what one owns. But we’ve discovered that owning
things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing
for meaning. We’ve learned that piling up material goods
cannot fill the emptiness of lives, which have no
confidence or purpose.
The symptoms of this crisis of the American spirit are all
around us. For the first time in the history of our country a
majority of our people believe that the next five years will
be worse than the past five years. Two-thirds of our
people do not even vote. The productivity of American
workers is actually dropping, and the willingness of
Americans to save for the future has fallen below that of
all other people in the Western world.
We were sure that ours was a nation of the ballot, not the
bullet, until the murders of John Kennedy and Robert
Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. We were taught that
our armies were always invincible and our causes were
always just, only to suffer the agony of Vietnam. We
respected the Presidency as a place of honor until the
shock of Watergate.
We remember when the phrase “sound as a dollar” was
an expression of absolute dependability, until ten years of
inflation began to shrink our dollar and our savings. We
believed that our nation’s resources were limitless until
1973 when we had to face a growing dependence on
foreign oil.
These wounds are still very deep. They have never been
Looking for a way out of this crisis, our people have
turned to the Federal Government and found it isolated
from the mainstream of our nation’s life. Washington, D.
C., has become an island. The gap between our citizens
and our government has never been so wide. The people
are looking for honest answers, not easy answers; clear
leadership, not false claims and evasiveness and politics
as usual.
What you see too often in Washington and elsewhere
around the country is a system of government that seems
incapable of action. You see a Congress twisted and
pulled in every direction by hundreds of well-financed and
powerful special interests.
You see every extreme position defended to the last vote,
almost to the last breath by one unyielding group or
another. You often see a balanced and a fair approach
that demands sacrifice, a little sacrifice from everyone,
abandoned like an orphan without support and without
Often you see paralysis and stagnation and drift. You don’
t like it, and neither do I. What can we do?
First of all, we must face the truth, and then we can
change our course. We simply must have faith in each
other, faith in our ability to govern ourselves, and faith in
the future of this nation. Restoring that faith and that
confidence to America is now the most important task we
face. It is a true challenge of this generation of Americans.
One of the visitors to Camp David last week put it this
way: “We’ve got to stop crying and start sweating, stop
talking and start walking, stop cursing and start praying.
The strength we need will not come from the White
House, but from every house in America.”
We know the strength of America. We are strong. We
can regain our unity. We can regain our confidence. We
are the heirs of generations who survived threats much
more powerful and awesome than those that challenge us
now. Our fathers and mothers were strong men and
women who shaped a new society during the Great
Depression, who fought world wars and who carved out a
new charter of peace for the world.
We ourselves are the same Americans who just ten years
ago put a man on the moon. We are the generation that
dedicated our society to the pursuit of human rights and
equality. And we are the generation that will win the war
on the energy problem and in that process, rebuild the
unity and confidence of America.
We are at a turning point in our history. There are two
paths to choose. One is a path I’ve warned about tonight,
the path that leads to fragmentation and self-interest.
Down that road lies a mistaken idea of freedom, the right
to grasp for ourselves some advantage over others. That
path would be one of constant conflict between narrow
interests ending in chaos and immobility. It is a certain
route to failure.
All the traditions of our past, all the lessons of our
heritage, all the promises of our future point to another
path -- the path of common purpose and the restoration
of American values. That path leads to true freedom for
our nation and ourselves. We can take the first steps
down that path as we begin to solve our energy problem
… Little by little we can and we must rebuild our
confidence. We can spend until we empty our treasuries,
and we may summon all the wonders of science. But we
can succeed only if we tap our greatest resources --
America’s people, America’s values, and America’s
I have seen the strength of America in the inexhaustible
resources of our people. In the days to come, let us
renew that strength in the struggle for an energy-secure
In closing, let me say this: I will do my best, but I will not
do it alone. Let your voice be heard. Whenever you have
a chance, say something good about our country. With
God’s help and for the sake of our nation, it is time for us
to join hands in America. Let us commit ourselves
together to a rebirth of the American spirit. Working
together with our common faith we cannot fail.
But the Carter Administration did fail in winning the
support of the American people, and in 1980 the
American people joined hands with Ronald Reagan
inorder to achieve the rebirth of the American spirit.
In 2009, in the midst of the promise of change Obama we
went back to the future with his rhetoric and as Reagan
would say there we went again.
As expressed by Obama in an economic speech of
January 8, 2009: :”We start 2009 in the midst of a crisis
unlike any we have seen in our lifetime – a crisis that has
only deepened over the last few weeks.  Nearly two
million jobs have now been lost, and on Friday we are
likely to learn that we lost more jobs last year than at any
time since World War II.  Just in the past year, another
2.8 million Americans who want and need full-time work
have had to settle for part-time jobs.  Manufacturing has
hit a twenty-eight year low.  Many businesses cannot
borrow or make payroll.  Many families cannot pay their
bills or their mortgage.  Many workers are watching their
life savings disappear.  And many, many Americans are
both anxious and uncertain of what the future will hold.
I don’t believe it’s too late to change course, but it will be
if we don’t take dramatic action as soon as possible.  If
nothing is done, this recession could linger for years.  The
unemployment rate could reach double digits.  Our
economy could fall $1 trillion short of its full capacity,
which translates into more than $12,000 in lost income for
a family of four.  We could lose a generation of potential
and promise, as more young Americans are forced to
forgo dreams of college or the chance to train for the jobs
of the future.  And our nation could lose the competitive
edge that has served as a foundation for our strength and
standing in the world.
In short, a bad situation could become dramatically
What we see here is the return of  the culture of Malaise
and lack of Confidence. For those who find political gain in
troubled times and practice or relish in such rhetoric,
happy days are  here again.
Obama continues: “This crisis did not happen solely by
some accident of history or normal turn of the business
cycle, and we won’t get out of it by simply waiting for a
better day to come, or relying on the worn-out dogmas of
the past.  We arrived at this point due to an era of
profound irresponsibility that stretched from corporate
boardrooms to the halls of power in Washington, DC.  For
years, too many Wall Street executives made imprudent
and dangerous decisions, seeking profits with too little
regard for risk, too little regulatory scrutiny, and too little
accountability.  Banks made loans without concern for
whether borrowers could repay them, and some
borrowers took advantage of cheap credit to take on debt
they couldn’t afford.  Politicians spent taxpayer money
without wisdom or discipline, and too often focused on
scoring political points instead of the problems they were
sent here to solve.  The result has been a devastating
loss of trust and confidence in our economy, our financial
markets, and our government.”
And of course, none of Obama’s good buddies in
ACORN, Freddie Mack , Ginne Mae, and in Congress
were responsible for what occurred. Believe that and I
will  sale you a bridge in Brooklyn.  But if truth be known
the Republican Party had dirty hands as well. Around the
time of the Obama speech, Vice President Dick Cheney
said that the Administration could not see the economic
crisis coming. It should be questioned whether the facts
were deliberately hidden from the Administration Or the
Administration choice to see no evil, hear no evil or speak
no evil. Ironically the Administration by providing the
means to bail-out the financial institutions and the Auto
industry did more for the advancement of Socialistic
Change then their mean-spirited detractors could ever
Obama continues: “Now, the very fact that this crisis is
largely of our own making means that it is not beyond our
ability to solve.  Our problems are rooted in past
mistakes, not our capacity for future greatness.  It will
take time, perhaps many years, but we can rebuild that
lost trust and confidence.  We can restore opportunity
and prosperity.  We should never forget that our workers
are still more productive than any on Earth.  Our
universities are still the envy of the world.  We are still
home to the most brilliant minds, the most creative
entrepreneurs, and the most advanced technology and
innovation that history has ever known.  And we are still
the nation that has overcome great fears and improbable
odds.  If we act with the urgency and seriousness that
this moment requires, I know that we can do it again.”
It’s a plan that represents not just new policy, but a whole
new approach to meeting our most urgent challenges. For
if we hope to end this crisis, we must end the culture of
anything goes that helped create it – and this change
must begin in Washington.  It is time to trade old habits
for a new spirit of responsibility.  It is time to finally
change the ways of Washington so that we can set a new
and better course for America.”
Obama in seeking a new policy and approach to how we
do business in America wanted to change the way
Washington D.C did business as well. Whether Obama’s
new plan  could actually steer the nation’s economy away
from foul weather or continually ride on the edge of foul
weather remained to be seen. But one thing was
absolutely clear, if the Obama Administration was
successful in convincing the American public that
economic crisis they faced at the beginning of their
Administration was of a historical grand scale or
immenseness, any gains or apparent gains made in the
years between 2009 and 2012 would result in good public
relations in the nation’s electronic and print media and
therefore guarantee continued enthusiastic support among
the public.
According to Obama: “There is no doubt that the cost of
this plan will be considerable.  It will certainly add to the
budget deficit in the short-term.  But equally certain are
the consequences of doing too little or nothing at all, for
that will lead to an even greater deficit of jobs, incomes,
and confidence in our economy.  It is true that we cannot
depend on government alone to create jobs or long-term
growth, but at this particular moment, only government
can provide the short-term boost necessary to lift us from
a recession this deep and severe.  Only government can
break the vicious cycles that are crippling our economy –
where a lack of spending leads to lost jobs which leads to
even less spending; where an inability to lend and borrow
stops growth and leads to even less credit.
That is why we need to act boldly and act now to reverse
these cycles.  That’s why we need to put money in the
pockets of the American people, create new jobs, and
invest in our future.  That’s why we need to re-start the
flow of credit and restore the rules of the road that will
ensure a crisis like this never happens again.
That is why I have moved quickly to work with my
economic team and leaders of both parties on an
American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan that will
immediately jumpstart job creation and long-term growth..”
Sadly, as we begin the new year 2012 the abortion
holocaust continues to be our national disgrace; and the
biblical family is being assailed more than ever.
Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, the former lieutenant
governor of Maryland, and the eldest of Robert Kennedy's
eleven children  sparked controversy — and outrage on
this issue— by stating In a column for Newsweek
magazine's Web site in 2009 that President Barack
Obama better reflected the views of American Catholics
than did the Pope. Declared Townshend "Obama's
pragmatic approach to divisive policy . . . and his social-
justice agenda reflected the views of American Catholic
laity much more closely ... " then the views expressed by
vocal bishops and pro-life activists. Then too,  while
Townshend acknowledged that Obama and Pope
Benedict XVI do "disagree about reproductive freedoms
and homosexuality," she asserts that these same
American  Catholic laity believe Obama's on their side.
Therefore, Townshend champions the opinion that   
Obama's agenda is closer to the  views of the American
Catholic laity than even the Pope's. But more important to
reporter Gordon Gordonsson upon reading Townshend's
comments is which position is more correct in the eternal
scheme of things --- the secular position of Obama or the
views expressed by Pope Benedict in his recent encyclical
"Charity in Truth."
Pro-life advocates like Judie Brown, president and co-
founder of the American Life League, a pro-life
organization states that Townsend's views were
"misguided" in an article written for the CNS News ... and
contended: "Reproductive freedoms,' for those unfamiliar
with the culture of death's propaganda, is a code phrase
for abortion on demand, sex instruction in schools, birth
control for kids, and all manner of bizarre propositions
that help the purveyors of smut to define the human
person as an animal incapable of self-control . . .
Townshend alleges that the Pope's recent encyclical
"Charity in Truth," gives "moral credence to Obama's
But to Brown both Townshend's and Obama's views are
clearly inconsistent with the Pope's view that .. " Without
respect for the human person, it is impossible to bring
about a just society, and in a just society, there is no
room for heinous crimes such as abortion."
Then too,  in a just society, a just society of hope and
change, is there room for the foreign born ... It was
written optimistically in the Federalist the following quote;
Providence has been pleased to give this one connected
country to one united people - a people descended from
the same ancestors, speaking the same language,
professing the same religion, attached to the same
principles of government, very similar in their manners and
But John Higham in his book Strangers in the Land  takes
a critical look at American Nativism. To quote Higham:
"Nativism has been hard for historians to define . The
word is distinctively, a product of a specific chain of
events in eastern American cities in the late 1830's and
early 1840's. Yet it has a penumbra of meaning so broad
and indefinite that it seems to refer to a perennial human
experience. Does Nativism consist only of the particular
complex of attitudes dominant in anti-foreign crusade of
the mid-nineteenth century? Or does it extend to every
occasion when native inhabitants of a country turn their
faces or raise their hands against strangers in their midst?
From the Garden of Eden to 1984 ( ed. note -- and to the
present day) , no age or society seems wholly free from
unfavorable opinions of outsiders. Understood in those
terms such general terms, Nativism would include every
type and level of antipathy toward aliens, their institutions,
and their ideas. Its beginnings in American history would
date from the first Indian resistance to the white intruders.
This view, by reducing Nativism to little more than a
general ethnocentric habit of mind, blurs its historical
significance. On the other hand, confining Nativism to the
special sort of movement prominent for a couple of
decades in the middle of the nineteenth century is too
narrow; the inner spirit of that movement has taken quite
different guises at other times and places. The spirit of
Nativism appeared long before the word was coined
about 1840 and had its deepest impact long after the
word had largely dropped out of popular parlance."
In the context of Modern Day America ... Beings as our
land had its beginnings for the most part from people from
other areas of the globe, leaving their native lands and
settling in America ... In that way we have become a
people created by Immigration ... A nation  in the dog
world whose Pedigree would not be considered pure-
bred, but would be considered more of a mongrel.  We
are a melting pot of diverse people merging into one
nationality called American .. Throughout our history
immigration has been welcomed ... Yet at the same time
the unwelcome mat has been rolled out in front of our
doors when the interests of the native-born, as we said
the prodigy of earlier immigration, collided with those of
the new arrivals ... Most Americans today say that the
welcome mat is still at the Port of Entry  to America for
those who take the legal steps to get here to stay ... But
for those who by-pass this legal process (the so-called
Illegal or undocumented aliens so to speak) the welcome
mat is pulled back ... The big concern or fear is, that
these undocumented aliens with the aid of those who
might benefit politically by their presence may be allowed
to receive certain services of society providing an
additional burden on taxpayers of local and state
governments. Of course these illegal or undocumented
aliens so to speak live in a shadowy and fearful world that
certain employers or individuals could take advantage of
by paying them low wages and other controlling ways.
Mike Stout of the Pittsburgh area in his song Blood on the
Rocks who lyrics are given below, reminds us how late
19th and Turn of the Century 20th Century company
played off the Native-Born and Immigrant:
Down in MckeesRock back in 1909 . Employment  was
soaring on the Assembly lines. The Biggest Company was
a place called the Pressed Steel Car ...  With 6,000
workers and a Boss who ruled the plant just like a Tsar ...
Immigrants were pouring in from every place to do the
dirtiest jobs for the of lowest of pay ... kind of like the
same situation you  got here today ... They called the
place - the last chance- the Slaughterhouse ... Every day
you went to work you didn't know if you were coming
back out ...  Speed-Up and abuse was more than any
man could stand... With kickbacks to the foreman and
mass extortion at the plant. Exploited, persecuted,
treated worse than a dog, told to sell their wives if they
wanted to keep their jobs than 40 riveters walked off they
were sick of being robbed ...16 different nationalities, 16
different tongues, walked off the line in solidarity stood up
together as One ... Fighting in the streets in the slums of
Hunkeyville , meeting up on  Indian Mounds .. The
Company knew they had to break their Will ... They
brought  the Cossacks to Town ... There were Blood on
the Rocks ...
They brought in the Guards, Strike breakers,  Storm
Troopers and  Thugs ...Armed to the teeth Boss Hosthop
was clearly out for Blood Meanwhile the town called
Hunkeyville was surrounded and attacked. The Strikers
and their families were evicted from the Company Shacks
...Then on bloody Sunday in the shadows of the Mill the
Cossacks opened fire ....Nine workers were killed ...The
IWW  came to town  the strikers wouldn't yield. There
were blood on the Rocks ... Ah ...Down on the Rocks ...
Then the Company caved in  the workers thought they
had won. They marched back into the plant all proud
together as One ... .But behind the scenes a divide and
conquer scheme was hatched they bought off the native
born and counter-attacked ... When the Bosses reneged
on every  promise they made the Immigrants walked back
out the native-born stayed.  The lessons of unity buried in
the cracks of history...16 different nationalities, 16
different tongues, raising up  in solidarity standing  
together as One. Two months long holding on strong on
the streets, on the picket lines and the docks.... The
immigrants knew just what they had to do .When you talk
the talk and walk the walk .There be Blood on the
Rocks... Blood on the Rocks, Down in MckeesRock...
There was Blood on the Rocks,,, Down on the Rocks,,,
There was Blood on the Rocks... Blood on the Rocks,
Down in MckeesRock... There was Blood on the Rocks,,,
Down on the Rocks.

Actually the above still a problem, in the Global Economy
of the early 21st century  ... Where established or
emerging industries elect to relocate their plants to
countries like Mexico where labor costs are lower only to
relocate to China where labor costs are even lower.
There is a common political axiom --- 'If it is not broken,
don't fix it" Well, in the world of the Obama Nation,
America's infrastructure and social  system must be
crumbling or fracturing in the  best case scenario or
bankrupt in the worst case scenario given his multitude
efforts to break what he calls a broken system  in many
cases. His real intent being to create a New perhaps
Socialist America ... And to accomplish that he must take
advantages of presumed emergencies or create
emergencies to build America's new mansion and build for
himself the legacy of creating the New America which
must bow down to the demands of our new global
society. Many in the global society believe there is an
unalienable right for all peoples to move about and live
where they want paying no attention to immigration laws
of the nation's they seek to intrude upon. Obama knowing
this view and accepting it, but as President he is sworn to
defend the borders of this nation from all  foreign and
dangerous domestic enemies and enforce the laws of the
United States .. Please note --- one is not a domestic
enemy of the United States simply if that individual is a
member of a different Political Party than Obama's and
has a difference of opinion or philosophy about how the
nation should be governed ...