Thursday, January 15, 2009

2009: A Look Forward At The Trends Ahead for 2009

The following article is NOT, I repeat, NOT prophecy. This article is not an attempt to claim “divine” revelation by dreams, visions or angelic visitation. Instead, it is sourced in human viewpoint looking at simple or complex trends. In this respect, it’s not unlike a Wall Street investment analyst looking at trends for an industry, or a particular company or monetary issues. One could even liken it to that of a weather forecaster or a geologist monitoring various scientific measurements.

Trend analysis simply extends a given trend to get an idea as to where the trend “appears” to be headed and then logically look at the implications of where that trend is headed.

Trends can involve different subjects from various angles. This article then is based on the idea of analyzing such trends and projecting what the ramifications might be.

As we look at the year ahead for 2009 based on trends and analyzing those trends, it would seem that the biggest trend with the most impact for prophetic fulfillment, that I can recognize, involves economic issues for not only the United States but the entire world. I have highlighted some of the key trend projections in the following bullet points.

The Global Economic Meltdown Continues

• 1-World oversight of global economy kicks in. Nations no longer have sole autonomy of their finances and must submit to a global governing economic body.

• New 1-World electronic monetary system begins to take shape

• Beginning implementation of consumer RFID chipped Drivers Licenses in USA

• Stock markets continue to slide

• Civil unrest in many countries over economic issues. Russia hit especially hard by unrest until gov’t cracks down

• Home foreclosures hit new records in USA

• Nations begin national “work camps” for gov’t work programs. Reminiscent of Nazi Germany’s work camps

• United States Government securities default on obligations

• Economic Woes Alter Military/Weapons Development Plans Including: Russia, China, Iran, USA, Israel, Italy, France, Britain, Venezuela, India

• The United States surrenders sovereignty to the UN’s Global Governance Initiative for environmental control of America’s resources.

• Oil prices will most likely hover between $20-$50 per barrel unless or until war erupts in the Mideast disrupting Mideast oil supplies.

Economics, Geo-Politics and Prophecy

The global economy will impact on foreign policies of various nations, which could directly or indirectly impact on Biblical Prophecies. We could see this aspect play out as follows.


Iran will cut back on its military spending and its nuclear weapons program due to a lack of money. Iran may not have enough money to purchase Russia’s S-300 air defense systems or new aircraft as planned. Will have to scale back aid to groups in Africa, Gaza, and Lebanon as Iran’s money dries up due to low oil prices.

Iran’s shaky finances keep Hezbollah and Hamas from stirring up trouble with Israel, after Israel’s Gaza operations are done.


Russia intends to finish its war with Georgia, but Russia’s financial crisis may prevent any second war.

Russia’s 10-year plans for military build up of its Navy, Air Force and Army will be scaled back. Many of the ship-building projects will be shelved also.

China either shelves or cuts back on its naval ship-building expansion program for a lack of money.

Outer Space exploration – manned missions especially are trimmed back or cancelled due to finances for the USA, Russia and China.

The U.S. Militarily …

Iraqi operations to wind down and troop withdrawals begin. Some troops are diverted to Afghanistan as part of a new “surge” for that country. Afghanistan will likely be a quagmire for the US in 2009. Obama will try to figure a way to extricate the US from Afghanistan without it looking like a defeat.

The US will likely begin pulling out of many foreign bases because of money shortages in the budget. Also with the coming budget crunch the Pentagon will likely be forced to cut spending on new weapons development programs.

The War on Terror

“Al Qaeda” will likely “strike” again in 2009 to “test” a new President as it did with both Clinton and Bush Jr. In reality those “tests” serve to open the doors for the NWO goals for a global government. These events enable the NWO to take giant strides forward towards that final goal. I see this next “test” as being rigged in such a way that giant strides will likely takes us right into a wide open door for a New World Order and global government.

If we do get a USA terror attack within the continental United States, I would suspect it to be some sort of “weapons-of-mass-destruction” type of attack.

USA Predictions:

The economic crisis will seriously affect local and state governments in 2009. Expect “tax shortfalls” for local/state governments as property values decline. We’ll also likely see shortfalls in sales taxes, gasoline taxes and income taxes as unemployment is likely to skyrocket. Some forecasters are calling for 10% unemployment before the recession peaks out. Of course, some believe we’re in a Depression and won’t see a peak or shall we say “bottom” in 2009.

There are a few alarmists out there, particularly in the "patriot' movement who expect that the NWO will move in the first or second quarter of the year to declare martial law and start sending people off to concentration camps, amid riots in the streets and a patriot civil war or revolution or whatever. I consider that to be a slim possibility for 2009, based on trends. Unless the trends speed up dramatically, which I don't foresee, the NWO will simply work to consolidate and prepare for more drastic measures probably in 2010 and 2011 unless complications force further delays. Such complications would likely be divinely originate to keep the NWO and Antichrist forces in check and on God's timeline, not theirs.

Remember, God is Sovereign and in control. All things will proceed according to His time-table not Satan's.

If weather has a serious effect on American farm crop harvests in 2009, look for more serious food shortages to emerge by next winter.

We may or may not see high inflation in 2009, due to declining demand, due to lower wages and higher unemployment.

It would seem that the central banks are inflating economies, but most of the money creation is to deal with balancing out fictional losses. If those money bailouts remain as just digital credits against digital debits then there’s no real inflation. Instead, there’s a great risk of deflation with prices declining but – no money to buy things.

On the flip side: If these bailouts actually get out into the real world, we could see a temporary short-term period of hyper-inflation before the entire system collapses and crashes to the ground. This applies world-wide and not merely to America.

Global War Flash Points

Israel & the Palestinians

* Israel will grind down Hamas in Gaza but won’t be able to destroy Hamas. Eventually, the UN and the NWO crowd will intervene and stop Israel before Israel can have a chance to decisively destroy Hamas.

Israel & Hezbollah

• Hezbollah will avoid a fight with Israel due to financial problems. Iran’s pragmatists will succeed in preventing the ultra-radicals from forcing Hezbollah to attack Israel. The pragmatists realize that with oil prices plunging to $40 – Iran can ill afford to rebuild: Hezbollah’s military after another war like in 2006. So caution will prevail.

Israel & Syria

Syria’s President Assad will cool his heels with a “poor” Iran. Without Iran’s oil money Assad will warm up to the idea of a false peace with Israel while it secretly works to develop its own nuclear weapons arsenal.

Israel & Iran

Iran will run out of money, so to speak, in 2009 for its military spending programs, including its nuclear weapons program. To prevent Israel from launching preventative strikes, Iran’s Ayatollah will maintain the uranium enrichment program and build up an inventory of that material instead of immediately making bombs with it. Most likely Iran will not attempt to actually create a final-assembly bomb in 2009, but instead will wait until late 2010 or 2011 or perhaps early 2012, when it can suddenly have 6 to 12 bombs.

As a result of Iran’s delay, Israel will bide its time in deference to President Obama’s attempts to negotiate with Iran over its nuclear program. Those talks will only be used to stall the US and Israel.


War fever tensions seem to have spiked in December but as the New Year starts, neither government wants war. Both nations are facing recession and simply cannot afford a war.

India also faces a dilemma. If India attacks Pakistan, the Pakistani government will be in danger of collapse, leaving the nation vulnerable to a take-over by Islamic radicals. Such a development would create a greater chance for a nuclear war. The other side of India’s dilemma is that, if another terror attack like Mumbai happens, the current ruling party in India would likely be deposed, and the new government would likely go to war.

Pakistan’s government knows it must continue to crack down on the radicals who attacked India. In doing so, it runs the risk of losing more ground to the Taliban and Al Qaeda and run the risk of being overthrown.

Both governments find it in their best interests to accommodate each other to avoid a deterioration that could lead to far worse conditions for both nations.


Russia’s President is reportedly seeking to return to Georgia and finish what it started last August, yet financial problems will likely interfere. Look for Russia to threaten to renew the war, but not follow through. This will be a way to test President Obama and many analysts think this will happen within the first 90 days of Obama’s inauguration.

Lesser Flash Points (but still significant)


Look for Islamic radicals to pursue further conquests in East Africa, especially the Horn of Africa. This will be in conjunction with Iranian help. Do not be surprised to find Iran establishing military bases for its Navy and Marines, perhaps even an air base. Iran would be in a position to threaten vital shipping lanes from the Suez Canal to the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean.

Al Qaeda is also making new gains in a bid to establish a new territory for training. It would become the new “Afghanistan” of Africa and expand its influence to a second continent.

Middle East

Economic woes will likely keep nations from going to war with Israel in 2009 but continued economic woes may trigger a war with Israel in 2010 or 2011. If wars do break out, however, it will only be because the New World Order leaders finance the wars. This is a distinct possibility though it seems unlikely at this time. The NWO crowd seems to focus on economic issues and ride those issues into a global government setup.

Israel at Home

Israel will also face economic problems and these problems will force cutbacks in the Israeli military. These cutbacks will coincide with cuts by Iran and Syria. Politically, the Gaza War will have a huge impact on the February general elections. Up until the war started, Israel’s Likud Party, led by Benjamin Netanyahu held a slight edge in the public opinion polls. The war however has triggered polling fluctuations depending on the latest war news.

IF Israel is perceived as “winning” the war, Defense Minister Ehud Barak’s Labor Party and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni’s Kadima Party stands to gain the most. IF, however, Israel is perceived as either losing the war or there is no perceived winner, or the war is still ongoing, Netanyahu’s Likud Party stands the most to gain and would be poised to win the elections.

Israel will likely find President Obama to be less friendly to Israeli interests than President Bush. Military aid and assistance will be less likely, due in part to economic constraints.


President Mubarak is slated to resign and turn over control of the Egyptian government to his son. IF so, look for Islamic radicals to attempt an overthrow of the government by a popular uprising.

Saudi Arabia

The Saudis will not suffer much financially as oil revenues will still be profitable for the Saudis. The Saudis need less money to meet the nation’s needs as they are few compared to the oil revenues even at $40 a barrel.

Extra money in Saudi savings accounts means that the Saudis will have extra power as nations seek Saudi financial support. This also holds true for smaller Arab oil Sheiks.

Cultural Trends


Global Environmental Policies will try to take center stage in 2009. Environmentalists will attempt to forge a New World Order of the Environment. Their policies will conflict in many ways with a falling economy and their environmental policies will exacerbate any attempt at economic recovery in many respects.

Economic chaos will trigger riots and civil unrest in various locations around the globe. In turn, civil rights will be trimmed or removed. Martial law will take hold in such nations with such chaos, though it seems unlikely that conditions will deteriorate to such an extent in Western nations or America. There is a chance however that America’s immigration and border problems with Mexico could so deteriorate due to economic problems that the flood of immigrants could become a tsunami requiring US troops being stationed across the border with Mexico and a state of martial law in the Southwestern USA. This however seems only to be a remote possibility at this time, but trends can shift quickly and our comments are based on trends.


Look for many “Mega-churches” to be hit hard by financial problems as the economy continues to deteriorate. Despite the financial hardships, “Happy Theology” and the idea of a “Prosperity Gospel” will continue to find willing ears. “Happy Theology” is a term for the concept of giving lip-service to sound doctrine but yet avoids teaching sound doctrine and promotes a ‘feel-good” social-club atmosphere mixed with a healthy dose of “Christian pseudo-psychology.”

I expect that the trend will continue for more churches to become more like social clubs and societies than centers for teaching sound doctrine. Any sort of “teachings” are more of man’s opinions and not of sound exegesis of the original Hebrew/Greek texts of scripture. Look for churches to become more oriented towards “social services” for the poor, providing food and maybe housing, also.

Doctrinally, the trending shift away from sound doctrine will continue as it has for several decades.

A definite “anti-prophecy” trend has emerged within the Church in the last few years and this trend is likely to occur or even accelerate, even as RFID chip implants loom over the horizon. RFID driver’s licenses are slated to begin showing up in many states as part of the Homeland Security mandates for a more comprehensive national ID system. This new system will be short-lived, as the actual “chip implant” ID program is slated for introduction by the year 2012.

You would think that the RFID system would alarm church pastors and the congregations and some will become alarmed and move away from their anti-prophecy stance, but overall, it appears that the churches in America, as elsewhere around the globe, have fallen asleep and will not be awakened even at the rapture, because most were never believers to begin with.

Also look for Congress to pass new laws restricting religious speech to that sound Bible teaching will become a felony crime. Witnessing and proclaiming the gospel may well become a jail-able offense.


Look for a crisis to emerge in financial side of health care. Insurance companies struggle to stay afloat and as more people become unemployed and lose health insurance, the health care system will face a financial crisis of its own. This is likely to show up in 2009.

In America, President Obama will try a new insurance-for-all program but again with a depression-like economy and no money to pay for it, such a program becomes a moot issue.

We could see an epidemic of uninsured patients sweep the system into bankruptcy, starting in 2009, though the effects may not fully manifest until 2010 or so.


Look for solar activity to increase in 2009. The year, 2008 was extremely quiet for solar activity and suggests the solar cycle bottom has peaked. 2009 may only be a slightly more active year than 2008 but 2009 will not likely be a terribly active year for solar storms. Scientists do expect 2010 and 2011 to become much more active with a new solar cycle peak for storms beginning in 2012 and continuing into 2013 and perhaps even 2014 or 2015 should the solar max string out like it did in the last cycle.

Look for startling discoveries in outer space including more evidence of life on Mars as well as a possible new threat to Earth from outer space such as asteroids, comets, meteors.

The financial crisis will force serious cutbacks of funding for many space programs at NASA, Russia and China.


The biggest prophetic developments I foresee from a trending standpoint is the New World Order’s effort to use the global economic situation to take the final steps towards a global government. At some point before the global government is in place and the Antichrist is brought forward, the NWO plans call for another world war, apparently nuclear that starts in the Middle East.

While it is possible for such a war to start this year, the trends suggest the need for substantial economic changes to take hold as there are still a series of steps necessary for implementation of a global government. For that reason, I tend to discount the idea of a world war starting. I also discount the idea of a regional war breaking out in the Middle East.

The Gaza conflict will likely resolve in a stalemate of sorts, along the lines of 2006. I draw this conclusion based upon information that it is not in Iran’s best interests to push for an all-out war with Israel at this time. The same goes for Syria and Hezbollah. All three will likely bide their time in 2009.

Similar conclusions of course apply for the India-Pakistan situation. It is not in the best interests of either country to engage in a war where the outcome is likely to make things worse not better for their respective citizens.

What might change such conclusions would be sudden and unforeseen changes in leadership or unforeseen circumstances such as natural disasters. Consequently, it would seem that 2009 is set to likely be a year of transitional changes

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Sweet straight up truth!!!


By Dr. Patrick Jonston

January 14, 2009

Whenever I have brought the Holy Bible to bear upon the duty and role of government, inevitably the criticism arises, “America’s not a theocracy!” As if that were a coup de’ grace of some sort that proved that we should be a godless nation.

Since Jesus is Lord of all, as individuals and as nations we have only one of two choices: submission or rebellion. We will be ruled by sinful man or we will be ruled by God.

When your pastor gives the invitation for unbelievers to repent and trust in Christ for salvation, the call often goes out, “Make Jesus Lord of your lives!” However, strictly speaking, no one can make Jesus the Lord. He is the Lord, whether we want Him to be or not. Our choice is submission to Him and His will or rebellion.

As King Saul learned after his partial obedience to God in his dealings with the Amalekites, partial obedience is complete disobedience (I Samuel 15). It is rebellion according to the prophet Samuel, and it is as the sin of witchcraft, which seeks another power and another ruler rather than the Creator. Samuel equated Saul’s partial obedience with idolatry, for he worshiped another god when he refused to obey the true God.

Consider these passages, which clearly draw the line in the sand for individuals:

“Know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity [hostility] with God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.” (James 4:4b)

We are either God’s friend or foe.

“No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” (Matthew 6:24). “Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin… If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.” (John 8:34, 36)

We either love Christ and hate sin or love sin and hate Christ. We either hold to Christ and despise sin or hold onto sin and despise Christ. We either serve Christ or sin.

“He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.” (Matthew 12:30)

We either gather for the Kingdom of God or we scatter others away from God’s Kingdom.

“Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.” (Romans 6:16-18) “In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.” (I John 3:10)

We either are yielded to sin and serve sin, or we are yielded to God in obedient love and righteous living.

“If ye love me, keep my commandments. He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him… If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings…” (John 14:15-24) “And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.” (I John 2:3-4)

We love Christ and obey His commandments, or we do not love him and disobey Him.

There is no de-militarized zone where we can be at peace with both sin and with Jesus. There is no lukewarm in-between that God finds acceptable. As a matter of fact, he tells the church of Laodicea that He will spew them out of his mouth because of their lukewarmness (Revelation 3).

According to Scripture, this dilemma is true not only for individuals but also for nations. For what are nations but groups of people? If a person has no right to rebel against the King of Kings, then why do we think their representatives and their government do?

Consider these passages from the Bible, which clearly draw the line in the sand for nations:

“Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD.” (Psalm 33:12a)

“The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.” Psalm 9:17

“At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.” Jeremiah 18:7-10

God’s rule over governments is not limited to Israel. These passages teach that God blesses nations who serve Him as Lord, and judges nations that forget Him and do not serve Him. In the second Psalm, God visits judgments upon those nations whose leaders defy God’s rule. The books of the prophets warn of severe judgments for sin upon many nations besides Israel. In Deuteronomy 4:5-6, God tells Israel that surrounding Gentile nations will see the wisdom of their law. Israel’s law was to be a light to the Gentile nations, to call them from sin to God, from judgment to blessing.

“Which God?” the secularists rebut, as if casting aspersions upon the true God by bringing idols up to his level will abate our obligation to obey Him. There is only one God, and the Holy Bible is His revelation to mankind. It is to Him we owe supreme allegiance, both as individuals and as a nation.

“But we have a separation of church and state” the attorneys rebut. The separation of powers of the church and state is a Christian doctrine, for the truth is found in Scripture, in the relationship between the Jewish religion and the leaders of their state. However, it should never be a separation of God and state, for this is sin and rebellion to God. The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Congress, not Ohio. As a matter of fact, the states who signed the Constitution had tax-subsidized Christian denominations, and this was not a violation of the First Amendment as our founders intended it. Even the leaders of the federal government publicly prayed to the God of the Bible and spent taxpayer dollars for the printing and distribution of Bibles in public schools. This was not a violation of the First Amendment as our forefathers intended it. Even our Supreme Court, in 1892, citing a plethora of historical evidence, said, “This is a Christian nation.” This judicial decree did not defy the First Amendment as our forefathers intended it. The First Amendment was intended to prevent a tax-subsidized Christian denomination, such as England’s Anglican church. The First Amendment was not intended to prevent the free exercise of religion for the states and the people, as it is so often abused today, but rather, was designed to protect the free exercise of their religion.

The Holy Bible, God’s Word to man, speaks to all matters of life; not just pertaining to personal salvation, but also to economic health, family life, the right to self defense, the right to liberty and property, criminal justice, the role and limitation of civil authorities, the relationship between the church and the state, and when armed revolution against established civil authority is justified. Where God speaks, we would be wise to listen and obey, for disobedience to God’s Word in a single matter is rebellion to God and brings judgment. He is a jealous God who will not share His glory with another. When we despise His Word in deference to autonomous leaders who seek to kick God out of His throne and put themselves there in His stead, we have already received “the mark of the beast”, for the mark is a man’s name and a sign that you worship the image of a man over God (Revelation 13-16).

When put in light of the Scripture and the lordship of Christ, we see that the whole world is a theocracy, for God rules over all and His Word is not bound. It is also easy to see that our government has become a godless government at war with God. The United States must repent, and serve the Creator instead of rebel against Him. We must obey His Word. We must not defer to sinful men who seek to pass laws that defy God’s law, who refuse to be “ministers of God” and “a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil” as God’s Word instructs civil authorities (Romans 13:3-4). It is not those who take the mark who survive the wrath of God, it is those who resist idols to serve the one true God and His Son Jesus Christ.

America, choose you this day whom you will serve.

© 2009 Patrick Johnston - All Rights Reserved

By Cliff Kincaid

January 14, 2009

In violation of Barack Obama’s promise to run an open and transparent transition to the next administration, an associate of convicted document thief Sandy Berger has been secretly meeting with far-left groups under the auspices of the Obama-Biden Transition Project to develop a range of pro-U.N. policies. These include placing “more [U.N.] blue helmets on U.S. troops” and forcing the U.S. to join the U.N.’s International Criminal Court (ICC).

The ICC is an international entity that could prosecute American citizens and soldiers for “war crimes” and other offenses, in violation of U.S. Constitutional protections.

The ICC treaty was signed by President Clinton, who expressed concern about some of its provisions, but under President Bush it was “unsigned” by U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton in what he called his “happiest moment” at the State Department.

In response to the possibility of the ICC prosecuting American soldiers, the Congress in 2002 passed the American Service members Protection Act, in order to protect U.S. soldiers from the jurisdiction of the court.

While Obama comes across in the media as a “moderate” or “centrist” in foreign policy, his Transition Project is developing an extreme pro-U.N. policy that is supposed to be implemented by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan E. Rice.

The Berger associate, Eric. P. Schwartz, is the executive director of the U.S. Connect Fund and represents several liberal and leftist foundations, including and most notably the Open Society Institute of financial hedge-fund operator George Soros. Soros is considered by some the virtual owner of the Democratic Party, having contributed lavishly to the party, its causes and candidates, including Obama. He personally contributed $50,000, the maximum allowed, to the Obama inauguration.

While Obama did not publicly endorse the International Criminal Court during the campaign, because “many questions remain unanswered about the ultimate scope of its activities,” Schwartz and his associates are clearly laying the groundwork for the Obama Administration’s acceptance of and membership in the ICC. Schwartz is perfectly suited for the task, having “initiated and managed the White House review that resulted in U.S. signature of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court” under Clinton, according to his own bio.

Other members of the secretive Obama group include Samantha Power, the Harvard academic and one of Obama’s closest foreign policy advisers who left the Obama presidential campaign temporarily after calling Hillary Clinton a “monster.” A self-described “humanitarian hawk,” Power believes in using the United Nations to confront “genocide” in the world, despite the corruption scandals involving U.N. peacekeepers in human rights violations and sexual child abuse.

Soros, who backed Obama during the presidential campaign, is a well-known advocate of a “New World Order” in which the U.S. refuses to act unilaterally in its own interests but works through international organizations such as the U.N. on foreign policy matters. Critics note that such an approach gives the U.N. and other nations a veto over what the U.S. can do militarily.

A convicted inside trader whose currency manipulations have been known to threaten national governments and currencies, he testified on November 13, 2008, before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform about the risks posed by the hedge funds that he and other billionaires operate. In addition to the Democratic Party, his financial fingerprints are all over leftist, “progressive” and news media organizations.

The Connect U.S. Fund is funded by Soros’s Open Society Institute and other liberal foundations and provides grants to pro-U.N. groups around the country. These groups, which provide the appearance of public support for more U.S. involvement in the U.N., were involved in a January 10 national conference call to promote a “Responsible U. S. Global Engagement” agenda for the Obama Administration. They are releasing a letter to Obama this week urging close cooperation with the U.N. on such issues as human rights, climate change, arms control and foreign aid.

This is bound to find a favorable response, since the co-chair of the Obama-Biden Transition Project, John Podesta, a former Clinton chief of staff, comes from another Soros-funded group, the Center for American Progress.

Although Obama and Podesta promised full disclosure of transition meetings and documents—and Podesta even issued a December 5, 2008, memorandum on the subject—no information about Schwartz’s December 6, 2008, meetings with the Washington Working Group on the International Criminal Court (WICC) and the Partnership for Effective Peacekeeping (PEP) appears on the “Seat at the Table” section of the Obama website. The “Seat at the Table” was designed to create the impression that the Transition Project was being open and honest about meeting with special interest and outside groups.

WICC and PEP are fronts of Citizens for Global Solutions (CGS), the new name of the World Federalist Association, an organization openly dedicated to the establishment of a world government with a world army financed by global taxes.

The CGS itself disclosed the meetings with Schwartz, boasting that the WICC and PEP emphasized the need for Obama to accept the ICC and place “more blue helmets on U.S. troops,” a reference to U.N. military operations where American troops wear U.N. blue berets or helmets and take orders from foreign commanders. So-called “progressive” groups and media figures such as Nicholas D. Kristof of the New York Times have been waging vigorous campaigns to get U.S. forces deployed around the world in various conflicts that do not involve threats to U.S. national security.

Such a policy under Clinton in the former Yugoslavia, where NATO was deployed for the first time in an offensive military capacity without the approval of Congress, led to the famous case of Army Specialist Michael New refusing orders to serve a foreign U.N. commander in Macedonia. After saying he had signed up for the green team, not the blue team, he was court-martialed and discharged for “bad conduct.” His lawyers in the Michael New Action Fund fought the discharge in the courts for over 10 years, arguing that presidential orders to report to the U.N. were illegal and unconstitutional. While the Supreme Court ultimately refused to review the case, many members of Congress and the public rallied to Michael New’s defense.

Clinton had ordered U.S. troops to serve the U.N. under the still-secret Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) 25, which has never been repealed by President Bush. Although Bush had promised never to assign U.S. troops to U.N. command, American soldiers have continued to be inducted into U.N. “peacekeeping” operations during his administration. He has also begun to cooperate with the ICC and on January 5 ordered the airlift of military supplies to Darfur in support of a U.N. military force.

Schwartz’s job, quite clearly, is to dramatically expand this policy and get the Senate to ratify the ICC treaty and accept unconstitutional ICC jurisdiction over American troops. Such an approach would mark the end of U.S. military superiority and perhaps the end to U.S. status as a superpower.

Officially, Schwartz is identified merely as a “member” of the Obama-Biden “working group” on national security with jurisdiction over U.N. issues. In addition to Power, members of the “national security team” on “US/UN” issues are Michael Pan, Jennifer Simon, Elizabeth Cousens, Grant Harris, and Victoria Holt. No detail about these individuals or their backgrounds is officially provided, but some information is available through research conducted from public Internet sources. Many have links to the U.N., leftist think tanks, or Congressional Democrats.

Letters to Podesta and Schwartz seeking an explanation of the failure to disclose these meetings—and what was discussed in them and what documents were exchanged or provided—have gone unanswered.

Publicly, the media focus has been on personalities—such as whether Senator Hillary Clinton, whose nomination as Secretary of State is the subject of a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Tuesday, can get along with Susan E. Rice, Obama’s nominee as Ambassador to the U.N., whose nomination will be the subject of a hearing on Thursday.

This “controversy,” however, is largely phony, since Clinton and Rice are both associates of Brookings Institution President Strobe Talbott, a prominent advocate of “global governance” and increased U.S./U.N. collaboration. Talbott, one of the leading foreign policy thinkers in the Democratic Party, was an official in the Clinton State Department and is considered an old friend of Hillary Clinton, while Talbott and Rice, another former Clinton State Department official, served together at Brookings.

A controversial figure who recently told the German magazine Der Spiegel that Obama is a true “citizen of the world,” Talbott was accused by a former Russian spymaster at the U.N. of being a special contact of the Russian intelligence service when he served in the Clinton State Department. The charge, denied by Talbott, was included in the sensational book, Comrade J, which describes the U.N. as a base of activities for hostile foreign intelligence services.

Fascinated by such matters as Barack and Michelle Obama’s wardrobe and inaugural festivities, the U.S. media seem uninterested in any of this. While Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times has written in general about the violations of Obama’s promise to reveal the existence and nature of the Transition Project meetings, she has failed to provide any details about the controversial characters involved in them.

One of those characters, Schwartz, suggests the continuing influence of former Clinton National Security Adviser Samuel R. “Sandy” Berger, who became known as Sandy Burglar after he was caught stealing classified documents from the National Archives. He pleaded guilty to charges in the case in 2005, paid a fine, performed community service, but never served any jail time. He now runs a lobbying firm, Stonebridge International, representing major corporations doing business in China and other areas of the world. Stonebridge has just announced former Citigroup Chairman and CEO Charles Prince as Vice Chairman of the firm and Chairman of the firm’s Board of Advisors.

Berger teamed up with Schwartz once more in 2007 to write an op-ed advocating more U.S. “global engagement”—a euphemism for more reliance on the U.N. and international organizations. Schwartz’s official title under Berger at the National Security Council was senior director for multilateral and humanitarian affairs. After leaving the Clinton Administration he went to work for the United Nations.

Not surprisingly, one of Schwartz’s associates at the U.S. Connect Fund is Heather Hamilton, a former top official of CGS, where she lobbied against John Bolton’s nomination as Ambassador to the U.N. and for U.S. acceptance of the International Criminal Court and the U.N.’s controversial U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

While publicly exhibiting caution regarding the ICC, apparently because of the opposition to the court by U.S. military leaders, Obama has said that he supports Senate ratification of UNCLOS, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

“As president,” he told the American Society of International Law, “I will make it my priority to build bipartisan consensus behind ratification of such treaties.”

© 2009 Cliff Kincaid - All Rights Reserved

By Mary Starrett
January 14, 2009

For 7 years, the American colonists saw red everywhere they looked. British troops had taken over their towns. Colonists had put up with increasing taxation, being spied on and having their normal, day-to-day lives scrutinized. One cold night in Boston in 1775, an altercation turned deadly and before it was over British troops had shot and killed five colonists. That was a turning point. By then the gloves were off and those who lived in the new world were ready to fight for freedom. Some thought it would be best to just let King George and his army increase taxes and restrictions unchecked. Others knew fighting back was the only way they would stand a chance of securing freedom for themselves and their children. As British subjects, the colonists were fighting for their freedom against their own government!

The antagonism that had been growing ever since the British sent armies to occupy towns and enforce more tax burdens led to the American Revolution.

In 2009, we face a similar situation. We can choose to stand up to increasing government tyranny or we can consider ourselves subjects who had best just take the path of least resistance.

In a matter of days, we will watch as a man who is doubtless not even eligible to be president takes office. He will swear to uphold the same Constitution he has so often spat upon through his contempt for its intent and disregard for its restraints.

Those who have been paying attention know that Barack Obama’s stated plans include unprecedented battering of the 2nd Amendment. That is in addition to what critics have called a “tax rampage” that will add a crushing blow to Americans already reeling from the effects of government’s meddling in the economy. Under Obama, the redistribution of wealth that both Republicans and Democrats have implemented for decades will kick into overdrive. That will prove lethal to our way of life. Get ready to see some Americans paying tax rates of over 50%. We will become like the Canadians who now have access to the best health care - right across the border in the U.S.

Doubt the result of “universal health care”? Then, talk to cancer patients in B.C. or Saskatchewan or Alberta who have been sent home to die because they do not qualify for treatment under their “free-for-all” system.

Under an Obama presidency and with Congress complicit in all his Constitutional crimes and misdemeanors, we will see an increased minimum wage choke the life out of what’s left of small and large businesses alike.

Abortion will become a sacrament under this gruesomely pro-death man.

The troop surge (that was such a rousing success in Iraq) will now be applied to another insane and immoral war- this time in Afghanistan.

These predictions should not be taken to presage our demise.
Just like the colonists in Boston back in 1775, we can choose to stand our ground, sacrifice our comfort and fight back.
We fight back every time we write a letter to an elected official a letter to the editor or send a donation to an organization that fights for the issues close to our hearts.
We fight back each time we dare run for office against the incumbents.
In addition, we fight back with each prayer we utter invoking Divine Providence.

In 1775 Boston Patriot Joseph Warren said:

“Our country is in danger, but not to be despaired of. Our enemies are numerous and powerful; but we have many friends, determining to be free, and heaven and earth will aid the resolution. On you, depend the fortunes of America. You are to decide the important question, on which rest the happiness and liberty of millions yet unborn.

Act worthy of yourselves.”

© 2009 Mary Starrett - All Rights Reserved

By Michael Cutler
January 14, 2009

Two news reports point to the clear and present danger the deteriorating situation in Mexico poses to our nation and our citizens.

The first article, "U.S. Plans Border ‘Surge’ Against Any Drug Wars" appears in today's edition of the New York Times, while the second article, "Obama faces Mexican drug war" was published in the Washington Times last week, on January 2nd.

In my judgement, the deteriorating situation in Mexico can be traced back to the relative ease with which the drug cartels were able to move people and narcotics into the United States because our nation's "leaders" have been unwilling to secure the borders of the United States.

In order to function and expand their capabilities, the drug cartels needed massive infusions of cash. The smuggling of narcotics into the United States and the movement of the proceeds of the trafficking activities flowed south of the border and enriched the coffers of the cartels enabling them to buy more guns, more vehicles and pay more bribes to Mexican law enforcement, military and government officials. In effect, our politicians who blocked efforts aimed at securing our nation's border with Mexico, made the expansion of the cartels' violence and reach into our county possible.

Consider the following quotes from the Washington Times news report written by Jerry Seper:

In April, the Justice Department reported that Mexican drug cartels represent the "largest threat to both citizens and law enforcement agencies in this country and now have gang members in nearly 200 U.S. cities." The 200 cities include Washington; Baltimore, Frederick and Greenbelt in Maryland; and Arlington and Galax in Virginia.

During a raid last year on a gang operation in Laredo, Texas, an ICE-led task force of federal agents seized two completed improvised explosive devices, materials for making 33 more devices, 300 primers, 1,280 rounds of ammunition, five grenades, nine pipes with end caps, 26 grenade triggers (14 with fuses and primers attached), 31 grenade spoons, 40 grenade pins, 19 black powder casings, a silencer and cash.

These paragraphs illustrate a point that I have made repeatedly when I have testified before Congress and at other venues; illegal immigration and failures to secure our nation's borders and create an immigration system that possesses true integrity are not simply border issues but rather threaten the safety and security of our entire nation and endanger the lives and safety of American cities from coast to coast and border to border..

Had the Bush administration acted swiftly to secure our border with Mexico, the violence of Mexico might never have gotten to the point where it is now. Our nation's insatiable appetite for the cheap and exploitable labor provided by illegal aliens caused our nation's leaders to reject any program that sought to effectively secure our nation's borders.

Consider, if you will, the Congressional debates about the need to construct a fence along the border our nation shares with Mexico. Consider the point I made in the commentaries I have written about the fact that the Bush administration refused to hire as many Border Patrol agents and special agents for ICE that Congress had funded.

Incredibly, there are still politicians who oppose securing our borders and refuse to have our nation create a secure immigration bureaucracy. These are the politicians who are pushing for the creation of a Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) program that would legalize God knows how many millions of illegal aliens whose true identities, including even their nationalities, are unknown and unknowable. Their criminal histories and possible affiliation with criminal or terrorist organizations is unknown and unknowable. Their intentions are unknown and unknowable. There would be know way of knowing when, where or how they entered the United States. Yet the advocates for open borders could seemingly care less about the irrevocable damage such a wrong-headed program could do to our nation.

At a time when President-elect Obama has talked about the need to create jobs for Americans and create a massive economic stimulus package to avert an economic catastrophe that might be worse than the Great Depression, it is time for our political leaders to finally come to terms with the real world, a place many of them seem to have never visited. They need to understand that a massive influx of illegal aliens would potentially aid criminal organizations and would make it increasingly difficult for Americans to boot-strap their way into economic mainstream America.

Furthermore, when illegal aliens and aliens who are admitted on the various "temporary" work visas earn money in the United States, their goal is to send that money back to their home country. This is the exact opposite of what is desperately needed now. It is absolutely critical that money earned in America stay in America! Americans and resident aliens tend to spend, save and invest the money they earn in the United States. This is a "No brainer," the problem is that all too many of our "leaders" apparently have no brains!

Therefore it is more important than ever before that the citizens of our nation get involved in the political process. As I have noted on many occasions, when we go to a restaurant we generally are very specific about the food we want to eat and how we want it prepared. We should be no less specific about how we want our elected representatives to represent us, We the People!

When you watch the Super Bowl an see the enthusiasm of the fans in the stands sporting body paint and other evidence of their support for their team of choice, I want you to imagine how different our nation would be if We the People demonstrated comparable passion over the political decisions being made, purportedly on our behalf by our elected representatives.

These decisions will have a long lasting impact on the safety and security of our nation and our citizens. These decisions will impact the lives of our children and their children. The time for complacency is over!

Good citizenship does not end at the voting booth but it simply begins there. In order for our representative democracy to represent us, we need to communicate with our elected representatives to let them know in clear and unequivocal terms what we want.

I implore you to get involved! Please make this your New Year's Resolution!

We live in a perilous world and in a perilous era. The survival of our nation and the lives of our citizens hang in the balance

This is neither a Conservative issue, nor is it a Liberal issue- simply stated, this is most certainly an AMERICAN issue!

You are either part of the solution or you are a part of the problem!

© 2009 - Michael Cutler - All Rights Reserved

A second from opening in the war? When do Syria and Iran join in directly?

Israel's northern forces on high alert after rocket attack on Kiryat Shemona

DEBKAfile Special Report

January 14, 2009, 6:31 PM (GMT+02:00)

Hizballah's Al Manar TV reports that Israel fired back after three rockets exploded in the Kiryat Shemone region of northern Israel. Additional Lebanese sources described Israeli helicopters hovering over southern Lebanon and an artillery response against the rocket sites.

Five Katyusha rockets were apparently fired early Wednesday, Jan. 14, from two places in S. Lebanon - 3 from Arqoub and two from Habariyeh near Hasbaya. The latter fell short and exploded inside the Lebanese border. Three more rockets primed for launching were later discovered by the Lebanese army and UNIFIL troops at Habariyeh rocket site. The Lebanese government condemned the rocket attack and the UNIFIL chief asked both sides to exercise restraint.

At 8:30 a.m., the northern Israeli town of Kiryat Shemona heard four explosions and saw plumes of smoke rise over the Galilee Panhandle. They headed for bomb shelters and cancelled classes at school. Two women went into shock.

Last Thursday, Jan. 8, Nahariya on the Mediterranean coast came under rocket attack from Lebanon and a nursing home was destroyed. Israel responded with cross-border artillery fire to what was officially described as a one-off attack. Hizballah spokesmen warned then that further Israeli "provocations" would be met with reprisals. Israeli forces in the North are on high alert after responding to the latest attack.

DEBKAfiles military sources report that the second rocket attack from Lebanon in less than a week indicates that Hizballah is supplying its terrorist allies with rockets for a systematic assault on northern Israel to expand the Hamas-Israel confrontation in the Gaza Strip to the northern front.

Positioning for Ezekiel 38?

A Russian naval task force led by aircraft carrier docks at Syrian port

January 13, 2009, 2:35 PM (GMT+02:00)

The force, which includes the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier, the Admiral Levchenko destroyer and the Nikolay Chiker salvage tug, was due to call in at the Syrian port of Tartus Monday, Jan. 12 after carrying out joint exercises with the Turkish navy last week.

DEBKAfile's military sources report that the arrival of the Russian flotilla in wartime is unusual and especially significant given Syria's role as one of the staunchest backers of Hamas which is embroiled in a war against Israel further down the coast in Gaza.

Our sources believe Moscow may be signaling its disapproval of Israel's military operation in the Gaza Strip.

DEBKAfile's military sources report that 50 Russian seamen are permanently based at the Syrian maintenance and resupply facility, the only Russian base in the Mediterranean.

Russia is expanding Tartus port, which has six piers and building a pier at a second Syrian port – Latakia.

During the Russian-Georgian War last August, the Russian government decided to turn the Syrian port into a back-up facility for its Black Sea fleet and its base at the Ukrainian port of Sevastopol.

Tuesday, January 13, 2009


By Dr. Laurie Roth
January 9, 2009

The only way to save the U.S. now is to suck it up, remind ourselves who we are and what we stand for, and realize that this very serious economic downfall will most likely be in our face and pocket books for several years, bail outs or not!

Why is this recession so serious? What is different with this one and the last several?

Over the last several decades of recessions and down turns we at least had a manufacturing base, growing productivity, and borrowing would occur against productivity that was building, not disappearing. Most of our industries weren’t employing thousands of people in South America, Mexico, India or China, or even worse, taking their headquarters there. Now they are.

Paul Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration talks about how it doesn’t work anymore to stimulate consumer demand by lowering interest rates. People still won’t buy because this time around their debt is too high, homes are gone or going away and jobs are shaky.

The International Seduction and Globalism has all but killed us!

With manufacturing disappearing, U.S. corporations selling out for cheap labor abroad, thus betraying our own work force, and American consumers buying a ton overseas it is really hard to stimulate with a bail out more people back to work. Hundreds of thousands of the great jobs are now overseas!

We are becoming a dependent nation for products and industry rather than a leader nation which we have always been.

Why is this recession so bad and different? With all the peeling off our own skin regarding manufacturing, sending thousands of corporations and jobs overseas, and continuing the cult of more and more debt via Government and our personal habits, we have no where left to go. We have almost killed our self.

Other contributors to our economic nightmare

The New World Order crowd has been pushing for an international, Unitarian type power arrangement regarding countries and their money supplies since the early 70s. In fact one of the New World Order ‘gods’ Henry Kissinger just recently came out and said that Obama had the perfect setting for the establishment of “a New World Order.” January 7, highlighted a recent quote from him on an CNBC TV show “The president-elect is coming into office at a moment when there is upheaval in many parts of the world simultaneously. You have India, Pakistan; you have the jihadist movement. So he can’t really say there is one problem, that it’s the most important one…….His task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period when, really, a new world order can be created. It’s a great opportunity, it isn’t just a crisis.”

You realize of course that the New world order crowd, aka Trilateral Commission, wants redistribution of wealth, unfair trade agreements, which they already spear headed like Nafta and Cafta. They want the North American Union and Super Highway. Anything to tear down our ‘arrogant’ sovereignty and borders and open us up to the world’s neediness, products, terrorists and illegals.

Spending more money and making more “rescue” debt isn’t the answer. If we want to preserve our country and constitution we must toughen up and reintroduce manufacturing and business again within our shores! We should NEVER have allowed whole industries to ship over seas. We should dramatically cut regulation, taxation and litigation that would threaten industry and business to thrive again in the U.S. Nuclear and energy exploration and development could happen boldly if it could afford to do business here without being regulated, taxed or sued off the earth.

What if we can’t compete with all the cheap labor in the world??? Then perhaps we should be the first in quality and innovative ideas again. Using slave labor in many foreign markets because we must have what Wal-Mart has is stupid thinking and un American. Slavery is evil and wrong whether it was used for commerce in our country in the 1800s or used because of greed now in big business. It doesn’t matter what nationality is used for our greed, slavery is always evil.

We should also start a major campaign to buy U.S. products again. We must make our products higher quality and better than international products. Stupid and unfair trade agreements should be stopped and reversed. As it is now its 50/50 all right with trade….we get the sled up the hill and the world gets the sled down the hill.

This recession may dip into a depression and go on for quite some time until we change our worldview, reintroduce our manufacturing and innovative base again, stop our seduction and addiction to debt and cheap products and start taking pride again in being American!

© 2009 Dr. Laurie Roth - All Rights Reserved

By Lynn Stuter

January 13, 2009

On January 8, 2009, with no objection being raised, Congress — House and Senate — voted unanimously to certify the Electoral College.

Not one legislator, Republican or Democrat, Senator or Representative, could or did refute even one of the undisputed facts concerning the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to the office of president under Article II, Section 1, United States Constitution. Not one!

Those undisputed facts are as follows:

1. Barack Hussein Obama has not been vetted or certified eligible to the office of president of the United States by any agency tasked to do so or authorized to do so.
2. Not one American citizen, not one Senator, not one Representative has seen, touched or examined Barack Hussein Obama’s vault copy Hawaii birth certificate. While October 31, 2008, Dr Chiyome Fukino, Department of Health, Hawaii, issued a press release in which she stated that she had “seen and verified” that a Hawaii birth certificate for Obama did exist; she did not state what was on it nor did she state that it showed that Obama was born in Hawaii.
3. The Certification of Live Birth (COLB) that Obama has been waving about is not a “birth certificate” as he claims, as the mainstream media claims, as and claims. The COLB is a short form, computer printed document deriving the information printed thereon from a database of information supposedly (See #13 and #14 below) taken from the original long form vault copy Hawaiian birth certificate.
4. claims to be a non-partisan organization. is funded by the Annenberg Foundation on whose board Obama sat. is about as non-partisan as is Obama. The Annenberg Foundation has never passed up a chance to fund a “progressive” (a.k.a., Marxist) cause.
5. Hawaii has a law, HRS 338-17.8, which allows for the birth registration of a child born in a foreign country so long as one parent is a U.S. citizen and so long as that parent claimed Hawaii as his or her permanent residence for one year prior to the birth. Stanley Ann (Dunham) Obama met both of these requirements.
6. If Obama was born in Hawaii, he is, at best, a dual citizen. At his birth, his father was a British subject as Kenya was a British colony. Dual citizenship precludes Obama from eligibility under Article II, Section 1, United States Constitution. Prior cases decided by the United States Supreme Court, involving the determination of “natural born” have used Vattel’s “The Law of Nations” definition which states, “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” (Part I, Chapter 19, Section 212). states that Obama was a dual citizen at birth.
7. If Obama was born in Kenya, he was, at birth, a British subject as Kenya was a British colony. American law, at that time, required that Stanley Ann (Dunham) Obama be a minimum of 19 years of age at his birth to confer to him her American citizenship if he was born outside the United States; she was only 18 years old when Obama was born.
8. Barack Hussein Obama’s paternal step-grandmother has stated before witnesses, said witnesses signing affidavits, that she was witness to the birth of Obama in Kenya. See here, here, and here.
9. Michelle Obama has stated that Barack Hussein Obama was adopted by his step-father, Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian citizen.
10. When Barack Hussein Obama was registered at the Fransiskus Assissi Primary School in Jakarta, Indonesia, his father was listed as Lolo Seotoro; his citizenship as Indonesian; his name as Barry Soetoro.
11. When Stanley Ann (Dunham) Soetoro divorced Lolo Soetoro in 1980, the divorce papers show they had two children: one minor child (Maya), one over 18 (Barack).
12. When Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, became an Indonesian citizen, his British citizenship would have been terminated; if he was born in Hawaii, also his American dual citizenship. Indonesia does not allow for dual citizenship.
13. Returning to the COLB. This document, as waved about by Obama, may be authentic on its face (See #14), but it is not accurate. Were it accurate, it would show Lolo Soetoro as his father; his name as Barry Soetoro.
14. The COLB Obama waves about lists the race of his biological father as “African.” African is not a race any more than American is. This brings into question the authenticity of the COLB Obama is waving about as his “birth certificate.”
15. If Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, did become an American citizen, he became a naturalized American citizen which precludes him from eligibility under Article II, Section 1, United States Constitution. There has been no proof presented that he is even a naturalized American citizen.
16. Barack Hussein Obama has multiple aliases: Barry Soetoro, Barry Dunham, Barry Obama, Barack Soetoro, Barack Dunham. When he registered with the American Bar Association, he listed none of these as is required by law. Unless he had his name legally changed to Barack Hussein Obama after his adoption, of which there has been no proof presented, Barry Soetoro is his real name and Barack Hussein Obama is an alias.
17. All his passport records, education records, medical records, birth records have become “not available” to the public. Those records show where he was born, if he applied for or received aid as a foreign student, the country or countries from which he has received passports.
18. His selective service registration appears to be fraudulent. If he was a naturalized American citizen when he turned 18, and he failed to register with the selective service, he is barred from holding any position in government, elected or otherwise.
19. If he is not even a naturalized citizen, he is barred from holding any elected office.
20. If he is not even a naturalized citizen, he is an illegal alien.

When Senators and Representatives are elected to service their fellow Americans in Washington, DC, they take an oath of office to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” That oath ends with “So help me God.”

Following are some of the responses American citizens received from their elected representative to Washington, DC.

Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA):

Without a doubt, Congress has the responsibility to uphold the Constitution, including assuring that our elected officials meet the requirements of the job. As you point out in your letter, one must be a natural-born citizen of the United States in order to serve as the president. There have been a few cases brought before the courts in various states that address concerns about the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate. None of these cases have been taken up by the courts. It is my understanding that Obama's birth certificate has been certified as being authentic and as placing his birth in Hawaii. I thank you for bringing this concern to my attention and wish to assure you that I support transparency for the records of all candidates but especially for a job as grave as the President of the United States.

Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA):

The United States Constitution requires the President to be a natural born citizen of the United States. Senator Obama's campaign provided his birth certificate to the media amid allegations that he did not meet this qualification. The certificate, confirmed by the Hawaii Department of Health as authentic, shows that he was born in Hawaii. There are a number of lawsuits pending on this matter, and I will be following the outcomes of the cases closely.

Representative Wally Herger (R-CA):

As you know, some questions have been raised about whether President-elect Obama is a natural born citizen. There was a recent lawsuit arguing that he is not eligible for the Presidency for this reason. I understand that the Supreme Court considered hearing this lawsuit, but it ultimately turned down the request to have the case before the full court. I also understand that the director of Hawaii's Department of Health recently confirmed that President-elect Obama was born in Honolulu and has said that she has personally verified that her agency has his original birth certificate on record. Although I value your concern, and I will continue to monitor this issue, I do not believe that sufficient evidence has been brought to light at this time to conclude that President-elect Obama is ineligible for the office.

Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL):

As you may know, a voter recently raised this issue before a federal court in Pennsylvania. On October 24, 2008, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania released an order in the case of Berg v.Obama. In that case, the plaintiff, Phillip Berg, raised the same issue that your letter raises regarding proof of the President-Elect's birthplace. Through his lawsuit, Mr. Berg sought to compel President-Elect Obama to produce a certified copy of his birth certificate.

The District Court dismissed Mr. Berg's suit and held that the question of Obama's citizenship is not a matter for a court to decide. The court further noted that voters, not courts, should decide whether a particular presidential candidate is qualified to hold office.

Presidential candidates are vetted by voters at least twice - first in the primary elections and again in the general election. President-Elect Obama won the Democratic Party's nomination after one of the most fiercely contested presidential primaries in American history. And, he has now been duly elected by the majority of voters in the United States. Throughout both the primary and general election, concerns about Mr. Obama's birthplace were raised. The voters have made clear their view that Mr. Obama meets the qualifications to hold the office of President.

After he is sworn into office, Mr. Obama will be our nation's President and I intend to bestow upon him the honor and respect due any man who holds that Office. Yet, I am certain that there will be times when I will disagree and oppose President Obama's policies. When that happens, you can be assured that I will pursue vigorously what I believe to be in the best interest of Florida and the nation.

And these people were elected to serve the American people in the U.S. Senate or U.S. House of Representatives. If they approach something as important as the eligibility of a candidate to the office of president with this level of apathy, how can we ever believe they approach a bill with anything less? Is it any wonder our country is in the mess it is?

But indifference of the facts is not an excuse for the failure by Senators and Representatives to uphold the U.S. Constitution and their oath of office. It has been proven, beyond reasonable doubt, that Barack Hussein Obama is not an American citizen and is not, therefore, eligible to the office of president under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, United States Constitution. And every lawyer among those serving in Washington DC knows that just because a lawsuit is dismissed does not mean it is without merit. As so adequately displayed in the irresponsible responses above, these representatives try to make the claim, by insinuation, that since cases were dismissed on administrative grounds (procedural), that they are without merit (factual basis). Nothing could be further from the truth. Administrative procedure has nothing to do with the merits of a case. A case can have merit but still be dismissed on administrative grounds. This is often the process used by judges to get out of addressing cases they don’t want to address; especially cases where their loyalty is to the money-changers in the temple. There is not a judge in American that cannot be bought like a whore on a street corner. Those who can’t be bought, like Judge Roy Moore, find themselves removed from the bench.

If there was any doubt before January 8, 2009 of how the U S Senators and Representatives, and the U.S. Supreme Court view the people of this nation, that doubt is no more; they have made it crystal clear that, in their eyes, the people of this nation are nothing more than chattel to be used, abused and discarded at the pleasure of a centralized, totalitarian global regime.

If we, the people, subjugate, we deserve the misery we heap on ourselves! The Declaration of Independence makes it clear:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

To the traitors that are our U.S. Senators and Representatives; Numbers 30:2 is quite apropos, “If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.” Every Senator, ever Representative takes an oath before God; the closing words of that oath being "So help me God." While they may scoff at the word of God now except when it suits them to do otherwise, will they scoff when they stand before God in atonement?

© 2009 Lynn M. Stuter - All Rights Reserved


Activist and researcher, Stuter has spent the last fifteen years researching systems theory and systems philosophy with a particular emphasis on education as it pertains to achieving the sustainable global environment. She home schooled two daughters. She has worked with legislators, both state and federal, on issues pertaining to systems governance, the sustainable global environment and education reform. She networks nationwide with other researchers and a growing body of citizens concerned with the transformation of our nation from a Constitutional Republic to a participatory democracy. She has traveled the United States and lived overseas.

Web site:


by Beverly Eakman
January 13, 2009

Deep down, most Americans once thought they were immune from blatant propaganda, government-sanctioned media-bias and psychiatric hospitals-cum-prisons — hallmarks of Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich and Josef Stalin’s Communism. Such confidence is shifting as folks increasingly fear speaking their mind — on schools campuses, on the job, in houses of worship and public places. Worse, a metastasizing mental health industry has convinced government leaders that “nonprofessionals” — especially parents — are unqualified to make decisions on behalf of children. Average Americans find themselves intimidated by bureaucracies ranging from Child Protective Services to universities to the Environmental Protection Agency. These are just three agencies steeped in a deep-rooted presumption of citizen incompetence — precisely opposite the view of American Founders like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Today’s national leaders, agency heads and mainstream reporters are mostly hostile to American idealism, Christian morality and Western culture, which have taken the hardest hits under the banner of political correctness.

TV sitcoms, women’s magazines, and much of what passes for news daily prove that traditional notions of integrity and decency are in their death throes, while psychology (despite its dismal track record) is promoted as being firmly anchored in “science,” just as it was under Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin. The difference today — thanks to exponential advances in computer cross-matching, identification and tracking — is that politically incorrect “troublemakers” can be identified and marginalized before they secure careers involving leadership, status or influence. That, of course, is always the end-game of campaigns in political correctness.

The Forty-Five Year “Leap Forward”

Just as in Mao Tse-tung’s “Great Leap Forward” (a.k.a. “cultural revolution”), during which millions were murdered, the current state of affairs in America did not emerge suddenly. There were abundant warnings. Many writers, myself included, penned well-read works signaling a multitude of subtle twists and turns which our government, together with special interests, had undertaken since World War II in pursuit of, first, a socialist America, and then a totalitarian Superstate.

For some reason, Americans resist ominous signs. Perhaps it is because this nation was founded upon optimism, not created out of desperation. The earliest immigrants to our shores left everything familiar to institutionalize a different sort of governing style, one in which individuals were important instead of being servants of the State. This was a huge departure from prior ideas about the relationship of government to the governed. Modern citizens have pretty much lost touch with the radical nature of that single step.

The “Mouse” That Morphed

Today’s schools, of course, barely touch on anything about the early values, philosophies or ideals that formed the “America” of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. This is not surprising. Every “wannabe” tyrant that ever existed has always tried to wipe out knowledge about a nation’s past, or recast it to reflect “new” thinking. Today’s elites and special interests are no different — except for one thing: the computer. Sophisticated mathematical models and data-collection techniques make it possible, with the click of a “mouse,” to know which people are “buying in” to the incessant flow of disinformation and which citizens are not. Those who are not “buying” are “resisters.” Those who do “buy” are accepted into the better colleges, obtain the influential jobs and enjoy “status.”

Within the space of 30 years, computer giants had perfected software and hardware packages that gave the public — and, more importantly, its overseers — “what they wanted.” (For step-by-step details of data-collection and tracking, see Educating for the New World Order, 1991 and its sequel, Microchipped, 1994, Halcyon House Publishers). Meanwhile, a silent revolution was taking place in the media. The so-called “mainstream” sources — and both major political parties — started engaging in turf battles, which meant, basically, ignoring any “competitor” who might be saying something a little different. Nobody wanted to lose funding to somebody else. This resulted in fewer forums for real whistleblowers, and less dissemination of ideas. Despite the conveniences of the Internet, average people found it necessary to become proactive in obtaining their news. They couldn’t rely on any of the old standbys. Even libraries and bookstores displayed “preferred” books and magazines prominently (for money, of course) and relegated everything else to the back wall or to “special order.” Consequently, one had to know beforehand what to ask for. Americans had to sleuth around in a way they never did previously.

Most people thought they had more pressing priorities.

Schools: The Primary Aggressor in the War Against America

The National Education Association (NEA) became a primary aggressor in the war against parents, religion and national sovereignty during the post-war period, beginning with its landmark publication, Toward World Understanding and its co-founding of UNESCO (the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, co-founded in 1947 with a grant from the NEA and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching). Passing itself off as a “professional teacher’s organization,” the NEA’s leftist leadership lured educators by offering incentives like insurance and retirement benefits, then proceeded to create proxies to infiltrate teachers’ colleges and dictate weird accreditation standards. The orthodoxy of parental incompetence began pervading teacher-preparation programs. Politicians were neutralized as they came to fear loss of NEA support more than loss of American principles. Other institutions and corporations soon fell into step. The new supercomputers introduced features most people had ever heard of in a pre-personal-computer world. In 25 years, the era of psychological dossier-building was a done deed (see Chapter 3, “Taking a Ride on the SPEEDE-ExPRESS,” in my 1998, award-winning book, Cloning of the American Mind, available from the bookstore. Note: Book out of print, supply is limited). Analysts with concurrent degrees in psychology and statistics sealed the deal.

Today, children are “empowered” — blatantly encouraged to circumvent their parents and defy traditional values. Unfortunately, their “empowerment” had more to do with creating chaos and a vigorous data-collection effort than with self-determination.

Applying Marxist Terminologies to Psychological Profiling Programs

The 1995 Texas Medication Algorithm Project (TMAP), inaugurated in Texas (and funded by the leftist Robert Wood Johnson Foundation) under then-Governor George W. Bush, morphed into a congressionally funded universal mental-health screening program and psychotropic drug-treatment plan encompassing some 25 federal agencies by 2004. This would enable a future administration (incoming President Barack Obama?) to enforce psychological profiling (and mandatory drugging, if “necessary”) on every man, woman and toddler under an umbrella of “security.” Today, TMAP goes by the Marxist-like moniker “New Freedom Initiative” and is linked directly to political correctness. A quiet campaign of coercion, hidden amongst computerized records collected over two decades was launched. Today, the Powers That Be can access and merge information about you, “flag” anything that might prove damaging to you down the road (should you become a “refusenik”), while simultaneously editing out anything positive, and relegating it, in effect, to the cutting-room floor. How would anyone know, after all?

Among the first hints that such atrocities were under construction occurred in 1973. Parents in Pennsylvania got wind of intimate questions being included on a standardized achievement test. The “test” supposedly required parental consent and voluntary participation, but complied with neither directive. These parents called in the American Civil Liberties Union. The case was settled out of court in favor of the complainants. The Chief of Pennsylvania’s Department of Testing was told that if he henceforth would agree to adhere to a policy of voluntary participation and provide notification, then charges would be dropped.

But a decade later, the old U.S. Office of Education took on cabinet-level status as the U.S. Department of Education. Its state clones, called “state education agencies,” decided that such admonitions could be safely ignored. An avalanche of what-would-you-do-if queries and word-association games passed off as legitimate test items were disseminated to 120,000 students in the 5th, 8th and 11th grades through Pennsylvania’s Educational Quality Assessment (EQA). Irate parents were shuffled between the local, state and federal bureaucracies, each of which blamed the other. When Pennsylvania’s Division of Testing took the fall (again) — this time for linking curriculum directly to the tests, renamed “assessments,” as well as for failing to give notice — politicians dithered. It turned out that the money trail for both the assessments and the “remediating” curriculums (bearing the EQA logo right on the covers) led back to the federal government, through salaries and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.

The whistleblowers were already too late.

Self-Reports and Intimate Revelations

Soon, copycat EQA’s started turning up in other states, with such “test” questions as:

I often wish I were someone else. [or] I get upset easily at home. [a] Very true of me, [b] Mostly true of me, [c] Mostly untrue of me, [d] Very untrue of me.

You are asked to dinner at the home of a classmate having a religion [or race] different from yours. In this situation I would feel: [a] Very comfortable, [b] Comfortable, [c] Slightly uncomfortable, [d] Very uncomfortable.

A group of people are standing on a street corner. Some pick up rocks and start throwing them at windows. I WOULD ALSO THROW ROCKS when I knew… [a] there was no chance of getting caught; [b] I agreed with what they were protesting about; [c] my friends decided to throw rocks.

Individual classes weren’t immune from these computerized assessments, either. A Nebraska Adolescent “Health” Survey asked high-schoolers whether they considered themselves “religious” and what they thought about when they thought of sex! By May 2004, 194-question-long surveys like the one given to 11th-graders at the Tucson Unified School District were cropping up, featuring True-False queries like:

• I consider myself outgoing and spontaneous.
• I consider myself basically quiet and shy.
• I consider myself able to persuade my peers that my opinion is correct.
• My parents feel they should make a significant contribution of time and energy to society.
• I feel individuals identified as gifted experience more problems than individuals not [so] identified.

Typically, there were just enough real academic questions to appear credible. But the truth was usually found in the scoring literature — the kind of professional material that is still off-limits to laypersons. On the EQA, it explained how points were given for a “minimum positive attitude” (in the opinion of behavioral psychologists, not necessarily parents). The rationale? Assessment creators stated they were testing not for academics, but for a student’s “locus of control”; his/her “willingness to receive stimuli”; “amenability to change”; and for inclination to “conform to group goals.” Thus, kids were getting points for responses that showed a willingness to conform to the group — one of the New Ethics that precludes both individualism and a Christian worldview.

The implications were staggering. Pupils were being tested on whether they would be “team players” instead of individual thinkers (much less “critical thinkers”), and whether they would be acquiescent instead of principled. Today, these kinds of “tests” pervade even job applications.

“Like a Rolling Stone” — or an Atom Bomb

Eventually, test creators became so good at devising questions that the “target subjects” — children or adults — were generally unaware just how much they were divulging. Surreptitious identification mechanisms improved, too: “slugging,” “bar-coding,” “sticky-labeling,” “embedded identifiers.” (see Dec. 2008 Speech of the Month by Beverly Eakman, including PowerPoint presentation with evidence, in Vital Speeches of the Day, #563). According to two of the premier behavioral test constructors, the late Ralph Tyler and Richard Wolf, the goal is “to outwit the subject so that he cannot guess what information he is revealing.”

Cecil Golden, Associate Commissioner of Education in Florida, put it to The Ledger this way in July 1972: “…like those assembling an atom bomb, very few of them [software designers] understand what they’re building, and won’t until we put all the parts together.”

Today, professional opinion molders understand it just fine, as do educational leaders and many Members of Congress. And after the Obama Administration? Well, let’s just say that America, by that time, will look a whole lot less “like a rolling stone” — the song that came to define the Baby Boomers’ free-spirited rebelliousness of the 1960’s — and more like “the atom bomb” of Cecil Golden’s prophetic nightmare.

That’s “change” you can bank on!

Related Article:
Communist (Community) Oriented Policing

© 2009 Beverly Eakman - All Rights Reserved

Beverly K. Eakman is a former speechwriter for the Voice of America (under the U.S. Information Agency) as well as for the late Chief Justice Warren E. Burger when he chaired the Commission of the Bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution, and then a writer for the U.S. Dept. of Justice. Since retiring from the federal government, she has won numerous awards and is a sought-after speaker and lecturer.

She is the author of three best-selling books on education policy, mental-health issues and data-trafficking. She is a free-lance columnist with dozens of feature articles in hard-cover publications to her credit. She began her career as a teacher, where she first got wind, in the 1960’s and 70’s, of what was about to happen to classrooms nationwide. Her writings citing that period are considered historically important today and have earned her nationwide recognition.

She can be reached through her website:

The Time Clock Has Run Out: Israel Ready to Strike Iran
Monday, January 12, 2009 3:56 PM

By: Jim Meyers

Informed sources in Washington tell Newsmax that Israel indeed will launch a strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities soon – possibly in just days as President George W. Bush prepares to leave office.

The reason: The time clock has begun to run out. Iran is close to acquiring a nuclear device under the control of its radical president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said in June that Iran would have a nuclear weapon in as little as six months.

That six-month period has passed.

Reports of Israel’s decision to imminently launch strikes, although unconfirmed, would seem to contradict the Bush stance outlined in a front-page New York Times story last week, which asserted that Bush rejected a plea from Israel last year to help it raid Iran’s main nuclear complex.

The Times said Israel was rebuffed after it requested from the U.S. specialized bunker-busting bombs that it needs to attack Iran’s nuclear complex at Natanz. The U.S. also reportedly nixed permission to the Israeli warplanes to fly over Iraqi territory to reach Iran.

Israel’s requests to the U.S. for military assistance came as the Jewish state was reportedly angry over a U.S. intelligence assessment in late 2007 that concluded Iran had effectively suspended its development of nuclear weapons.

But an investigative report circulated by IAEA chief ElBaradei late last year disclosed that Iran was continuing to carry out uranium enrichment and had already established 6,000 centrifuges for enriching uranium, of which 3,800 were then in operation.

American intelligence officials now estimate that the figure is 4,000 to 5,000 centrifuges, enough to produce about one weapon’s worth of uranium every eight months or so, according to the Times.

The IAEA report estimated that Iran has obtained two tons of enriched uranium since its enrichment program was restarted at Natanz two years ago.

Last year 100 Israeli jets took part in an exercise over the eastern Mediterranean that was interpreted as a dress rehearsal for a possible attack on Iran.

And on Sept. 6 Israel launched an air attack against a site in Syria believed to be a nuclear-related facility containing material delivered by North Korea.

Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton predicted that Israel would stage a raid against Iran's nuclear facilities if Barack Obama won the presidential election.

Bolton stated that he believed the Israeli attack would take place sometime between the day after Obama's win and his inauguration on January 20.

In an interview with FOX News, Bolton reasoned that Israel wouldn’t be able to hold off a strike on Iran any longer than that given Obama’s more conciliatory approach to Iran.

The Israeli government “would have to make a judgment whether to [strike] during the remainder of President Bush’s term in office or wait for his successor,” Bolton added.

William Perry, U.S. Secretary of Defense under President Bill Clinton, said that Obama would face a major crisis in his first few months in office over Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Perry, speaking at a foreign policy conference on Jan. 8, said that Iran is "moving inexorably toward becoming a nuclear power" and “it seems clear that Israel will not sit by idle while Iran takes the final steps toward becoming a nuclear power."

And former CIA officer Robert Baer, author of the new book “The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower,” told Newsmax in October that Iran was at that time probably months, if not weeks, away from war with Israel.

The repercussions of an Israeli attack are not clear.

Though Arab states remain openly hostile to Israel, many who belong to the Sunni branch of Islam fear the rise of a nuclear Iran, a nation dominated by Shiite imams. Gulf states like Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have been quietly pressing the U.S. to take action against Iran – and may secretly root for an Israeli attack.

But Iran, even without nuclear weapons, is a regional power. If attacked, they are likely to press proxy terror groups like Hamas and Hezbollah to launch offensives against Israel and possibly the U.S.

Iran has warned in the past that it would launch a “missile blitz” against Gulf states if it is attacked.

And last July a senior Iranian official said the Islamic Republic would destroy Israel and 32 U.S. military bases in the Middle East if Iran is attacked over its nuclear program.

“Israel and 32 U.S. military bases in the region would not be out of the reach of our missiles and would be destroyed," the semi-official Fars News Agency quoted Mojtaba Zolnour as saying in a speech.

Zolnour is the deputy of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's representative in Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards.

Even more ominously, Iran has reportedly carried out missile tests for what could be a plan for a nuclear strike on the U.S.

© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

How is this change? Many of the new Presidents Appointees are criminals

Geithner Failed to Pay Taxes, Hired Housekeeper Without Proper Immigration Documents
Treasury Secretary nominee Timothy Geithner ran into trouble Tuesday after it was learned he had a housekeeper who worked for him without proper immigration documentation.

President-elect Barack Obama's nominee for Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, failed to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes for himself for four years and employed a housekeeper whose immigration documentation lapsed while in his employ.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus called a meeting with committee members to discuss the matter inside his office Tuesday.

Geithner disclosed to senators earlier in the day that he had failed to pay $34,000 in taxes from 2001 to 2004, a last-minute complication in an otherwise smooth path to confirmation.

Sources say Geithner also hired a housekeeper whose immigration papers expired during her employment in 2004 and 2005.

The woman, whose name has not been released, eventually obtained a green card to work legally in the U.S., and immigration authorities did not charge her with wrongdoing.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters after the revelations that he still believes Geithner is "extremely well-qualified" for the post.

"There was a few little hiccups, and that's basically what they are. I am not concerned at all," Reid said.

But an aide to finance committee member Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said the matter is "serious."

"Whether it's disqualifying is to be determined," the aide said.

Before becoming president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Geithner worked for the International Monetary Fund from 2001 to 2003. He paid all of his income taxes on his IMF income, but made a "common mistake" on his tax returns with regard to self-employment taxes, Obama transition aides told reporters Tuesday.

Incoming White House press secretary Robert Gibbs defended Geithner, saying, "He's dedicated his career to our country and served with honor, intelligence and distinction. That service should not be tarnished by honest mistakes, which, upon learning of them, he quickly addressed."

"He made a common mistake on his taxes, and was unaware that his part-time housekeeper's work authorization expired for the last three months of her employment," Gibbs said.

"We hope that the Senate will confirm him with strong bipartisan support so that he can begin the important work of the country," he added.

Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch, a member of the Senate Finance Committee, also defended Geithner.

"I still support him. I have no problem," Hatch told FOX News. "He's a very, very competent guy."

Baucus told reporters that Geithner's errors -- though "serious" -- do not disqualify him from becoming Treasury Secretary and that he hopes Geithner can be confirmed by Inauguration Day.

"These errors were not intentional; they were honest mistakes," Baucus said after he and other committee members met with Geithner.

FOX News' Trish Turner and the Associated Press contributed to this report.
Russia Prophetically Rises Against Israel as America Withholds Historic Support

By Bill Wilson, KIN Senior Analyst

WASH—Jan 13—KIN-- There are protests around the world against the Israeli defense of its citizens from terrorists in Gaza, but relatively nothing has been said about Russia’s move to cut heating and cooking gas supplies to 20% of Europe during the coldest part of winter. Apparently, in the court of world opinion, it is more inhumane to snuff out terrorists that kill innocent civilians and use their families as shields against attack then it is to purposely try to freeze people in mid-winter to gain a financial advantage in a contract. In fact, those AK-47’s and Qassum rocket materials used by terrorist must originate from somewhere—Egypt from Iran from Russia. Perhaps Russia is the one that the UN Security Council should be dealing with for world unrest.

The Israeli Defense Forces have been eradicating the infrastructure for the democratically elected terrorist group Hamas. An extensive network of tunnels has been built between Gaza and Egypt to smuggle weapons and supplies to terrorists. On January 10, the Israeli Embassy supplied evidence of a map confiscated on an operation. General Yuval Halmish said the map described the location of explosive devices and firing positions in the middle of the civilian population in a densely populated neighborhood. General Halmish says, “That’s what Hamas has been doing throughout the entirety of the operation—perversely using civilians as human shields.”

Meanwhile, Russia and 13 nations on the UN Security Council voted to condemn Israel for Gaza. The US shockingly abstained. Reuters reports that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert interrupted a Bush speech in Philadelphia to intervene. Olmert recounted the conversation during a recent speech: "I told him, 'You can't vote in favor of this resolution.' He said, 'Listen, I don't know about it, I didn't see it, I'm not familiar with the phrasing.'" Olmert said, "I'm familiar with it. You can't vote in favor . . .He gave an order to the secretary of state and she did not vote in favor of it--a resolution she cooked up, phrased, organized and maneuvered for. She was left pretty shamed and abstained on a resolution she arranged."

The Bible prophesies in Ezekiel that in the latter days, Gog, generally considered Russia, will lead Iran and northern Africa in a colossal battle against Israel. The United States has been standing as the only superpower preventing such an attack, even though world opinion against Israel is overwhelming. Yet, at the beginning of 2009, the US for the first time in history has cast aside its support of Israel’s right to defend itself. The Bible also prophesies in Zechariah 12:3 that all that burden themselves with Jerusalem “shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.” The Evil Empire referred to by President Reagan is on its prophetic rise, while the light of America is dimming.