The Scriptorium

If you think the economy is bad now, wait until Democrats start passing legislation that will bring us in line with the latest version of the Kyoto Treaty. This U.N. treaty was designed for the purposes of sticking it to the United States, while letting countries like China (now the worst polluter in the world) off easy. What makes this treaty even more devastatingly ignorant is that scientists are now finding that greenhouse gases are NOT the cause of “global warming”. It’s utter nonsense to believe that they are. Does coffee get hotter when you put it in a thermos? No. Those who blame man’s CO2 emissions for global warming are trying to convince us that it is possible to raise the temperature of something by insulating it. In other words they think coffee will rise above it’s initial temperature if you put it in a thermos. They could drink a whole thermos of ice cold coffee, and still believe that this theory is true, because they want it to be true.

Isn’t it interesting how the world only listens to their favorite scientists when they are saying something they like. When scientists find man isn’t to blame for what amounts to normal, cyclical climate change, Liberals cover their ears.

The U.S. Senate will let President-elect Barack Obama sign up to a U.N. pact to fight global warming in late 2009 even if U.S. climate laws are not yet in place, U.S. Senator John Kerry predicted on Thursday.

But Kerry, designated head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said on the sidelines of U.N. climate talks in Poland that China, India and Russia would also have to promise to cut greenhouse gas emissions to win Senate blessing of any pact.

“It will be like the difference between night and day,” Kerry, of Massachusetts, said of Obama’s enthusiasm for action against climate change after what he said were eight years of inaction under President George W. Bush.

He told Reuters support in the United States for climate action was strong enough to let Obama sign up for emissions cuts under a U.N. pact to be agreed in Copenhagen in late 2009 even if the Senate had not by then agreed matching U.S. climate laws.

“We can have commenced the (domestic) legislative process, we don’t have to have completed it,” before agreeing to cuts under a U.N. treaty, he said.

President Bill Clinton agreed in 1997 to the U.N.’s existing Kyoto Protocol for cutting greenhouse gases until 2012 but never tried to get the pact ratified by a hostile Senate.

Kerry, a Democrat beaten by Bush in the 2004 presidential election, will report back to Obama from Poznan.

By the time of the Copenhagen meeting, domestic legislation might have passed “a couple of committees” but might not have reached the full Senate “because of the economic situation and the budget issues and other things,” Kerry said.

CUTS

Obama has said he plans to cut U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases, now about 17 percent above 1990 levels, back to 1990 levels by 2020 and then by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

“Some of us believe he should go further than that” by 2020, Kerry said. “My hope is that … we may even be able to do better.”

Bush rejected Kyoto, which sets 2012 targets for 37 developed nations to cut emissions, saying it was too costly and should have also set targets for developing nations.

Kerry said that all major emitters would have to accept goals for cuts under a new treaty.

“What’s important is that we go to Copenhagen understanding that no treaty is going to pass the U.S. Senate unless it is a global solution. China, India, Russia — all countries have to be part of the solution,” he said.

“China is now the largest emitter in the world,” he said. “China has to reduce, in concrete fixed levels from its current levels. So do we. So does the EU (European Union), so does the rest of the world.” Targets could vary by country. Comments Off

You would think Obama would want to avoid four years of debate and suspicion about whether his presidency is legitimate. It would be so simple for him to release a copy of his vault birth certificate. Officials in Hawaii have confirmed that they do have a birth certificate locked away in the vault, so why not release it? Perhaps Obama is hoping the media’s lie that those officials have verified his status as a natural born citizen will eventually be accepted. They have said no such thing, of course. They admitted only that they had a birth certificate on file, and said nothing about where that birth certificate was issued, or where it says Obama was born. During the 1960′s it was Hawaii law that a foreign born child, having one parent who had lived in America, could obtain a Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) from the state of Hawaii upon filing a birth certificate with the state. The COLB is the only document Obama has produced, and it means nothing. But, if that’s all you’ve got, I guess it makes sense to put a digital copy of it on the internet and hope it satisfies those who are asking questions.

There are a dozen or more cases out there questioning Obama’s citizenship that are still making their way through the court system and are headed for the Supreme Court. Keyes’ case is one of the better ones because he can argue that he has standing as a presidential candidate named on the ballot in California. There are others, however, that also make much better arguments than the one that was recently tossed out by the Supreme Court. If this issue continues to get the attention it has been getting, even without the MSM covering it, I don’t know how the Supreme Court can continue to ignore it. As more and more people learn the facts in this case, the demand for Obama’s birth certificate is only going to grow. Should Obama be found ineligible down the road, it would look very bad for the Supreme Court to have repeatedly dismissed something so important as the eligibility of a person to hold the office of President of the United States. Americans have to show identification and proof of citizenship in this country many times throughout their lives. For the courts to tell us we have no right to demand the same of our leaders, especially from a man running for President, is absurd. The man has managed to keep his history hidden this long, though. Maybe he’s that good. We shall see.

A California public interest legal group has taken on a high-profile battle that already has at least three entire law firms lining up on the other side. But the group has promised to fight until a resolution is reached in the dispute over Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president.

The legal action by the United States Justice Foundation seeks to stop the state’s Electoral College voters, who already have been served with formal notices, from voting for Obama unless and until documentation proving his eligibility to occupy the Oval Office has been provided.

“For the sake of our Constitution and our republic, the issue MUST be resolved,” the legal advocacy group says in a new campaign seeking support for its work.

To explain the implications of not resolving the eligibility question before Inauguration Day, USJF gives several possible examples: “If President Obama issues an executive order to rescind the Mexico City Policy and allows the tax dollars of Americans to fund organizations that promote abortions overseas, the door to question the legitimacy of that executive order remains open.”

“If President Obama signs a treaty with an unfriendly power or the United Nations, the door to question the legitimacy of that treaty remains open.

“If President Obama signs a bill granting amnesty to illegal aliens, the door to question the legitimacy of that law remains open.

“If President Obama appoints new commissioners to the FCC who bring back the so-called Fairness Doctrine, the door to question those appointments and the legitimacy of the actions taken by his appointees remains open.”

Thus, contends USJF in its lawsuit: “Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the office of president of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void, petitioners, as well as other Americans, will suffer irreparable harm in that an usurper will be sitting as the president of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal.”

“In other words, as long as this case is in the courts, a cloud hangs over Sen. Obama’s head. For the sake of our Constitution and our Republic, the issue MUST be resolved!” the legal group said.

Read the rest here.

Well, this explains a lot. If you give enough money to politicians, they’ll gladly hand over our money to pay you off. When will the American public learn that the government’s job is not to manage our money for us? They’re lousy at it. It’s government interference that leads to these bailouts, in the first place. Whether that interference be forcing banks to make high risk loans just to get low-income votes, or forcing auto makers to pay off corrupt union bosses with outrageous salaries that foreign companies don’t have to pay their workers, someone is going to pay – usually Joe Taxpayer.

What were major corporations such as AIG, Ford, Citigroup and Freddie Mac doing in the weeks before they asked Washington for taxpayer-funded financial bailouts?

They were donating millions of dollars to underwrite the Democratic and Republican Party
conventions.

According to a new report released today by the Center for Responsive Politics in conjunction with the Campaign Finance
Institute, the companies were some of the largest sponsors of the political conventions that resulted in the nomination of Barack Obama and John McCain for president.

In the two years spent fundraising for the conventions, CFI claims the two parties only provided the names “they elected to disclose. The institute announced today that the first official host committee reports have been released, and it now has a complete list of donors.

“The two convention host committees raised $118 million, virtually all of it in private funds: $61 million for the Democratic conclave in Denver and $57 million for the Republican one in Minneapolis-St. Paul,” it reveals. “The latter figures are almost four times the separate $16 million each party received from the federal government to support its convention.”

Read the rest here.