Natural Born Conservative III

Where are my posts?

2009-11-01T14:26:00.001-08:00

I'm still here. I have been posting mostly at my sister site:

http://larrymwalkerjr.blogspot.com

Please join me there.

2004 Headline: Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate

2009-10-17T13:47:00.000-07:00

The following story was published in the EA Standard - Online Edition on June 27, 2004. The EA Standard is a Kenyan news publication. The source is stated to be the AP. So who really started the whole birth controversy? Conservatives, Republicans, The EA Standard, or the AP? Fact or fiction?

Sunday, June 27, 2004

Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race on Friday night amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations.

The allegations that horrified fellow Republicans and caused his once-promising candidacy to implode in four short days have given Obama a clear lead as Republicans struggled to fetch an alternative.

Ryan’s campaign began to crumble on Monday following the release of embarrassing records from his porce. In the records, his ex-wife, Boston Public actress Jeri Ryan, said her former husband took her to kinky sex clubs in Paris, New York and New Orleans.

"It’s clear to me that a vigorous debate on the issues most likely could not take place if I remain in the race," Ryan, 44, said in a statement. "What would take place, rather, is a brutal, scorched-earth campaign – the kind of campaign that has turned off so many voters, the kind of politics I refuse to play."

Although Ryan disputed the allegations, saying he and his wife went to one ‘avant-garde’ club in Paris and left because they felt uncomfortable, lashed out at the media and said it was "truly outrageous" that the Chicago Tribune got a judge to unseal the records.

The Republican choice will become an instant underdog in the campaign for the seat of retiring Republican Senator Peter Fitzgerald, since Obama held a wide lead even before the scandal broke.

"I feel for him actually," Obama told a Chicago TV station. "What he’s gone through over the last three days I think is something you wouldn’t wish on anybody."

The Republican state committee must now choose a replacement for Ryan, who had won in the primaries against seven contenders. Its task is complicated by the fact that Obama holds a comfortable lead in the polls and is widely regarded as a rising Democratic star.

The chairwoman of the Illinois Republican Party, Judy Topinka, said at a news conference, after Ryan withdrew, that Republicans would probably take several weeks to settle on a new candidate.

"Obviously, this is a bad week for our party and our state," she said.

As recently as Thursday, spokesmen for the Ryan campaign still insisted that Ryan would remain in the race. Ryan had defended himself saying, "There’s no breaking of any laws. There’s no breaking of any marriage laws. There’s no breaking of the Ten Commandments anywhere."

—AP

Source:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastandard.net/headlines/news26060403.htm

TerriK INVESTIGATION – PART 1: Hawaii Department of Health Directors Fukino and Okubo Are Guilty of Misdirection

2009-09-25T22:00:00.000-07:00

INTRODUCTION

The entire Presidential eligibility movement has been ridiculed as a fringe “conspiracy theory” by main stream media, members of Congress and even Judges speaking directly from the bench. This ridicule is largely due to public statements made by Hawaii Department of Health Director, Dr. Chiyome Fukino (see below) which testify that she has seen vital records maintained by her office which prove President Obama was born in Hawaii and that he has an original birth certificate on file there.

The ridicule has been broad, extending even to public investigators like myself who believe that President Obama was actually born in Hawaii. But reliance on Director Fukino and her Communications Director Janice Okubo are sadly misplaced. They are guilty of misdirecting the public away from vital records information made expressly available by statute where no privacy exceptions apply.

These accusations are not a matter of conjecture. They are a matter of fact and shall be proved. This, Part 1 of the full report, will illustrate multiple instances of misdirection.

Following reports in the days ahead will detail various information requests made by TerriK and their eventual resolution. The resolution involves official responses which – according to statutory application – admit the existence of amendments and/or corrections to President Obama’s vital records despite the continuing pattern of misdirection.

Continued at: Natural Born Citizen Blog - Attorney Leo Donofrio

Factcheck.org Admits to Two Errors Regarding Obama's Eligibility - 3rd Challenge

2009-09-13T13:24:00.000-07:00

Attorney Leo Donofrio has challenged Factcheck.org on an error regarding statements of fact about Kenyan and British citizenship laws. He also challenged them regarding a statement of fact concerning his status as an attorney. Factcheck.org has corrected both 'misstatements' of fact.

Now, Leo is challenging them on the following statement:

“Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on…”

Where’s the documentation on this brazen statement. Fact Check needs to own up, or else change it’s name/mission statement. How’s this – ‘FactCheck – But Sometimes We Make Stuff Up’. Their careless mistakes lead me to doubt anything they have ever written.

Read this at: Natural Born Citizen Blog

And here's the first article: Natural Born Citizen Blog

Health Insurance Co-Ops vs. Government-Run Health Insurance

2009-09-12T11:34:00.000-07:00

More Honest Debate

What is a Cooperative (Co-Op)?

A Cooperative is a business organization owned and operated by a group of individuals for their mutual benefit. A cooperative may also be defined as a business owned and controlled equally by the people who use its services or who work at it.

There are many types of Co-Ops in the United States. I will attempt to address some of the most common cooperatives. If you belong to a credit union, you are already a member of a Co-Op. My electric and natural gas utility company is an EMC, another word for Co-Op. In the insurance industry, Co-Ops are called Mutual Companies, or Mutual Legal Reserves.

Credit Unions are owned by their members. When you join, you must establish a share account and maintain a minimum balance. Your share account is your capital investment in the company. You are paid ‘dividends’ on your savings and checking accounts. Dividends are your share of the Credit Union’s profits. A Credit Union offers benefits for its members such as preference on home and automobile loans.

An Electric Membership Corporation (EMC) is a service cooperative owned by those who receive its services. There are nearly 1,000 electric cooperatives in the United States. When the EMC makes a profit, those profits are shared with customers through credits to their electric bills, or lower rates.

Health Insurance Co-Ops

Health Care Services Corporation (HCSC) is the largest customer owned health insurer in the United States.

HCSC operates the Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans in Illinois, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas, employing 17,000 people and serving more than 12.4 million members - 38% in national employer plans, 32% in large local employer plans, 10% in small employer plans, 10% in individual plans and 10% in government plans.

HCSC is the fourth largest health insurance company in the United States and the largest customer-owned health insurer. In 2008, the company's gross revenue totaled $39.9 billion (considering all subsidiaries which are not included in the chart below in accordance with GAAP).

HCSC is the most financially secure health insurer in the United States, with a rating of AA- (Very Strong) from Standard and Poor's, Aa3 (Excellent) from Moody's and A+ (Superior) from A.M. Best Co.

HCSC retains full or joint ownership of a number of subsidiary companies, including Fort Dearborn Life Insurance Co., Dental Network of America, MEDecision, Availity, Prime Therapeutics and RealMed.

If the HCSC model is the type of Health Insurance Co-Op being discussed in Congress, then I am a fan. Yes. Here is an idea that would have strong bi-partisan support. We can agree on Health Insurance Co-Ops. In my opinion Co-Ops are in line with the purest sense of Capitalism. On the other hand, if Congress is talking about some kind of partially Government owned, or Government controlled entity, then I am not in favor.

In fact, I would like to join HCSC, or a similar Co-Op, but unfortunately it only operates in 4 states, and none of the health insurers in my state are co-ops. Fostering increased competition by allowing insurers to operate in all states would be an improvement.

The Plan

So if America wants to convert its health insurance industry to Co-Ops, the question is how? Obviously, it would be unfair, and foolish, to force the existing insurers out of business, so how do you get them to convert?

I am a proponent of Binary Economics. Under Binary Economics, the only role of Government in private enterprise is to offer interest-free loans through its central bank. Existing publicly traded insurers will need to buy back all of their stock in order to make the conversion to mutual companies. Interest free loans from the Government will facilitate this conversion. The loans will be paid back over the long-term out of the profits of the insurers. Once the loans have been paid, the insured will be able to participate in a larger share of company profits. Profits will be shared with policy holders either in the form of dividends, or lower insurance rates.

Interest free loans are not hand-outs, or bailouts. The money gets paid back. Granting interest free loans would be a much better use of taxpayers money than the current foolishness being promoted by certain 'linear' thinkers (right and left). The World is not flat. In fact, most good ideas come from outside of the box.

Reforms I can believe in:

Conversion of the Health Insurance Industry to Co-Ops

Tort Reform

Fostering Interstate Commerce for increased competition

No denial for preexisting conditions

Tax Incentives for those paying higher premiums due to preexisting conditions

Tax incentives for purchasing health insurance

Portability of policies

Reforms I don’t believe in:

Making health insurance mandatory
Taxing employers who don’t offer insurance
Expanding Government-Run health care
Excessive Government Regulation
Triggers

click images to enlarge

Sources:

http://www.hcsc.com/about-hcsc/overview.html

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mutualcompany.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-op

http://www.waltonemc.com/mycoop/

http://larrymwalkerjr.blogspot.com/2009/08/government-insurance-vs-private.html

Mopping Up After Obama - HSA's and Energy Credits

2009-09-07T10:08:00.000-07:00

(click image to enlarge)

More Honest Debate

Can the Federal Government outsmart itself?

Health Savings Accounts (H.S.A.'s) either work, or they don't work. The government came up with a great plan, but failed to promote it. That's what our government does. They solve a problem, and then come back in a couple of years and solve it again. We are seeing it with health care, as well as with energy policy.

Health Savings Accounts are a great idea. I have had one for over three years and have been satisfied with the program. Since I am in control of the spending, I don't always take the doctors advice about redundant tests and follow up appointments. Since I have to pay for those tests and appointments I make sure that I really need them before making the appointment. If it wasn't coming out of my pocket, I would be less inclined to question, and more inclined to take every redundant test, and make every redundant follow up appointment, whether I felt I needed it or not. Don't you dare give me something that works, and then threaten to take it away because the rest of society hasn't caught on. Either health savings accounts work, or they don't. And if they do, then the government had better get to the business of promoting them.

Speaking of energy policy, I'm a bit disgruntled that, after spending over $10,000 in home energy improvements, the federal government through a cap-and-trade tax now thinks that wasn't good enough and they want to raise the cost of energy, thus negating any long-term savings I may have hoped to gain. Either the energy tax credits worked, or they didn't work. Make up your minds. We got the message already and most Americans have incorporated energy savings mechanisms through the free market. Now the message seems to be that Americans have failed to get the message so now the Government will take over and force energy savings down our throats. So will the Government reimburse me for what I have expended in following its previous advice?

Seems to me that Barack Obama and his left-wing cadre certainly don't have the best interests of this American at heart. And, well, if the majority of Americans feel the same way, then I would venture to say that Obama doesn't have the best interests of America at heart.

Empowering Patients First Act - H.R. 3400

2009-09-02T19:13:00.001-07:00

Putting Patients First!

RSC Chairman Tom Price has introduced the Empowering Patients First Act. This is another positive solution from the Republican Study Committee that grants access to affordable, quality health care for all Americans, and is centered around the patient. By increasing patients’ control over their health decisions, we will make coverage more affordable, accessible and responsive, while offering more choices and the highest-quality care.

This solution is centered around four main principles:

#1: Access to Coverage for All Americans

The Empowering Patients First Act makes the purchase of health care financially feasible for all Americans, covers pre-existing conditions, protects employer-sponsored insurance, and shines light on existing health care plans.

#2: Coverage is Truly Owned by the Patient

This legislation grants greater choice and portability to the patient, and also gives employers more flexibility in the benefits offered. It also expands the individual market by creating several pooling mechanisms.

#3: Improve the Health Care Delivery Structure

Physicians know the best care for their patient. That's why this legislation establishes doctor-led quality measures, ensuring that you get the quality care you need. It also reimburses physicians to ensure the stability of your care, and encourages healthier lifestyles by allowing employers to offer discounts for healthy habits through wellness and prevention programs.

#4: Rein in Out-of-Control Costs

A key concern in positive reform is reining in out-of control costs. This legislation does this by reforming the medical liability system. Also, the cost of the plan is completely offset through decreasing defensive medicine, savings from health care efficiencies, sifting out waste, fraud and abuse, plus an annual one-percent non defense discretionary spending step down.

Additional Information:

Short Summary
Detailed Summary
Section by Section Summary
Full Bill Text

RSC Press Release

Steny Shivers, Shakes at Patient-Centered Health Care Solution

Side-by-Side Comparison with the House Democrat Government Takeover (H.R. 3200)

POLITICO - "How the GOP Wants to Fix Health Care"

Chairman Price Accepts Obama's Invitation to Examine Health Care Proposals Line-by-Line

Letters of Support:
From Americans for Tax Reform

http://rsc.tomprice.house.gov/Solutions/EmpoweringPatientsFirstAct.htm

Government-Run vs. Private Health Insurance

2009-09-01T19:45:00.000-07:00

The table above was revised on 08/30/09.

click image to enlarge

Government-Run vs. Private Health Insurance

More Honest Debate

First of all, 60% of private sector health insurance providers are non-profits who must by law disclose their records to the public. You can find their tax returns online including information about programs, and compensation.

Most of the remaining companies are publicly traded and by law must file 10K and 10Q reports with the SEC. Their financial information and compensation information is also available online on various websites.

Information on government-run health insurance programs (i.e. The Public Option) may also be found online. The Social Security Administration issues an annual Trust Fund report. (Note: Both public trustee positions are still vacant.)

In comparing the three types, it is clear that something is wrong with the federal government. I have to disclose that I did not include the funds that Medicare obtains from general government revenues, above, because this money comes directly from income taxes.

Medicare Part A is funded primarily by payroll taxes assessed on an individual’s total wages. Medicare B and D is funded primarily by premiums charged to Social Security recipients (which I might add is kind of redundant).

To be brief: For-profits are by necessity in the black. On the other hand, government-run insurance is in the tank. In fact, Medicare is projected to exhaust it’s assets by 2017 according to the 2009 Annual Trustees Report.

So I ask this question. Who is better qualified to manage health insurance: the 'government workers' in Washington, DC or the Private Sector? I think you know the answer.

Solution: With proper regulation and oversight, turn over Medicare, and Social Security to the Private Sector. Bigger government is not the solution, it's the problem.

[Update: Expanded table and updated sources on 08/30/09]

Sources:

Getting Honest About Social Security - Part 3

2009-08-24T19:22:00.001-07:00

We begin with the Congressional Budget Office's Estimate of the President's Budget (above). Why wait until tomorrow? It's on the CBO's website at http://cbo.gov/?

You will recall from Part 2, that entitlement spending (aka mandatory spending) is comprised of the following:

Entitlement Spending, at $1.595 trillion in FY 2008, is over half of the U.S. Federal Budget. The largest entitlement spending programs based on FY 2006 were Social Security and Medicare, as follows:

Social Security - $544 billion
Medicare - $325 billion
Medicaid - $186 billion
All other mandatory programs - $357 billion. These programs include Food Stamps, Unemployment Compensation, Child Nutrition, Child Tax Credits, Supplemental Security for the blind and disabled, Student Loans, and Retirement / Disability programs for Civil Servants, the Coast Guard and the Military

In FY 2009 and 2010 alone, entitlement spending is projected to exceed government revenue by some $290 billion. So the United States is facing a budget deficit, in just two years, before spending one dime on our defense, education, veterans pensions, and other vital programs. And this wasn't supposed to happen for another 31 years?

Is anyone still seriously considering dumping another $1 trillion dollars into this government-run ponzi scheme?

Obama said he wanted an 'honest debate' on his health care proposal. Well, here's the problem. We can't afford to waste another dollar on some misguided government program, no matter how noble. Social Security is little more than a government-run Ponzi Scheme. Medicare is only 1/2 funded by premiums. Isn't Medicare an example of government-run health care?

What kind of health insurance company would only collect 1/2 of what it spends on claims year-after-year, after year? I'll tell you. A government-run health insurance company. Like that commercial says Mr. president, "You Need A Plan!"

Solutions abound, but what Obama is proposing isn't one of them.

To even begin an 'honest' discussion on Social Security, Medicare, Government Option Health Care, or any other 'reform' proposed by ‘government workers’, you first need to get honest with the public, and then your proposals had better include the following:

Reductions in government spending
Reductions in government programs
Privatization of government entitlement programs
Budget balancing initiatives
Incentives for private investment
Incentives for private business growth
Incentives for private job creation
and, Policies that promote individual liberty

Getting Honest About Social Security – Part 2

2009-08-23T11:30:00.000-07:00

What are Entitlements?

Entitlement Spending, at $1.412 trillion in FY 2006, is over half of the U.S. Federal Budget. The largest entitlement spending programs are Social Security and Medicare, as follows:

Social Security - $544 billion
Medicare - $325 billion
Medicaid - $186 billion
All other mandatory programs - $357 billion. These programs include Food Stamps, Unemployment Compensation, Child Nutrition, Child Tax Credits, Supplemental Security for the blind and disabled, Student Loans, and Retirement / Disability programs for Civil Servants, the Coast Guard and the Military

How Is Social Security Funded?

Social Security is funded through payroll taxes. Through 2017, Social Security collects more in tax revenues than it pays out in benefits because there are 3.3 workers for every beneficiary. However, as Baby Boomers start to retire and draw down these benefits, there will be fewer workers to support them. By 2040, the revenues to pay for Social Security will be less than the expenditures.

How Is Medicare Funded?

Unlike Social Security, Medicare payroll taxes and premiums cover only 57% of current benefits. The remaining 43% is financed from general revenues (i.e. including any surplus remaining from Social Security). Because of rising health care costs, general revenues will have to pay for 62% of Medicare costs by 2030.

Medicare has two sections:

The Medicare Part A Hospital Insurance program, which collects enough payroll taxes to pay current benefits.
Medicare Part B, the Supplementary Medical Insurance program, and Part D, the new drug benefit, which is only covered by premium payments and general tax revenues.

How Will the FY 2008 Budget on Entitlement Spending Affect the U.S. Economy?

Through 2012, entitlement spending is budgeted at about 10.5% of GDP, with payroll tax revenue at about 6.5% of GDP, so that these unfunded obligations add to the general budget deficit. For example, in FY 2006 Social Security brought in $608 billion in “off-budget," extra funds from payroll taxes. However, other entitlement programs had expenses that far outweighed this “extra” revenue, creating a mini-deficit of $574 billion within the entitlement spending budget alone. The amount increases to $784 billion by 2012.

Long-term Impacts

Long-term, however, the impact of doing nothing about these burgeoning unfunded mandates will be huge. The first Baby-Boomer turns 62 this year, and becomes eligible to retire on Social Security benefits. By 2025, those aged 65+ will comprise 20% of the population.

As Boomers leave the work-force and apply for benefits, three things happen:

The percentage of the labor under 55 stops growing, providing less payroll taxes to fund Social Security.
GDP growth declines to less than 2% due to fewer workers.
By 2040, Social Security alone brings in less than it spends.

Getting Honest

Obama has stated that any further debate on his health care reform proposals needs to be “honest debate”. He implies that critics have been dishonest, which means we’re just lying.

In looking at the facts above, one need only ask the following question:

Are the budgetary problems facing ‘government workers’ in Washington, DC caused by the private sector, or by the government?

Obama wants to overthrow the private health insurance industry and fold it into a government run entitlement. Yet, the federal government has proven itself incapable of managing its current programs. How is adding more of the burden to the government going to resolve the baby boomer issue?

With all due respect, as a wise man once stated, “government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem.”

What we need to be discussing is a way to turn over the government’s primary entitlements: Social Security and Medicare to the private sector, not the other way around. If not, the next thing ‘government workers’ will be proposing is how they can fold State, and private pension money into the black hole of the Social Security Ponzi Fund.

Obama’s solution: Solve a problem by compounding it. “We have to spend more money to keep from going bankrupt.”

American’s are simply saying, “No”.

Getting Honest About Social Security - Part 1

2009-08-22T22:16:00.000-07:00

Reality

The maximum social security benefit for 2009 for a person retiring at full retirement age (66) is $2,323. This is based on earnings at the maximum taxable amount for every year after age 21.

Analysis based on maximum benefits:

The total paid into the system by, or on behalf of, the recipient by the age of 66 is $266,377 ($235,042 of this since 1980).

The total paid in by the age of 66 with 3% compound annual interest is $394,785.

By the age of 74, the recipient will receive a full return of the amount paid in on their behalf without interest.

By the age of 77, the recipient will receive a full return of the amount paid in on their behalf with interest compounded at 3% annually.

Assuming the funds continue to receive a return of 3% through the annuity phase, the funds would last up to the age of 80.

So by the age of 74 the total paid in by the recipient plus amounts matched by employers are exhausted. If the government were able to achieve a meager 3% rate of return, the total savings at the time of retirement would be exhausted by the age of 77. Assuming a 3% return on investment during the annuity phase, the funds should last through the age of 80.

However, in reality, the average monthly benefit for social security recipients is only $1,061 per month or $12,732 per year in 2009. There are currently some 51.8 million recipients receiving some $55.0 billion in benefits each month.

Dishonesty

The only problem and it is a major problem, in fact it is a problem many times worse than the alleged health care crisis, is the fact that the government has stolen the Social Security Trust Fund. There is no trust fund. There are ‘no’ dollars in savings for the government to invest and receive even a meager 3% return. Every dollar paid into the fund this month will be spent this month, and then some.

Worse than that, the Federal Government has run up a National Debt of $11 trillion, and intends to increase this debt by another $9 trillion over the next 10 years. With the peak of baby boomers hitting retirement age in 2019, a $20 trillion National Debt, longer life expectancies, and a smaller workforce, how are politicians going to be able to keep this “ponzi” scheme going?

Honesty

It is clear to me that Washington, DC cannot be trusted with taxpayer’s money. We need to get the Federal Government the heck out of the retirement business. And don’t even talk to me about letting the government take over health care. I’m not hearing it.

We need to work on solutions that will allow American citizens to save for their own retirement, and to be able to pay for their own health care. At the same time, we have to figure out how to untangle ourselves from this massive ponzi scheme which politicians have gotten us into.

As far as I’m concerned, any solution that involves spending another dollar of taxpayer’s money better include a detailed cost benefit analysis. Any solution to the problems of our time that doesn’t involve drastic cuts in spending by the federal government is not a solution.

To even begin an honest discussion on social security, Medicare, health care or any other political issue being discussed these days, ‘government workers’ had better get honest with the public, and their proposals had better include the following:

Reductions in government spending

Reductions in government programs

Privatization of government entitlement programs

Budget balancing initiatives

Incentives for private investment

Incentives for private business growth

Incentives for private job creation

Policies that promote individual liberty

References:

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat_snapshot/

http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/ssa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=5&p_created=955050377

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/COLA/cbb.html

http://larrymwalkerjr.blogspot.com/2009/08/cbo-and-our-common-welfare.html

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=10297

http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/mzuckerman/2009/08/10/deficit-means-massive-tax-hike-years-of-misery-if-obama-wont-cut-spending.html

The CBO and Our Common Welfare

2009-08-15T21:49:00.000-07:00

This blog was inspired today by comments made during Obama’s town hall event in Colorado. Here are the tweets that inspired this research:

Obama said, "despite all the scare tactics out there, what is truly scary is if we do nothing." I said, “Isn't this a scare tactic?”

Obama said, "spread the word, knock on doors, to help enact his health coverage plan.” I said, “It might help if he actually had a plan, no?”

Obama said, "health care costs are the biggest part of federal deficit and debt?" I said, “Defense and interest on the debt are right behind.”

Obama again states: "nobody is talking about a government takeover of health care." I said, “Nobody as in Congress via H.R. 3200?”

My summary of Obama’s town hall meeting: “Let's all get behind this idea of spending money that we don't have, on a reform plan that hasn't been written.”

Afterwards I watched the following CBO webcast, The Long-Term Budget Outlook, and studied the cost projections for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Interest on the Debt. After all of this, I am convinced that our government is on the wrong track.

Link to CBO Video

The issue should not be how to include more people in entitlements while cutting costs (an impossible feat). But rather how to create incentives to make people more self-sufficient so that they will not need to depend on the government? In other words, the focus needs to be on reducing the number of people covered by government entitlements, reducing government size and spending, and increasing government revenue to extinguish the debt.

In Mortimer Zuckerman’s USA Today column entitled, “The Coming Government Debt Bomb” [Spending must be cut, or surging deficit could leave U.S. deep in the red for years], he states the following:

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reckons that the deficit will run for a decade and will still exceed $1.2 trillion in 2019. By that time, the United States will have virtually doubled its national debt, to over $17 trillion. Then, after 2019, we get another turn of the screw as the peak waves of baby boomers move into their retirement years and costs soar for the major entitlements, Social Security and Medicare.

At 41 percent of GDP in 2008, the accumulated federal debt will rise to 82 percent by 2019. One out of every 6 dollars spent then by the feds will go to interest, compared with 1 in 12 dollars last year. These out-year budgets will require an increase in everyone's income taxes, raising federal income taxes an average of $11,000 for families, a hike of 55 percent per household—a political impossibility. The Government Accountability Office estimates that by 2040, interest payments will absorb 30 percent of all revenues and entitlements will consume the rest, leaving nothing for defense, education, or veterans' pensions.

I know you don’t want to hear about private savings accounts versus Social Security. And you probably don’t want to hear about high deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts. But the alternative being peddled by the Obama Administration and Congress is to increase government debt until it actually exceeds what our economy can produce in a year.

In other words they would rather bankrupt the United States, than face the fact that government cannot provide for the health and retirement needs of the people. And that's the bottom line - the government cannot provide for the health and retirement needs of any but the most needy. Come to think of it, seems to me that was the original plan.

I realize that this is counter to the Biden-Obamanomics view that, “we need to spend more to keep from going bankrupt,” but I live on planet earth. The track being followed by this government will create a new problem, i.e. what do we pay or not pay this month. A bankrupt government would create a more serious crisis than any we have ever faced. Listen to the hearing, read the legislation, study the numbers, and see what you think.

“Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for life.”

We can do this on our own if our government would get out of the way, and simply provide us with the incentives to provide for ourselves.

The bottom line on Obama's non-existent health care/insurance reform 'plan' - show us the 'plan' you are talking about, or stop talking.

Obama Scores a Zero on Health Care Reform

2009-08-09T00:03:00.000-07:00

Bombs on the Fundamentals

Barack Obama’s main argument and the key to his whole presidency seems to be this idea that health care reform will lead to economic recovery. However, what Obama has failed to do is to convince the American public, and mainly conservatives, that it was our present health care system that caused the economic recession of 2007. His failure to convince an intelligent public has caused him to score a big fat zero on fundamental logic.

Obama: "We must lay a new foundation for future growth and prosperity, and a key pillar of a new foundation is health insurance reform."

Conservatives: We believe you create jobs by keeping taxes and regulation low, and litigation at a minimum. Americans succeed when government puts in place positive policies that encourage more freedom, and more opportunity.

Most of us were under the impression that the recession was caused by the failure of our financial system as specifically related to the housing market. We believe that our economy failed due to a combination of easy money, lax mortgage regulations, and the crash in home prices. We also believe that the problems that caused the housing/mortgage crisis have yet to be resolved.

Instead of focusing on the main problem, the one that actually caused our economy to buckle, along comes Barack Obama with the false premise that it was the lack of health care reform that caused the recession. American’s are however, unable to connect the dots. Some key questions are as follows:

How did the lack of health care reform cause the present recession?
How will health care reform lead to economic recovery?
How do you define economic recovery?
Why did Fannie Mae lose another $15 billion in the 2nd Quarter of 2009?
How will passing ‘untested’ (unread) legislation restore America’s confidence in a broken federal bureaucracy?

It is precisely Obama’s inability to answer the above questions that has American’s like myself so ticked off. Instead of recognizing and focusing on the real crisis, Obama has created a make-believe crisis, and he is proposing a make-believe solution.

Will the Obama brand of make-believe health care reform help delinquent consumers pay their bills? Will it keep real interest rates down? Will it create jobs? Will it encourage more freedom and opportunity? Will it balance the current budget deficit?

When Obama can come to the table with a logical argument regarding his proposed government take over of the health care industry, I will be glad to sit down with him, and have a serious conversation. Until then he can look forward to more questions and more dissent.

Eligibility References

2009-08-05T15:54:00.000-07:00

Larry Walker, Jr.

August 5, 2009

I have put together a few links to articles I have read recently regarding the eligibility issue. This is my tribute to honor the one-year anniversary of the first eligibility lawsuit filed by Philip J. Berg against Barack Hussein Obama, back in August of 2008.

Since not one single legal case has ever been tried, on the merits, in a court of law, I am left with a Constitution [that I once raised my hand and swore to protect, uphold and defend against all enemies both foreign and domestic], and a 'nation of cowards' who refuse to consider the facts.

This is by no means a comprehensive list, but rather a chronological backtracking of the articles which I have read most recently with regard to this subject. I should also point out that this is not the only topic I read about and reflect upon, but it's the one I chose to address here today.

Each title is a clickable link, followed by the first paragraph or two of the story. Read, learn, study, and think.

The Dangerous Precedent Set by Obama being President

Obama’s father was never a US citizen, nor was he ever permanently domiciled in the US. At birth, Obama was a British citizen. [He's also been a Kenyan citizen and perhaps a citizen of Indonesia as well.] Obama admits his birth status was governed by Great Britain.

The question presented then is whether the US is willing to allow persons who were born without sole allegiance to the US to be Commander in Chief of our military.

...

Justice Horace Gray Clearly Indicated Wong Kim Ark Was Not a Natural Born Citizen

The SCOTUS decision in Wong Kim Ark has caused more confusion regarding the natural born citizen issue than any other case in US history. One particular passage has been fervently relied upon by Obama eligibility supporters in claiming the case establishes children of aliens – born in the US – as natural-born citizens.

...

Media Blackout on Obama eligibility dates back to November

Do you remember Watergate? Thirty-five years ago this Sunday, U.S. President Richard M. Nixon submitted his letter of resignation for his role in the scandal. There was the crime – the break-in, and then there was the cover-up by the Nixon administration. There were threats, media manipulation and disinformation. It was the cover-up more than the crime itself in the aftermath of the Watergate break-in that led to the downfall of the Nixon administration. It was a politically critical time for our country, but we survived because of the strength of the U.S. constitution.

Now, we potentially face a new constitutional crisis stemming from the refusal of Barack Hussein Obama to produce a one-page document that would confirm his eligibility to hold the highest office in the land. Eligibility to hold office is not a “fringe” matter, but a core constitutional issue that lies at the very heart of a growing controversy.

...

Clearing the Smoke on Obama’s Eligibility: An Intelligence Investigator’s June 10 Report

Editors Note: In December ‘08 a retired CIA officer commissioned an investigator to look into the Barack Obama birth certificate and eligibility issue. On July 21, 2009 westernjournalism.com obtained a copy of the investigator’s report. Here is an unedited version of the report. [updated July 18, 2009].

...

Hawaii refuses to verify president's online COLBs - Officials mum on images released by Obama's campaign, FactCheck.org

In response to a direct question from WND, the Hawaii Department of Health refused to authenticate either of the two versions of President Obama's short-form Certificate of Live Birth, or COLB, posted online – neither the image produced by the Obama campaign nor the images released by FactCheck.org.

Janice Okubo, the public information officer for the Hawaii DOH, also had no explanation for why Dr. Chiyome Fukino's initial press release last October and subsequent press release last week also avoided declaring the posted images to be of authentic documents.

...

THE RELEVANT OBAMA ADMISSION

With all the new media attention swirling around the issue of Obama’s eligibility to be President, I thought it might be helpful to re-release an important blog post I created back when my law suit was pending before SCOTUS. I’ve done this for two reasons.

1. The image that contains Obama’s admission of his birth status having been governed by Great Britain is being scrubbed from the web. It was highlighted originally at Obama’s own Fight The Smears website which has now vanished. The relevant admission appeared just below the Certification of Live Birth which he used to declare he was born in the US.

...

Why the Founding Fathers Were “Birthers”

The label of “birther” is fast becoming a noble badge of honor for millions of Americans who are not willing to let their Constitution die without a good ole patriot’s fight!

The leftist Obama propaganda press would love for you to believe that “birthers” are just a bunch of “crazy racists” that number in the hundreds, and that they have NO basis to demand proof of whom and what Barack Hussein Obama really is…

But the “birthers” actually number in the millions and the basis for their demands were set in stone by the men who wrote and ratified the US Constitution. If millions of American “birthers” are “right-wing nuts,” they are in good company with men like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams and Ben Franklin.

...

Obama's birth debate: It's about loyalty

The birth debate about Obama is real enough, but it is legally complicated, as analyzed by legal beagle Andrew McCarthy at National Review. No judge is going to question the Constitutional qualifications of an elected president. I'm sorry, but that's the practical reality. The judge is going to follow stare decisis -- the sheer weight of commitments that cannot be reversed without creating chaos. Once the political system of the United States, the voters, the media, and the politicians themselves are all committed to the proposition that Obama is president, trying to reverse it would mean riots in every city in the nation. At some point even debatable claims become irreversible. That is why Al Franken is now the US Senator from Minnesota, even if his election was corrupt and wrong. It's water under the bridge. Leave it to history.

...

Obama, the President of the U.S., Is Currently Also a British Citizen

Assuming that Obama was born in the United States, he was not only born a dual national of the United States and Great Britain, but at present he continues to be such. Some maintain that American law on citizenship cannot be subjected to any foreign law. But such an argument does not resolve the question of Obama’s dual nationality, for each nation has the sovereign right to make its own citizenship laws and one nation cannot deny another nation that right. This point can be better understood when we consider that McCain was born in Panama to U.S. citizen parents and U.S. citizenship law declared him a U.S. citizen even though he was born in Panama and Panamanian law may have declared him a citizen of Panama. Neither Panama nor any other nation questioned the United States' right to pass a law that gave McCain U.S. citizenship by descent from his parents even though he was born in Panama. Great Britain, being a sovereign nation, has the same right as does the United States to pass such citizenship laws. Now let us examine the British law that applies to Obama and his father and which makes Obama a British citizen not only at the time of his birth in 1961 but still today.

...

Whistling for a Wind

According to an AP story, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Health Director with the Hawaii State Department of Health, has issued a new statement seeking to "stem a recent surge in the number of inquiries about Obama's birthplace." "I…have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen….I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issue in October 2008, over eight months ago." AP asserts that "Fukino issued a similar press release Oct. 31." However, in her statement in October Fukino said "I…have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures." The original statement said nothing about the content of the birth record. The new statement therefore goes significantly farther than the original statement in October, though both the AP story and Fukino herself give the deceptive impression that it does not. Given this evident obfuscation, why should I or anyone else simply take Fukino's words at face value?

...

Where Do We place the Plaque, Mr. Obama?

Most readers of this blog know that I personally believe Obama was born in Hawaii and can prove it any time he sees fit. I have always believed that the BC issue was a smokescreen to control awareness of the fact that Obama was a British/Kenyan citizen at the time of his birth through his father who was never a US citizen.

This fact alone – as the Supreme Court made reference to in the Minor case (see below) – raises doubts as to whether a native born US citizen with a dual foreign nationality at the time of his birth can be President. The BC birther conspiracy theory has clearly and effectively shielded from view the true issue – which is a legal question, not a conspiracy theory.
...

To conclude: Here's one that I wrote back in February of 2009.

Natural Born Citizens, Citizens, and Cowards

Did you know that the Constitutional requirements to be a U.S. Congressman or U.S. Senator are different than the requirements to be U.S. President or Vice President?

The requirements may be found at the following website: click here.

The Constitutional requirements to become a U.S. Senator or Congressman include having been a U.S. Citizen for a certain number of years. And, in order to be President or Vice President, the Constitution requires that one be a Natural Born Citizen and a resident for a certain number of years.

Now is it possible that the terms Citizen and Natural Born Citizen are synonymous? Were our founding fathers just a bunch of poorly educated, bumbling idiots, who used complicated words just to confuse the masses? Do you really know the difference? Do you care about protecting, defending and upholding the United States Constitution?

...

Unveiled! Hawaii's 1961 long-form birth certificates

2009-07-29T16:40:00.000-07:00

A close examination of the birth certificates issued by Kapi'olani to the Nordyke twins shows the registration number precedes the number given Obama, even though the future president was born a day earlier.

Susan Nordyke was born at 2:12 p.m. Hawaii time and was given No. 151 – 61 – 10637, which was filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961.

Gretchen Nordyke followed at 2:17 p.m. and was given No. 151 – 61 – 10638, which was also filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961.

According to a version of Obama's purported short-form certificate available from FactCheck.org, Obama was given a higher registration number than the Nordyke twins. The online image indicates the number is No. 151 – 1961 – 10641, even though he was born Aug. 4, 1961, the day before the twins, and his birth was registered with the Hawaii registrar three days earlier, Aug. 8, 1961.

Photostat (above) of Susan Nordyke's 1961 Hawaii birth certificate (Courtesy Honolulu Advertiser)

(above) version of Obama's purported short-form certificate available from FactCheck.org

Read the rest click here (WND) ...

According to CNN, these documents do not exist

2009-07-26T12:39:00.000-07:00

According to researchers at CNN, who recently rebuked Lou Dobb's for his objective reporting on the Obama Natural Born Citizen controversy, it is impossible for Obama to obtain a long-form copy of his birth certificate. According to CNN, the State of Hawaii (allegedly) destroyed all long-form birth certificates from its vaults eight years ago, including Obama's (in violation of State law).

Thus, neither of the three documents below exist. You see them with your own eyes, but they could not possibly exist, according to CNN.

So is the issue that long-form birth certificates no longer exist in Hawaii, or that one just doesn't exist for Barack Hussein Obama? I encourage all Hawaiian born citizens to post copies of your long-form birth certificates online and provide me with the links.

Why is CNN's president covering for Obama instead of reporting the facts? See the memo Lou Dobbs received from CNN/US President Jon Klein at: CNN Pushing Hard to Overlook Eligibility; SPLC: “Remove Mr. Dobbs”.

An on air debate insued over H.R. 1503, a Bill which would require presidential candidates to provide a birth certificate and other documents to prove their eligibility to occupy the Oval Office. You can find the debate at: Hawaii discarded Obama birth certificate?, Lou Dobbs, CNN, July 23, 2009, Dobbs wants Obama to produce birth certificate.

Hmmm. I wonder what the brilliant minds at CNN have to say about the other documents Obama has been hiding from public view? Have these also been destroyed?

[List Of Records Obama Refuses To Release]

[Update: 7/26/09]

Steve Cee decided to confirm if Klein's statement were factual and sent a series of emails to the State of Hawaii -- here are their replies, that contains facts that lay lie to Klein's assertions.

Hawaii's initial response to Steve's request for a copy of a long-form birth certificate was the standard crap we've been hearing for several months now, that "We issue only a computer-generated copy of the certificate, with limited information.

"Unsatisfied, the tenacious Steve decided to to inquire further and dig deeper. Identifying himself as a genealogist, Steve specifically asked, "What does a person do in order satisfy (sic) a Long form or Vault requirement? Prompting the State of Hawaii’s second, and more detailed, reply, that provides the process necessary to obtain a copy of a vault-copy Certificate of Birth.

"The only records that can be photo-copied are those with diacritical marks which cannot be printed by computer. Otherwise, it would require an order signed by a judge specifying what record was needed...

"In every single statement coming out of Hawaii, the words are carefully chosen and structured, but this one clearly says, if you got a judge, we got the document.

Source: http://theobamafile.com/ObamaLatest.htm

Updates 7/27/09:

Retired CIA officer: Clearing the Smoke on Obama Eligibility (HTML) http://bit.ly/iVReO

Canada Free Press: More Military Officers Accuse Obama of Treason http://ow.ly/ilVv?????

Copy of Treason Charges Filed with US Attorney against Barack Obama http://bit.ly/WNEWY

All the lies of the MSM have only added fuel to the fire. The cat is out of the bag.

Defining Natural-Born Citizen

2009-07-20T22:30:00.000-07:00

By P.A. Madison

http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html

“The common law of England is not the common law of these States.” —George Mason

UPDATED 3/4/09

What might the phrase “natural-born citizen” of the United States imply under the U.S. Constitution? The phrase has always been obscure due to the lack of any single authoritative source to confer in order to understand the condition of citizenship the phrase recognizes. Learning what the phrase might have meant following the Declaration of Independence, and the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, requires detective work. As with all detective work, eliminating the usual suspects from the beginning goes a long way in quickly solving a case.

What Natural-Born Citizen Could Not Mean

Could a natural-born citizen simply mean citizenship due to place of birth?

Unlikely because we know one can be native born and yet not a native born citizen of this country prior to the year 1866. There were even disputes whether anyone born within the District of Columbia or in the territories were born citizens of the United States (they were referred to as “inhabitants” instead.) National Government could make no “territorial allegiance” demands within the several States because as Madison explained it, the “powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

Jurisdiction over citizenship via birth within the several States was part of the “ordinary course of affairs” of the States that only local laws could affect. Early acts of Naturalization recognized the individual State Legislatures as the only authority who could make anyone a citizen of a State. Framer James Wilson said, “a citizen of the United States is he, who is a citizen of at least some one state in the Union.” These citizens of each State were united together through Article IV, Sec. II of the U.S. Constitution, and thus, no act of Congress was required to make citizens of the individual States citizens of the United States.

Prior to the Revolutionary War place of birth within the dominions of the crown was the principle criterion for establishing perpetual allegiance and citizenship. After independence each State was free to establish their own maxims on the subject. James Madison’s own State of Virginia adopted a birthright law authored by Thomas Jefferson that only recognize parentage (citizenship of father) in determining citizenship of the child, as well as recognizing the right of expatriation - something unheard of under the common law. States that were slow in enacting laws over acquiring citizenship through birth forced courts to adjudicate citizenship disputes under common law rules.

Congress was vested only with the power to make uniform rules of naturalization in order to remove alienage from those who were already born abroad (outside of the States) who had immigrated to any one of the individual States. The best Congress could do is declare children born abroad to fathers who were already a citizen of some State to be a citizen themselves. In other words, naturalization only provides for the removal of alienage and not for the creation of citizens within individual States.

Additionally, if the framers merely intended for birth alone on U.S. soil, or understood birth alone bestowing unconditional citizenship to anyone, then all would had been necessary was to say the President shall be “native born.” Of course, it would have been impossible to have an established national rule over who may be born a citizen of some State because only local State laws could determine such status within their limits.

Could a natural-born citizen perhaps be synonymous with the British term “natural-born subject”?

It is very doubtful the framers adopted the doctrine found under the old English doctrine of “natural-born subject.” The British doctrine allowed for double allegiances, something the founders considered improper.

Framer Rufus King said allegiance to the United States depended on whether a person is a “member of the body politic.” King says no nation should adopt or naturalize a person of another society without the consent of that person. The reason? Because “he ought not silently to be embarrassed with a double allegiance.”

The powers of the general government were limited and defined, preventing Congress from exercising the same kind of sovereignty that Britain had over its claimed dominions within established States of the Union.

Under the old English common law doctrine of natural-born subject, birth itself was an act of naturalization that required no prior consent or demanded allegiance to the nation in advance. Furthermore, birth was viewed as enjoining a “perpetual allegiance” upon all that could never be severed or altered by any change of time or act of anyone. England’s “perpetual allegiance” due from birth was extremely unpopular in this country; often referred to as absurd barbarism, or simply perpetual nonsense. America went to war with England over the doctrine behind “natural-born subject” in June of 1812.

Because Britain considered all who were born within the dominions of the crown to be its natural-born subjects even after becoming naturalized citizens of the United States, led to British vessels blockading American ports. Under the British blockade, every American ship entering or leaving was boarded by soldiers in search of British born subjects. At least 6,000 American citizens who were found to be British natural-born subjects were pressed into military service on behalf of the British Empire, and thus, the reason we went to war.

Fourteenth Amendment

Whatever might had been the correct understanding of “natural-born citizen” prior to 1866, the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment certainly changes the view because for the first time we have a written national rule declaring who are citizens through birth or naturalization. Who may be born citizens is conditional upon being born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States - a condition not required under the common law. The legislative definition of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was defined as “Not owing allegiance to anybody else.”

This national rule prevents us from interpreting natural-born citizen under common law rules because it eliminates the possibility of a child being born with more than one allegiance.

The primary author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard, said the “word jurisdiction, as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”

United States Attorney General, George Williams, whom was a U.S. Senator aligned with Radical Republicans during the drafting of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1866, ruled in 1873 the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment “must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment.” He added, “Political and military rights and duties” do not pertain to anyone else.

Essentially then, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means the same jurisdiction the United States exercises over its own citizens, i.e., only citizens of the United States come within its operation since citizens of the United States do not owe allegiance to some other nation at the same time they do the United States. This makes a great deal of sense for the time because there was a great deal of controversy over conflicts arising from double allegiances. In fact, Congress issued a joint congressional report on June 22, 1874 that said the “United States have not recognized a double allegiance.”

Additionally, how did persons become both citizens and “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States through naturalization? By renouncing all prior allegiances to other nations and by declaring their allegiance to this one in advance of course. Why would “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” be any different with persons born since this jurisdiction equally applies to all who are either born or naturalized? In other words, the words do not exempt persons born from the same allegiance requirements of persons naturalized.

Because “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” requires not owing allegiance to any other nation, and because the nation does not recognize double allegiances that can be created at common law, narrows the possibilities to what “natural-born citizen” can mean.

Natural-Born Citizen Defined

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

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

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

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

Bingham subscribed to the same view as most everyone in Congress at the time that in order to be born a citizen of the United States one must be born within the allegiance of the Nation. Bingham had explained that to be born within the allegiance of the United States the parents, or more precisely, the father, must not owe allegiance to some other foreign sovereignty (remember the U.S. abandoned England’s “natural allegiance” doctrine). This of course, explains why emphasis of not owing allegiance to anyone else was the affect of being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Secretary of State Bayard ruled under Section 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes in 1885 that although Richard Greisser was born in the United States, his father at the time of his birth was a subject of Germany, and thus, Richard Greisser could not be a citizen of the United States. Furthermore, it was held his father was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The constitutional requirement for the President of the United States to be a natural-born citizen had one purpose according to St. George Tucker:

That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to he dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom. … The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would have rendered him a member of the fraternity of crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora’s Box.

Charles Pinckney in 1800 said the presidential eligibility clause was designed “to insure … attachment to the country.” President Washington warned a “passionate attachment of one nation for another, produces a variety of evils,” and goes on to say:

Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation, of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained; and by exciting jealousy, ill- will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld.
And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, (who devote themselves to the favorite nation,) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearance of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

What better way to insure attachment to the country then to require the President to have inherited his American citizenship through his American father and not through a foreign father. Any child can be born anywhere in the country and removed by their father to be raised in his native country. The risks would be for the child to return in later life to reside in this country bringing with him foreign influences and intrigues.

Therefore, we can say with confidence that a natural-born citizen of the United States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are themselves citizens of the United States. A person who had been born under a double allegiance cannot be said to be a natural-born citizen of the United States because such status is not recognized (only in fiction of law). A child born to an American mother and alien father could be said to be a citizen of the United States by some affirmative act of law but never entitled to be a natural-born citizen because through laws of nature the child inherits the condition of their father.

UPDATE:

I came across this interesting speech by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Langdon Cheves, in February of 1814:

The children have a natural attachment to the society in which they are born: being obliged to acknowledge the protection it has granted to their fathers, they are obliged to it in a great measure for their birth and education. … We have just observed that they have a right to enter into the society of which their fathers were members. But every man born free, the son of a citizen, arrived at years of discretion, may examine whether it be convenient for him to join in the society for which he was destined by his birth.

Cheves is obviously drawing on the works of Emer de Vattel, Law of Nations. Not something you would expect from the Speaker of the House of a Nation that supposedly adopted England’s common law.

UPDATE II:

Rep. A. Smyth (VA), House of Representatives, December 1820:

When we apply the term “citizens” to the inhabitants of States, it means those who are members of the political community. The civil law determined the condition of the son by that of the father. A man whose father was not a citizen was allowed to be a perpetual inhabitant, but not a citizen, unless citizenship was conferred on him.

Savage v. Umphries (TX) 118 S. W. 893, 909:

As a man is a “citizen” of the country to which his father owes allegiance, it was incumbent on one alleging in an election contest that a voter was not a citizen of the United States to show that such voter’s father was not a citizen thereof during his son’s minority.

What “Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof” Really Means

Wong Kim Ark Analysis

Resignation of David M. Walker, the most important economic indicator of things to come: The Fall of Rome

2009-06-20T14:24:00.000-07:00

Posted by sakerfa on June 18, 2009

Since the global financial meltdown seems to be the main concern with our corporate world, let’s begin with this topic.

David M. Walker and the Fall of Rome

There have been a few major economic events in the last few years, but I consider the resignation, in March 2008, of David M. Walker from his commission of Comptroller General of the United States and head of the Government Accountability Office to be the harbinger of what is to come.

Walker resigned 5 years before the end of his 15-year term expired. His reasons for resigning were that he was limited to what he could do and that the United States was in danger of collapsing in much the same manner as the Roman Empire.

“Drawing parallels with the end of the Roman empire, Mr Walker warned there were ‘striking similarities’ between America’s current situation and the factors that brought down Rome, including ‘declining moral values and political civility at home, an over-confident and over-extended military in foreign lands and fiscal irresponsibility by the central government’.”

For months before his resignation he traveled the country educating Americans about the financial crisis and the pending bankruptcy of the United States.

60 Minutes segment with David Walker originally broadcast on March 4, 2007

Walker’s resignation six years prior to the end of his 15 year term was a few orders of magnitude greater than the Chief financial officer of the largest non-governmental corporation in the world resigning (more on this later). The position is so crucial to the functionality of the corporate structure of the United States of America that it’s subject to Senate confirmation.

“The selection process is somewhat unusual. A commission made up of congressional leaders presents the president with at least three candidates for the job. The commission is made up of: the Speaker of the Houses, president pro tempore of the Senate, the Senate majority and minority leaders, the House majority and minority leaders, and the chairmen and ranking minority members of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the House Oversight and Government Reform committees. The president chooses one of the three candidates for the job. His nominee must be approved by the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs panel and then confirmed by the Senate.”

What transpired with Walker jumping ship and in the first three months of 2008 was nothing short of the beginning of the largest consolidation of wealth in the history of the United States. Walker’s resignation removed the last obstacle for those controlling US fiscal policy to readily make available cheap money. From August 2007 to December 2008 the Federal Reserve lowered the Primary Discount Rate from 6.25% to 0.5%. What followed was a blank check to bailout and buyout banks, defusing a global financial Chernobyl in the derivatives markets some have argued, while at the same time impoverishing American citizens, and eliminating the middle class (more on these later).

Elizabeth Warren: The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class

From 2007 to early 2008, when US national debt was sitting around $9 trillion, Walker compared what was happening to the US with the collapse of the Roman Empire. Let’s see what’s happened since then?

The Largest Ponzi Scheme in History

As of 2 June 2009, the US federal debt is now sitting at well over $11 trillion. This amount does not include the extra $10 trillion to $14 trillion that US taxpayers will eventually be required to pay back for buying toxic assets.

“Make no mistake – we are selling off our future and the future of our children to prevent the bondholders of U.S. financial corporations from taking losses. We are using public funds to protect the bondholders of some of the most mismanaged companies in the history of capitalism, instead of allowing them to take losses that should have been their own. All our policy makers have done to date has been to squander public funds to protect the full interests of corporate bondholders. Even Bear Stearns’ bondholders can expect to get 100% of their money back, thanks to the generosity of Bernanke, Geithner and other bureaucrats eager to hand out the money of ordinary Americans.”

Buying up toxic assets is known as The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) – “a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions in order to strengthen its financial sector.” When Congress approved this program, “Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and then Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson acknowledged the need for transparency and oversight. The Federal Reserve so far is refusing to disclose loan recipients or reveal the collateral they are taking in return.”

In the following video “Rep. Alan Grayson asks the Federal Reserve Inspector General about the trillions of dollars lent or spent by the Federal Reserve and where it went, and the trillions of off balance sheet obligations.” The Inspector General, Elizabeth Coleman, states that her office is not tracking this information. In essence, she is confirming that we are witnessing the largest Ponzi Scheme in history unfold in real time.

These numbers, however, are a little misleading. The American public is largely unaware that the true deficit of the federal government is approximately “$65.5 trillion in total obligations”, exceeding global GDP.

The following 2008 documentary, “I.O.U.S.A. – One Nation. Under Debt. In Stress.,” does an excellent job explaining why the current fiscal policy in the United States is unsustainable, and recommends some very painful solutions to resolve the problem.

Keep in mind that all of the above debt is exclusive of the personal debt that US citizens may carry. So even though many, including myself, have compared what is happening to the United States to what happened during the Great Depression, a more accurate comparison was given by Walker, the 2008 recipient of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants’ highest award and the person holding the highest accounting position in the United States from 1998 to 2008, and he compared the collapse of the United States to the Fall of Rome.

Let me rephrase this another way, if you were an accountant, then professionally speaking, David M. Walker is who you would aspire to be, and he bailed ship in 2008 stating that the game was over for the United States of America.

I hope the above explains the magnitude of our current economic metamorphosis. It will be one of the main themes for our conversation.

to be continued…

Source: http://www.chycho.com/?q=Rome

The above is Part 3 of a conversation about the state of the world:

Source: The Peoples Voice

Piracy Money Finds Home In Kenya

2009-05-27T22:52:00.000-07:00

Piracy money finds home in Kenya

May 27, 2009

The Standard, Nairobi, Kenya - Original Story

By Amos Kareithi

Sitting at a corner in a city’s upmarket restaurant, three smartly dressed millionaires engage in a lively conversation.

Every now and then, a mobile phone rings and it is answered swiftly in Somali language. Then rapid calculations are computed on a 12 digit calculator and answers shouted back on the phone.

Amidst numerous cups of masala and lemon tea accompanied by iced cakes and fruitcakes, the dons who are among the few who control about 80 per cent of Eastleigh’s real estate are at work.

Their table is the market where the scramble for Nairobi is taking place. Every other sentence they make is punctuated with millions, commissions and stamp duty.

These men have given Eastleigh, Pumwani, Juja Road, Parklands, Ngara and Nairobi Central Business District a ‘facelift’.

At first their treasurer warms up to the idea of talking to CCI but after consultations in their language, the Somalia businessman changes.

Security fears

"Look for the real big businessmen. We are just small people. We cannot share business secrets," their chairman says coldly.

However, they slightly open up but on strict condition that they are not identified.

As they continue to operate unperturbed, security experts and government technocrats are alarmed. Their worry is because of intelligence reports that laundering of proceeds from piracy in the Indian Ocean is done in Kenya. The money is being liberally invested in Nairobi.

"The scheme is bigger than you may think. These operators are controlling real estate and businesses at the Port of Mombasa, Jomo Kenyatta International Airport and other smaller airports," an intelligence officer, who cannot be identified as he is not authorised to speak to the press, says. The officer is convinced the money is from pirates in Somalia.

"The developers are just fronts. The real owners are in Somalia. They now have a foothold in Nairobi, Wilson Airport, Wajir, Eldoret and Mombasa," the intelligence officer says.

Indeed Kenya has earned itself the dubious distinction of a safe haven for the pirates and their money. The international media has now turned its spotlight on Nairobi. On Sunday, The Seattle Times published a story titled ‘Kenya Awash in Somali Pirates’ cash’ embellishing it with pictures of Ali Abdinur Samo, a 26-year-old confessed former pirate who is in Eastleigh hunting for an opportunity to invest $116,000 (Sh9 million) he got in two heists.

The paper tells of how some forex bureaux have been transacting money on behalf of Puntland pirates citing one hawallah (Somalia’s informal forex bureaus) in Kenya which has handled $10 million (Sh800 million in just a few months.

"One day in February one person received $500,000 (Sh40 million). The money came in four different names in Garowe, the Puntland regional capital," the paper writes, adding that the recipient just stuffed it into his socks waste band and belt and then disappeared. "Pirates Money is definitely being reinvested in Kenya. There’s a boom among Somali businessmen in Kenya, and it’s easy to hide the money because there is so much coming in. And I don’t think Kenyan authorities control or monitor this," the paper quotes Stig Jarle-Hansen, a Somalia expert at the Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research as saying.

Grabbing culture

Asked whether police have found any evidence of the money raised by pirates hijacking ships in Indian Ocean being invested in Kenya, police spokesman Eric Kiraithe is non-committal.

He says: "It’s not about pirates or what they do with the money. We have some public officers who value themselves more than the country. That is why they will frustrate efforts of tracing criminals and trivialise the matter."

Even at the heart of the Nairobi city, there is an air of disquiet and uncertainty over the emerging trend. The chief’s office at Eastleigh and the administration police camp formerly situated along First Avenue have since been taken over by the developers and demolished. The chief is now operating from a kiosk-like container along a road reserve, dwarfed by skyscrapers.

The Administration Police staff quarters are a collection of tin shacks crowded in a small place sharing a solitary makeshift bathroom. The market place, which once served the local small-scale traders, has also been flattened and the compound surrounded by an iron sheet fence. "The new craze in Eastleigh started in 2000. Last year they took the chief’s camp now there is no public land left in the area," Marion Musyoki, a resident laments.

The water depot’s three acres of land has also been annexed.The New Eastleigh Primary School too has been targeted. The land acquisition by faceless foreigners has gone just next to Kenya Air Force, Moi Air Base in Eastleigh, a high security facility, where five story buildings are being put up.

"We have a five story building coming up near the air base. When complete such estates will be exclusively for the foreigners," a security officer in Eastleigh laments.

Out of bound areas

CCI was told of lodgings and residential buildings where Kenyans and even security agents are not let in. "There was an operation about a year ago. When a senior police officer went after suspects in a lodging in Eastleigh, he was locked in. He had to be rescued by his colleagues," a source told us.

The Somalia community in Kenya has formed a consortium of about 60 investors who are bankrolling the buying of residential and commercial property in Nairobi.

Investigations by CCI reveal the consortium has a chairman, treasurer and secretary who coordinate the buying under utmost secrecy. Once an investor identifies a building, money is not an issue as the committee then informs other members to raise money in case the investor cannot raise the whole amount. "We have buildings which are owned by as many as 15 people. They pay some money and are allocated the stalls once the shopping malls are completed," a security officer says.

The chairman of the consortium and key financiers travel every other week to Somalia to get money. To cover their tracks, they claim to be visiting Garrissa.

However, CCI has learnt that they ferry money by road during their frequent trips and also through hawallah.

Government investors

Some warlords and past officials of Somalia transitional Federal government are among those who have heavily invested in real estate in Nairobi.

They also have a heavy presence in Mombasa especially the old town where they have been purchasing old buildings and replacing them with modern ones.

When CCI traced a broker who has been buying on behalf of the foreigners, he denied that their money was from piracy.

He revealed that in one deal involving the sale of an up-market property worth over Sh1billion, he chalked up Sh300 million as commission. He says their businesses are legitimate. When CCI visited Eastleigh, we came across cases of Kenyans who have lost their property to the foreigners.

"Once they eye your property nothing can stop them. Some have been known to leave as much as Sh70 million to a property owners to entice them to sell," a plot owner who identified himself as Steve says.

The Eastleigh North Chief’s office has been flooded with such cases. "I cannot say much about the issue. Most of the disputes are in court. Others have lost their property after they failed to prove ownership. It’s very sad," says the area chief Mr Paul Ngugi.

Investigations by CCI show that majority of the original Kenyans owning commercial property along Eastleigh’s First Avenue, Second Avenue and Juja Road, have been replaced by Somalia investors.

"Out of the original 100 Kenyans who owned property here only four still own their commercial buildings. The rest have either been bought off or swindled of their property," an administrator who asked not to be named in fear of reprisal, noted. Kenyans residing in Eastleigh and other parts of Nairobi are worried of the influx.

In a letter to the editor dated April 17, Susan Kirerwa, a resident of Eastleigh sums up their frustrations. She writes: "A trend is emerging of foreigners buying old residential property from Kenyan landlords and converting them into shopping malls, leaving Kenyans to relocate to slums."

"We have no access to play grounds. Before long they will take over Nairobi," she warns.

Another resident explained how foreigners were taking over estates by offering exaggerated rents, which they pay upfront.

As we went to press, about 20 ships were still being held by pirates. The ransom that will be paid for their release may find its way in Kenya.

The Obama Birth Certificate Protection Act?

2009-05-25T15:51:00.000-07:00

What an OUTRAGE THIS IS........

WASHINGTON – A bill approved by the House of Representatives and referred to the Senate would prohibit federal employees of the executive branch from being compelled to release any document unless a court makes a specified determination by a preponderance of evidence – legislation at least one group suspects is designed to protect Barack Obama's elusive birth certificate from release.

"In any case, this bill puts the lie to this administration and this Congress being the most ethical and transparent in American history," Farah said. "They're very open when it comes to the secrets of previous administrations, but when it comes to their own work, it is shrouded in secrecy. Even the president's birth certificate and student records are well-guarded state secrets."

The Bill is H.R. 1507 [formerly H.R. 985], currently in Senate Judiciary Committee http://bit.ly/Q5nSY #ref http://tinyurl.com/yuve9j

Sovereignty Alliance has issued a "red alert" about the bill it calls "stealth legislation ... to protect Obama from providing his birth certificate."

----------------------------

Update:

The Current Bill is H.R. 1507: Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2009. You can read it at http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1507

----------------------------

Source: CNIN - The Conservative News Intelligence Network

Obama is NOT an American Citizen

2009-05-23T15:56:00.000-07:00

From: The Western Center for Journalism

Via: The Revolution Has Begun

Barack Hussein Obama obviously has something to hide. He obviously knows how to keep a secret when it comes to releasing his Birth Certificate; the one document that could bolster the argument that he is, in fact, eligible under Article 2, Section 1, of the United States Constitution to hold the office of President of the United States.

And yet, Barack Hussein Obama has no problem sharing information that SHOULD remain secret to the entire world and to our enemies.

Case in point! The Obama Administration just released secret memos and photographs that detail the interrogations of terrorists that were being held in American custody.

Obama authorized the release of these photographs and memos in spite of the undeniable fact that releasing these memos and photographs places the lives of our intelligence operatives and their families in imminent danger.

Obama authorized the release of these photographs and memos in spite of the undeniable fact that releasing these memos severely compromises our national security, and endangers each and every one of us.

It's becoming more and more clear, with each passing day, that the issue surrounding Obama's refusal to release his Birth Certificate and prove his eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States goes much deeper than initially thought.

The fact that Obama has something to hide when it comes to his Birth Certificate (and some of his college records for that matter) is now more than apparent.

And Obama, through his own obstruction in this matter, has established that contention as valid. It can no longer be reasonably questioned.

But what is now becoming apparent is that Obama's refusal to release his Birth Certificate hints at an arrogance and disdain of the American people that is unprecedented... an arrogance and disdain that places all of us, our children, our grandchildren and our way of life in extreme jeopardy.

What I Do Is None Of Your Business.

Consider the following incident. It clearly speaks to Obama's character and the character of those in his Administration.

Team Obama recently dispatched a Boeing-747 and an F-16 fighter jet to buzz New York City. The residents of New York City were not informed, and, with the tragedy of 9-11 still fresh in their minds, understandably went into a panic.

Not to worry, said the Obama Administration, it wasn't an attack or even a drill. It was just a photo-op. We needed updated photographs of Air Force One flying by the Statue of Liberty.

But when asked to release the photographs, the Obama Administration stonewalled.

Why? Were those really cool photographs, that sent the people of New York into a panic and cost the American taxpayer hundreds of million of dollars to shoot, a secret?

Do you see a connection here?

When it comes to sharing legitimate secrets with America's enemies and endangering the lives of Americans, Obama is an open book.

But, when it comes to releasing information about himself or those close to him... even information that is not of a highly personal nature, that the American people SHOULD know (Hey folks, don't panic, the planes flying perilously close to the New York Skyline are ours, or, here's my Birth Certificate which proves I am eligible to hold the office of President of the United States) Obama takes an it's-none-of-your-business attitude.

Who knows, perhaps this combination of courtesy for those that hate the United States and disdain for average Americans explains why Obama has gone to extraordinary lengths to keep his Birth Certificate under lock-and-key.

Perhaps this combination of courtesy for those that hate the United States and disdain for average Americans explains why teams of lawyers have been tasked to thwart the efforts of Americans who simply seek to compel Obama to produce his Birth Certificate.

Perhaps this combination of courtesy for those that hate the United States and disdain for average Americans explains why Team Obama has gone to extraordinary lengths to confound, confuse, distort and spin the issue surrounding his citizenship and eligibility, under the Constitution, to hold the office of President of the United States.

But one thing is becoming painfully obvious, Barack Hussein Obama is not an American, at least not in the truest sense of the word; he does not respect or admire or love the United States as you or I love and respect and admire the United States.

The Birth Certificate Controversy And The Obstruction... Just The Facts.

It's been stated before but, as there is so much erroneous information published on this issue (from both sides of the ideological aisle), it's beneficial to state the facts whenever possible.

Barack Obama Senior (Obama's Father) was a subject of the British Commonwealth (Kenya was not an independent nation when Obama was born. It was under the control of the British Crown).

As an aside, since many have asked... yes, even under the best case scenario, Obama was born with dual citizenship and there are legal arguments as to whether his status as a dual citizen would also disqualify him under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution.

However, we don't address those arguments at this point so as not to confound matters. Essentially, one cannot even progress to that question until Obama proves that he was born in Hawaii.

His mother, while an American citizen, was not of sufficient age, under the laws of the United States, to bestow citizenship onto any of her offspring that were not born on American soil.

Amazingly, the liberal media initially treated the matter of Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution with a degree of seriousness. In fact, the liberal media probably started the ball rolling by aggressively questioning Senator McCain's eligibility.

McCain's father was stationed in Panama at the time of McCain's birth. McCain was NOT born on American soil.

Is McCain eligible to be President of the United States? ... The media aggressively pursued that question.

And McCain's campaign promptly answered the question and put it to rest. Although McCain was NOT born on U.S. soil, McCain's parents were both natural born citizens of the United States and of sufficient age to pass that status onto McCain... case closed.

The McCain incident was all but forgotten. Then Obama's paternal grandmother reportedly made a statement that Obama was born in what is now Kenya and that she witnessed the birth.

Admittedly, at the time, the statement was unverified and even if Obama's grandmother had, in fact, made the statement, it could be dismissed as a little white-lie told by a proud grandmother.

The story might have died were it not for the actions of Team Obama. In a rush to respond to the situation, Team Obama published a Hawaii CERTIFICATION of Live Birth on Obama's Fight the Smears (or as we call it, Obama's Fight the Truth) website... an action that raised more questions than it answered.

The Certification of Live Birth, while an official document is NOT an ACTUAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE (a CERTIFICATE of Live Birth).

Why not produce an actual birth certificate? That was - and still is - the legitimate question that keeps this all too important controversy alive.

Except when it came to the media; what was initially a valid question, when it came to McCain, was apparently no longer of any importance.

When it came to McCain, they pursued the issue with diligence. When it came to Obama, to even ask the question was a conspiracy theory.

But, as shall become apparent, the ONLY conspiracy going on here is the conspiracy on the part of Team Obama, to keep his Birth Certificate vaulted.

The Real Obstruction Begins.

Again, the Certification of Live Birth is a legal document, but it is TOTALLY INADEQUATE when it comes to proving an individual was born in Hawaii.

The State of Hawaii DOES NOT EVEN ACCEPT the Certification of Live Birth as valid proof that an individual was born in Hawaii.

The Hawaii Department of Homelands, which administers programs to encourage property ownership for native Hawaiians states the following on its website.

"In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found ONLY on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL." [Emphasis Mine].

The bottom line is that the Certification of Live Birth can be erroneous. It has been reported that it was not uncommon for foreigners residing in Hawaii to bring their infant children to the Clerk of the Court, swear they were born in Hawaii and have actual Certificates of Live Birth issued to their children.

It has even been reported that foreigners residing in Hawaii, in some cases, produced birth certificates from foreign countries and the State of Hawaii still issued Hawaiian Certificates of Live Birth to the infants in question.

Could either of those two things have happened in Obama's case?

The question remains unanswered because Team Obama started moving heaven and earth to keep Obama's Certificate of Live Birth (the ACTUAL Birth Certificate which lists information such as the hospital, attending physician etc. that would verify Obama's physical place of birth) under wraps.

The only person who may have seen it is the head of Hawaii's Department of Health, Dr. Chiyome Fukino. Fukino issued the following statement to the media.

"Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."

When pressed for details... who was the physician... what hospital is listed... does the certificate say "unknown" ... does it indicate Obama was delivered by a Mid-Wife ... does it actually acknowledge he was born outside the United States... Fukino went silent. And the hospital where Obama was born appears to be a hard question to answer because Obama won't even answer it.

Obama's own sister was once willing to answer the question but seems confused. She named two different hospitals on two different occasions and then, she too, went silent.

And the question remains unanswered.

What Is Obama Hiding?

Obama could easily answer the question by releasing his actual Birth Certificate. But not only has Obama refused to do so, teams of attorneys are thwarting efforts to compel Obama to produce it.

Obama is actively obstructing efforts to un-vault his actual Birth Certificate and this active obstruction, in and of itself, should arouse a tremendous amount of suspicion. Without a doubt, there is something on his actual Birth Certificate that he does not want known.

And for those maintaining some hope that the courts will resolve this issue... don't hold your breath.

Court actions have been unsuccessful. Team Obama actually has the audacity to claim that the courts have settled the issue but THAT'S NOT A FACTUAL ASSERTION. In all cases, the courts have dismissed these suits WITHOUT ever considering the claims or even the MERITS of the actual claims.

In most cases, the courts have simply ruled that the petitioners "lacked standing" to bring the suits. In layman's terms, the courts have basically stated, we're not even going to look at this because you have NO RIGHT to even ask Mr. Obama to produce a Birth Certificate.

Generally, rulings on "standing" are valid. Simply put, you don't have the right to un-vault your next-door neighbor's Birth Certificate simply out of curiosity.

But in this particular case, there is a nagging issue of the Constitution that simply won't go away. In our humble opinion, approximate 300 million people have standing to compel Barack Hussein Obama to un-vault his ACTUAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

So what's happening with the courts? Simply put, they're punting the ball. No judge wants to be the person who opens this Pandora's Box.

But the American public thinks otherwise. While some in the political and media establishment are trying to convince everyone that this matter is some kind of conspiracy theory, a recent AOL poll (while non-scientific) indicates that 52 percent of the respondents believe this matter has validity.

It's YOUR country. It's YOUR Constitution. No one is going to honor or preserve it but YOU! You have to stand up for your rights and you can do that by keeping up the pressure.

The liberal media wants this story to go away. The liberal media wants YOU to go away.

Don't let that happen. Don't give them the satisfaction. Demand they cover this story.

The Constitution Is NOT Just A Piece Of Paper.

Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution states; "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President..."

Now... Obama supporters have written us hate-filled letters and told us that Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, as it pertains to Obama, is nothing more than a "legal technicality."

Can you believe that?

Others have gone so far as to take the "living-breathing argument" to its unfortunate and dangerous conclusion and told us that Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution is outmoded, outdated and no longer relevant.

Sadly, even some conservatives have advanced that erroneous argument.

Erroneous because Obama's own actions PROVE exactly WHY our Founding Fathers ratified Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution and why Article 2, Section 1 is STILL relevant today.

In under 100 days, Barack Hussein Obama:

Supplicated himself by bowing before the King of Saudi Arabia. But Obama did not simply supplicate himself. As the elected leader of the United States, he obsequiously and subserviently supplicated you... supplicated me... supplicated the entire United States before a man who is arguable, as the protector of Mecca and Medina, the most important man in the Muslim world.

Contrast Obama's subservient bow to the actions of then-New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani in October of 2001. Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, came to the United States after the 9-11 attacks and, during a high-profile ceremony, gave Giuliani a $10 million disaster relief check.

After the ceremony, the Prince released a statement to the media saying the policies of the United States partially led to, and by implication, were a justification for, the 9-11 attack. Giuliani, gave the check back! Obama, on the other hand, traveled to Europe and profusely apologized for America's arrogance. He's snuggled up to Hugo Chavez and the Castro regime in Cuba and is even reaching out to Iran's Mahmoud "the-Holocaust-never-happened" Ahmadinejad.

Radio talk-show host, Tom Roeser comments on yet another incident:

"When Nicaragua's president Daniel C. Ortega spent 55 minutes ripping the U. S. as a fascist, anti-humane power he smilingly said, 'I'm grateful President Ortega didn't blame me for things that happened when I was three months old'-referring to the climactic test with USSR-sponsored Cuba, supposedly a shining hour of the Kennedy years. Shove off JFK: your travail has nothing to do with me. You see, I was only a baby! To our enemies he says hate the U. S. but love me!"

Mark Rhodes, writing for the Internet news blog, Illinois Review, offered additional insights on Roeser's point:

“Does Barack Obama... view himself as a citizen of the world who only happens to be the custodian of the American executive branch? This is a question that Tom Roeser hints at and it is an entirely legitimate one that in an unguarded and honest moment, President Obama himself might have a tough time answering. ... Roeser's point is that Obama can happily shake hands with enemies of America because he does not see their rants against our country as anything he needs take personally since he is detached from the history of the nation and is not emotionally bound up in its identity as most Americans are."

Taking into account Obama's past associations with the Reverend Jeremiah "God D___ America" Wright and Nation of Islam leader, Louis Farrakhan; it's almost as if hating America is a major prerequisite for those who wish to make it into Obama's cozy little circle.

Our Founding Fathers ratified Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution for just such a reason. It should be obvious that the President of the United States should have sole allegiance to the United States.

When it comes to Barack Hussein Obama, many rational people will always have doubts when it comes to issues of his loyalty and allegiance.

Hiding his Birth Certificate from the American public will only compound those doubts. That issue must be resolved.

And While We're On The Subject Of Allegiance And Loyalty, A Few More Points... .

It should come as no shock that Obama is reaching out to Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Obama, after all, expressed a willingness to meet Ahmadinejad without preconditions during the campaign.

Unfortunately, Ahmadinejad appears to have some preconditions of his own.

According to MSNBC; "Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said Iran would welcome talks with the U.S. - but only if there was mutual respect. Iranian officials have said that means the U.S. needs to stop accusing Iran of seeking to build nuclear weapons and supporting terrorism... ."

Of course, there's just two small problem with Ahmadinejad's demands. Iran IS seeking to secretly build nuclear weapons and IT DOES support terrorism.

And on another front, Obama's still moving forward with plans to close Guantanamo Bay.

Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder told the media that at least 30 of these terrorists had already been cleared for release. Allusions were initially made that these 30 terrorists could actually be released on U.S. soil and that most of the remaining terrorists could be tried on U.S. soil (Essentially meaning that after retaining slick ACLU lawyers, who would make a mockery of our legal system, many of these remaining terrorists would also be released onto U.S. soil).

Holder quickly contained the situation and issued a "clarification" on Thursday, saying that no terrorists will be released in the United States. However, as things stand now, we have no place to put these terrorists... no other country will take them. So WHERE ARE THEY GOING TO GO!

Frankly, coming from an Administration that distributed a secret report to law enforcement officials contending that patriotic Americans are the real terrorists, such statements are far from reassuring.

Senator Kit Bond of Missouri said: "While President Obama has no plan for what to do with these killers, he has pledged to close the terrorist detention facility in January, to fulfill a campaign promise. This is a dangerous case of putting symbolism over security."

And things are even worse on the domestic front.

Under the guise of "bailing-out" the auto industry, Obama essentially took control of General Motors and Chrysler. Not being a selfish man, he then turned around and effectively gave away pieces of the former to Big Labor and Fiat (a foreign automobile manufacturer).

But Obama's not done yet. In a time of severe economic hardship, Obama has proposed to triple the national debt and he is laying the groundwork for an effective nationalization of the health-care industry.

As for the banks, they're ripe for takeover as well. Economist Stuart Varney, in an editorial published by The Wall Street Journal, alerted us to the Obama Administration's reluctance to accept money from banks that are attempting to repay TARP bailout money:

"My answer: The government wants to control the banks, just as it now controls GM and Chrysler, and will surely control the health industry in the not-too-distant future. Keeping them TARP-stuffed is the key to control. And for this intensely political president, mere influence is not enough. The White House wants to tell 'em what to do. Control. Direct. Command."

Varney goes on and talks about what is happening to a large well-known bank that was FORCED to accept TARP money and is NOT being allowed to pay the money back to the American taxpayer:

"The chairman offers to write a check, now, with interest. He's been sitting on the cash for months and has felt the dead hand of government threatening to run his business and dictate pay scales. He sees the writing on the wall and he wants out. But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with 'adverse' consequences if its chairman persists. That's politics talking, not economics."

Are Obama's actions, the actions of a man that loves the United States?

Many patriotic Americans will say no; but, at the very least, we should compel the man occupying the office of President of the United States to prove that he is eligible, under the highest law in the land, to occupy that office.

The DC Black List

2009-05-23T13:01:00.000-07:00

This is a list of the top four politicians on the list for impeachment or removal from office, and some of the reasons. There are many more reasons for removing these four from office, so feel free to add to the list. There are also many more politicians who should be removed, in fact, most of Washington DC should be purged.

Nancy Pelosi

Snubbed Republicans during the passage of the Bailout Bill. She openly blamed President Bush for the financial crisis. Everyone knows that the financial crisis has roots going back to the 1970’s so to pass the blame solely on Bush was not only untrue, but unfair.
Rammed the Stimulus Bill through without allowing anyone time to read it.
Lied about her knowledge of the CIA’s enhanced interrogation practices, and stated that the CIA misled Congress for the past seven years.

Barney Frank

For his role in the botched oversight of Fannie Mae. Frank stated that there was no problem with Fannie Mae and that everything was just fine in the mortgage industry.
About to authorize the funding of $8 billion to Acorn. When questioned, Frank simply states that President Bush gave Acorn $14 million over 8 years so Acorn must be a good organization.
Ran a male prostitution ring from his DC apartment in 1989, was busted, but the Congress let him off the hook because he was deemed just a harmless weird gay guy.

Joe Biden

Has added nothing to decision-making regarding foreign policy (his alleged specialty), or in any area.
Spilled national security secrets. He is a joke and a laughing stock. They are not gaffs, but rather the remarks of an incompetent, insensitive, and ignorant man.
When something happens to Obama, Biden will not be capable of leading this country.

Barack Obama II

Still hiding his original birth certificate and his college transcripts from the public. Circumstantial evidence proves that Obama probably got into college as a foreign student and received foreign aid just like his father.
Not a Natural Born Citizen by virtue of his father’s nationality at the time of his birth. Obama was born with dual citizenship. Article II, Section I of the US Constitution states that only a Natural Born Citizen can occupy the office of the Presidency.
Dismantled the US auto industry, violated the rights of secured creditors, quadrupled the National Debt in only 4 months, and threatens to bankrupt the United States.

Exposing Obama’s PSYOPS Agents and Tactics

2009-05-16T21:50:00.000-07:00

Exposing Obama’s PSYOPS Agents and Tactics

Psychological Operations (PSYOP, PSYOPS) are techniques used to influence a target audience's value systems, belief systems, emotions, motives, reasoning, and behavior. PSYOPS tactics are used on target audiences in order to induce confusion, or reinforce attitudes and behaviors favorable to the originator's objectives.

What do Tokyo Rose and Axis Sally have in common with “Patriot Lisa” and “All American Joe”? They are all PSYOPS agents. What is different is that Americans knew that Tokyo Rose and Axis Sally worked for the enemy.

False Flag PSYOPS agents

Patriot Lisa and All American Joe are “false flag” agents who feign loyalty to the cause they are attempting to harm,

Patriot Lisa will post a message on a conservative blog similar to this, “I want to get rid of Obama as much as the next person but all I see here is racism and hatred. We are never going to get rid of Obama with right wing rants and tin foil hat conspiracy theories. There is no use in even trying. We lost and the best thing to do is just adjust and wait for the next election.”

All American Joe will post, “We need to get torches and pitchforks and march on the White House. Obama is a Muslim Black Power Manchurian Candidate for everything that is evil in the world. If I had my way his own Secret Service detail would do America a favor and take Obama out.”

Then Patriot Lisa and All American Joe will get into an argument that detracts from all serious debate, ruining the experience for reasonable people, and giving the forum a bad reputation. Patriot Lisa and All American Joe will share private messages to compare tactics, chuckle, and congratulate each other at how good they are at their jobs.

Ask yourself if the message you are reading serves the goals of your cause. Not all misguided people are Obama’s PSYOPS agents. However their activity can damage your cause even if that is not their motive. Confront these attitudes and offer suggestions about what kind of thinking does make a contribution and is part of the solution. If they insist on posting damaging comments they probably are Obama’s PSYOPS agents rather than simply misguided.

“False flag” PSYOPS agents are just one type of Internet propaganda specialist. Let’s take a look at some of these specialists and their tactics.

The Obot Agents –

These are the robot like PSYOPS agents who can’t pass the Turing test. They say the same thing no matter what you say back to them. They have simple skills and seem to pick up their pre-scripted talking points from their more sophisticated handlers.

You can quote United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia saying that “We the People” are the source of Grand Jury power; “In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people." In spite of a direct quote from a Supreme Court Justice the Obots will respond “your pretend Grand Jury has no authority and won’t do anything for you and your neocon tinfoil hat buddies.”

If you then take the time to research and respond with a quote from Susan W. Brenner, NCR Distinguished Professor of Law and author of Federal Grand Jury Practice (West, 1996)., “The classic example of a grand jury’s acting as a sword is a runaway grand jury in New York in the 1930’s; the grand jurors ignored prosecutors and embarked upon their own investigation into municipal corruption.” The Obot will respond with, “Your pretend Grand Jury has no authority and won’t do anything for you and your neocon tinfoil hat buddies.”

And if you are foolish enough to continue posting to an Obot the information that a Grand Jury “has the power to subpoena witnesses and physical evidence, i.e., to require that testimony and evidence be brought before it. The failure to comply with a grand jury subpoena results in one being held in civil contempt and incarcerated until the witness complies; currently, the record for time served due to civil contempt is eight years.” Guess what the Obot will say.

These are the same people who go from blog to blog posting exactly the same comment everywhere they go.

The Logical Fallacy Agents

Description of Fallacies
In order to understand what a fallacy is, one must understand what an argument is. Very briefly, an argument consists of one or more premises and one conclusion. A premise is a statement (a sentence that is either true or false) that is offered in support of the claim being made, which is the conclusion (which is also a sentence that is either true or false).

There are two main types of arguments: deductive and inductive. A deductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) complete support for the conclusion. An inductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) some degree of support (but less than complete support) for the conclusion. If the premises actually provide the required degree of support for the conclusion, then the argument is a good one.

A good deductive argument is known as a valid argument and is such that if all its premises are true, then its conclusion must be true. If all the argument is valid and actually has all true premises, then it is known as a sound argument. If it is invalid or has one or more false premises, it will be unsound. A good inductive argument is known as a strong (or "cogent") inductive argument. It is such that if the premises are true, the conclusion is likely to be true.

A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts. To be more specific, a fallacy is an "argument" in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support. A deductive fallacy is a deductive argument that is invalid (it is such that it could have all true premises and still have a false conclusion).

An inductive fallacy is less formal than a deductive fallacy. They are simply "arguments" which appear to be inductive arguments, but the premises do not provided enough support for the conclusion. In such cases, even if the premises were true, the conclusion would not be more likely to be true.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Lawyers learn about the logical fallacies in law school. Since Aristotle is seen as the “father of logic” most philosophy classes include training about logical fallacies. Nowadays logic classes are about as rare as civics classes but some undergraduate curriculums still include a basic logic class. Following logical thinking guidelines are especially important as we make decisions that are going to affect our nation and our posterity.

Logic is a tool to help people arrive at dependable conclusions. Logic is related to such disciplines as epistemological protocol, scientific methodology, and rules of evidence. Many people are surprised to find out that there are rules for thinking. Aristotle aimed to unify all of these rules into a coherent system of thought by developing a common methodology that would serve equally well as the procedure for learning about any discipline.

Like most tools, logic can be used for good or evil. Lawyers will sometimes use what they learned about logical fallacies to create false impressions rather than reveal the truth. Propagandists and PSYOPS agents are very skilled at using logical fallacies to influence “target audience's value systems, belief systems, emotions, motives, reasoning, and behavior”.

How do they twist the truth and attempt to pollute your mind?

Let’s start with some simple examples and work our way up the list of classical logical fallacies complete with Latin names.

The false syllogism
A syllogism ("conclusion," "inference"), (usually the categorical syllogism) is a kind of logical argument in which one proposition (the conclusion) is inferred from two others (the premises) of a certain form. An example of an accurate syllogism is:

Major premise: All humans are mortal.
Minor premise: Socrates is human.
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.

One of my favorite examples of a false syllogism is tinged with humor. A cartoon says across the top of the panel:

“Penguins Walk Funny”

A few more examples of logical fallacies with a humorous intent:

God is Love.
Love is blind.
Steve Wonder is blind.
Conclusion: Steve Wonder is God!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I'm nothing.
Nothing is perfect.
God is Perfect.
So, I'm God !
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
If Steve Wonder is God,
I'm Steve Wonder.
Oh my God!...I'm going blind!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

On the serious side, learning to recognize a bad argument when it comes your way and learning how to respond properly is a major part of what the study of logic is about – self defense. You might consult an article on this blog entitled, Spot false arguments and make strong ones.

False syllogisms permeate Leftist thinking. See if you can demonstrate to yourself why the below syllogisms are false.

Slavery was work and slavery was evil, therefore all work is evil. It is more moral to be on welfare.

Vietnam War was a bad war, therefore all wars are bad wars.

Because people have killed in God’s name, religion is evil and should be abolished.

A really great short course on logic and how to disagree is written by Paul Graham.

Fortunately, most of Obama’s Logical fallacy PSYOPS agents aren’t very skillful.

The trademark personal insult, name calling, ridicule, and ad hominem attacks characterize the debate style of Obama’s people That tactic has worked quite well on the ignorant and those who value feeling more than reason. Uninformed people voted for Obama. This is not new, transformational politics. This is the rise of a New American Fascism.

Often the best tactic is to ignore such low class debate tactics and simply say your piece without bothering to interact with ignorance and rudeness. Sometimes when posters use name calling or ridicule as a response to me I have this prepared post as a retort to their irrational rants.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

A free hint on how to improve your posts. You will note that ad hominem arguments are at the lower end of the scale on the pyramid chart at this link; only one step above name calling which is the other part of your content. Do you honestly expect to get somewhere with a post like that when many of the readers on this blog have triple digit IQs?

In case you need a little help with your Latin: An ad hominem argument, consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.Have you had a logic class yet?

You might take a look at this site:

http://www.austhink.org/critical/pages/fallacies.html

LOL is a form of Ridicule - Also Known as: Appeal to Mockery, The Horse Laugh.

Description of Appeal to Ridicule

The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an “argument." This line of “reasoning" has the following form: LOL or tinfoil hat idea, which is some form of ridicule, is presented (typically directed at the claim). Therefore claim is false.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because mocking a claim does not show that it is false. This is especially clear in the following example: "1+1=2! "That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!"

Examples of Appeal to Ridicule

"Sure my worthy opponent claims that we should lower tuition, but that is just laughable."

"Support the ERA? Sure, when the women start paying for the drinks! Hah! Hah!"

"Those wacky conservatives! They think a strong military is the key to peace! There’s a real tin foil hat idea"

LOL = Logic Obviously Lacking?

This link is the surprise visual I hope they click

http://images7.cafepress.com/product/278928847v114_350x350_Front.jpg

Today's Right-Wing Tweets

2009-05-07T22:32:00.000-07:00

There were a lot of interesting articles today from the right-side blogosphere:

"The Victory for Gun Rights That Nobody Heard About" http://is.gd/xFfw

Making Free Speech a Hate Crime http://is.gd/xFc9 via: American Daughter btw-It's Unconstitutional

Behold, the "Keep Terrorists Out Of America Act" http://is.gd/xF9j via: America's Right

Obama – Lord of War http://is.gd/xF70 <-Where is the liberal outrage

States Formally Declare: Don’t Tread On Us! http://is.gd/xEZM

UK:Guardian Report: "FBI slow to update terror watchlist" http://tinyurl.com/cudrxd

Government Steals Land for 911 Islamic Crescent Memorial: It keeps getting worse... http://tinyurl.com/dkestn <-WT?

Obama's Gitmo Mess http://ow.ly/5wzL <-Poor Judgment

Punishment for Hirabah http://is.gd/xpfq #TCOT #TORTURE #obama #Qur'an

Report: FBI slow to update terror watchlist http://tinyurl.com/cudrxd

Islam Day Declared in Hawaii ...Alohaaaallahawaqbar? http://catholicedition.com

"Western intelligence services regard the Obama administration with contempt" - http://shrt.st/49s

Obama probably never heard of Ngo Dinh Diem but I remember the arrogant little Vietnamese dweeb: http://shrt.st/49w

www.twitter.com/larrymwalkerjr

Natural Rights vs. Legal Rights

2009-05-05T22:50:00.000-07:00

May 5, 2009
by: Natural Born Conservative

"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."

Natural rights (also called moral rights or inalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity.

In contrast, legal rights (sometimes also called civil rights or statutory rights) are rights conveyed by a particular polity, codified into legal statutes by some form of legislature, and as such are contingent upon local laws, customs, or beliefs.

Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are culturally and politically relative.

All races of mankind are created equal. No race is superior to another because they are all of the same species, mankind. Therefore, Blacks, Whites, Hispanics, Asians, Indians etc… all have equal rights as endowed by their Creator. There is no need for a law to be written to endow Blacks with the same rights as Whites. The right already exists in nature.

Civil rights in the U.S. have given women equal rights with men, animals equal rights with humans, and now gays equal rights with heterosexuals. This is man’s law. With man’s law, each society is different. Man’s law is based on the desires of men, and is not necessarily in line with natural law (let God be the Judge).

Gay rights proponents often proclaim that there is no law against homosexuality in the bible. Although this is not true, I would counter to gay marriage proponents, that there is no law regarding marriage in the bible, and certainly not gay marriage. The bible speaks of marriage between men and women, but it does not command that one be married. As there is no biblical, nor natural law regarding marriage, it is a custom or civil right granted by civil societies.

What follows is 'natural law' from the Bible on the issue of homosexuality:

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. Romans 1:24-32

If various States want to legalize gay marriage, that is their prerogative. It has nothing to do with God’s law. However, I would warn that if homosexuality is against natural law, then the foundation of gay marriage is built on sinking sand. If society wants to pass laws that are in opposition to natural law, that is their right. If society believes that by condoning certain behaviors they are somehow granting natural rights, then that society is delusional. And if a society passes laws that are opposed to the laws of nature, then that society will perish.

I hereby formally reject the Civil Rights Act of the United States as having any force or effect regarding my equality as a Black man to any other race, creed, or color of man. I don’t need your law to tell me that I am equal, nor do I need your protection from those who would reject natural law. As long as the United States subscribes to natural law, I am free. However, if the United States has chosen to reject natural law, and has arrived at the ‘age of man’, then it has deviated from its original intent.

Just as businesses fail and are dissolved, nations fail and are dissolved. If the United States continues on its present course, [the rejection of natural law], then the United States will be replaced. Contrary to popular belief, America will meet its end, not at the hands of some violent revolution staged by proponents of natural law; but rather through natural law itself. Forces from outside of the U.S. who are stronger proponents of natural law will prevail, and will triumph over the weak. So DHS can take proponents of the US Constitution, the Word of God, and natural law off their list. We are not the threat. Government itself is the threat.

You know the saying, ‘the strong survive’. Natural law rocks. There is no higher law nor higher power than following the course of one’s Creator. Although there is a purpose for civil rights, when the dictates of man begin to infringe upon natural law, know that the end is nigh.

Torture? Oh please.

2009-04-26T23:24:00.000-07:00

On the issue of torture, as expressed recently by left-wing, t-bagging, Obamabots, I have to agree somewhat with Reggie Green:

"However, that we live in a society capable of public introspection may be just good enough, for now, especially with other issues on our plate."

http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2009/04/post-no-110-who-cares-if-its-torture.html

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, one of the three (3) who was the subject of 'enhanced interrogation' was caught red handed. A computer hard drive seized during the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed contained the following:

information about the four airplanes hijacked on 11 September 2001
a document that listed the pilot license fees for Mohammad Atta
photographs of 19 individuals identified as the 11 September 2001 hijackers
a document that summarized operational procedures and training requirements of an al Qaida cell
three letters from Usama bin Laden

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was held in a secret facility in Poland near Szymany Airport...where the waterboarding was applied.et al

He was given a hearing after which he plead guilty to masterminding 9/11.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Sheikh_Mohammed

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had all of this and more on a computer, had a hearing, plead guilty, and you want to do what? Undo it all, prosecute Justice Department Lawyers, and let him go? Please.

Geneva Convention IV exemptions:

http://bit.ly/Z9Bqw

Meanwhile, Barack Hussein Obama II just ordered the execution of 3 Somali teenagers in a stand off near his birthplace in Mombasa, but you don't hear the left-wing teabaggers complaining about that.

Show me a photo of the pirates with their heads sticking out of the life boat while their guns are pointed at the captians back (a near impossible feat on choppy waters) and then we'll talk. Explain to me where they were going to run while their boat was tied to the USS Bainbridge and they were 300 miles out in the middle of the sea.

Though a threat to property, the pirates, have yet to take anyone's life. So was deadly force necessary? Check the 'rules of engagement'.

Hypocrites, all.

What Obama should do is turn the terror suspects over to Islamic nations so that they may prosecute them with the punishment for Hirabah. The only problem, however, is that we may be the guilty party.

Hirabah
Hirābah (Arabic: حرابة‎) is an Arabic word for “piracy”, or “unlawful warfare”. Hirabah comes from the root hariba, which means “to become angry and enraged”. The noun harb (حرب, pl. hurub حروب) means “war” and/or “enemy.”[1] One who commits hirabah would be a hirabi.

Punishment for Hirabah
The Qur'an commands strict punishment for those who spread disorder in land.[2] As it is in the Qur'an:

The punishments of those who wage war against Allah and His Prophet and strive to spread disorder in the land are to execute them in an exemplary way or to crucify them or to amputate their hands and feet from opposite sides or to banish them from the land. Such is their disgrace in this world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom save those who repent before you overpower them; you should know that Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Ever Merciful.

—Qur'an, [Qur'an 5:33]

According to these verses, the punishment for spreading disorder in land is:

Taqtil (تقتيل:execution that serves a severe warning to others i.e. stoning)
Taslib (تصليب:Crucifixion)
Amputating limbs from opposite sides
Nafi (نفى:Exile)

A Judge can give any of these punishments depending on the severity of the crime and condition of the criminal. These punishments can be prescribed for any crime that can threaten the society at large. Examples of these crimes are robbery (unlike theft which has a different punishment), rape, and terrorism.[2]

Eligibility bill hits Congress - Representative files law requiring candidates show birth certificate

2009-03-15T11:56:00.000-07:00

Posted: March 13, 2009
3:09 pm Eastern

By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

U.S. Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla.

A freshman representative has introduced a bill to the U.S. Congress that would require presidential candidates to provide a birth certificate and other documents to prove their eligibility to occupy the Oval Office.

Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., filed H.R. 1503, an amendment to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which increased required campaign fund disclosure and was later amended to establish the Federal Elections Commission.

According to the Library of Congress' bill-tracking website, H.R. 1503 would "require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of president to include with the committee's statement of organization a copy of the candidate's birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution."

George Cecala, a spokesperson for Rep. Posey's office, told WND that constituents had been calling, questioning whether Barack Obama – who has publicized a Certificate of Live Birth, but not his official birth certificate – has demonstrated that he meets the Constitution's requirement to be a natural-born citizen.

"Those are legitimate constitutional concerns," Cecala said. "Folks have brought the issue up, and the court really hasn't clarified. And I think American citizens have a right to have answers from their government."

Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 325,000 others and sign up now!

"When 7-year-olds play soccer in Brevard County, to be in Little League they have to prove their residency," Cecala said. "To be president there are three requirements: one is citizenship, two is the age of 35, and three, you have to have been a resident for 14 years. We're simply saying when you file your statement of candidacy with the FEC, you should also file documentation that you fulfill the three requirements to be president.

"There's two standards here," Cecala told WND, "one for Little League and one for president."

"Opponents of President Bush used the 2000 election results and the court decisions to question the legitimacy of President Bush to serve as president," explained Rep. Posey in an official statement. "Opponents of President Obama are raising the birth certificate issue as a means of questioning his eligibility to serve as president. Neither of these situations is healthy for our republic. This bill, by simply requiring such documentation for future candidates for president will remove this issue as a reason for questioning the legitimacy of a candidate elected as president."

Cecala further told WND that there's no political motivation in proposing the bill, and the Congressman hopes passing the bill will help clear the air for the president, enabling the government to get beyond the election controversy to dealing with the nation's other important issues.

"Once we pass this bill, we can be assured that future elections won't have this problem," Cecala said. "It's not an attack on President Obama; it's just clarifying for future elections."

Cecala also explained that if passed, the amendment to election law would require Obama, just like any other candidate, to provide a birth certificate in any future presidential elections.

H.R. 1503 has been referred to the House Committee on House Administration.

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Although Obama officials have told WND all such allegations are "garbage," here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama's eligibility:

New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn't properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.
Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg has three cases pending, including Berg vs. Obama in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a separate Berg vs. Obama which is under seal at the U.S. District Court level and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, (now dismissed) brought on behalf of a retired military member who could be facing recall to active duty by Obama.
Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.
Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.
Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public's support.
Chicago attorney Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.
Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.
In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.
Also in Ohio, there was the Greenberg v. Brunner case which ended when the judge threatened to assess all case costs against the plaintiff.
In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.
In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.
California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters.

In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama's eligibility include:

In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.
In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.
In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.
In Washington, L. Charles Cohen vs. Obama.
In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91649

Urgent Plea from Dr. Orly Taitz regarding Obama's Illegal Activities

2009-03-15T10:16:00.000-07:00

Written by: Dr. Orly Taitz

Date: March 15, 2009

www.defendourfreedoms.us

Thank you and let's keep working until Obama resigns or until he is removed.

Thank you all for your beautiful, warm words of support. It really touched my heart to read some 160 comments that were posted so far. Thank you for your prayers. Those kept me safe so far and hopefully will keep me safe in the future.

It is interesting that completely deranged Obama thugs are now posting messages on the blogs saying that the meeting with Chief Justice John Roberts never happened, and that Justice Roberts doesn't have Secret Service protection. It is particularly laughable in light of the fact that their own leftist liberal newspaper the Seattle Observer posted an article confirming the event, my presence there, my plea to Chief Justice Roberts, and his request to give the papers to his Secret Service agent. Although they twisted my words, and the reaction of the audience, they confirmed that I was there, stated that I brought documents proving Obama's lack of eligibility, letters from a half a million citizens, and that Chief Justice Roberts told me to give the documents to the Secret Service.

After the event a number of students and professors approached me and stated that it was an example of devotion and zealous advocacy, they commended me on it, and they gave me their names and asked how they can help. Most of them stated that I had more guts than 99% of the people.

We have to move on and continue researching, lobbying politicians and demanding action from law enforcement and the judiciary. Please, let's work together to end this nightmare of illegal and criminal activity surrounding Obama, as soon as possible. I need your help in the following areas:

Sending by certified mail with my return address letters to Attorney Generals of each state demanding an immediate criminal investigation, Grand Jury action, and subpoena of records.
Demanding quo warranto proceedings by every US attorney and criminal investigation by a Grand Jury and subpoenas.
Demand Judicial hearings and subpoena of records by the State and US Representatives and Senators.
Searching for decent judges with some guts that would issue subpoenas.
Federal employees should join us in requesting that all of their federal agencies demand Obama's proof of qualification or immediate resignation or removal, as Federal employees cannot be true to their oath to uphold the Constitution with a Foreign National usurping the White House.
Each and every member of the military should write a 138 grievance to Secretary Gates, Chief of Staff Mullen, and all their commanding officers demanding that Obama proves his qualifications or is removed from the position of Commander in Chief ASAP.
I need to get in touch with Martin Didier who has written articles in Chicago about the mob laundering stolen or otherwise illegal money through fictitious mortgages. This might explain all of the fictitious addresses and social security numbers listed for Obama in various databases.
I need to get in touch with people running Intelius, Jobs.com, Lexis Nexis and Choice Point. I need to get information from them regarding how they collect data, and from what sources.
I need as many articles as possible about 3 or 4 gay men, members of Trinity church, that were found shot to death within a period of 45 days at the beginning of the Democratic primaries from November-December 2007.
I need information on a company named Magic Plumbing, AKA Burlew Plumbing, and the lien they had on the house of Kelly McCrum Robinson (Michelle Obama's sister-in-law). I also need actual newspaper articles about Magic Plumbing doing maintenance on the sprinkler system in the World Trade Center on 09/05/2001. And the articles from Nashville, TN newspapers about one of Magic Plumbing's employees being arrested along with a person working in the Nashville DMV, who was accused of issuing fraudulent drivers licenses. (This woman later died under questionable circumstances).

Please move fast. Material is being scrubbed from the Internet awfully fast. You may need to go to the libraries and get actual newspapers, or go to the State and National Archives.

Together we can end this nightmare soon.

Thank you again for all your help,

Dr. Orly Taitz

[Edited and reposted with permission by: Larry Walker Jr.

Attorney Dr. Orly Taitz Gets The Attention of Chief Justice Roberts: Obama's Eligibility

2009-03-14T11:30:00.000-07:00

by: Dr. Orly Taitz 03/14/2009

I Did It. Chief Justice Roberts Agreed to read all of my documents.

Yesterday I traveled to Idaho. I was able to address Chief Justice Roberts during the question answer session after his lecture. There were numerous cameras recording this event and a simultaneous feed broadcast to all the campuses of the University of Idaho.

Roughly 5,000 people in all the campuses had an opportunity to hear what I had to say. It is in video archives and now everybody knows the truth and knows that leftist media thugs such as Seattle Washington Observer shamelessly twist the truth to fit their Pro-Obama (blind-idiot) agenda.

It was a grueling day. I left home at three o'clock in the morning after sleeping only 3 hours and drove to San Diego. From there I flew to Salt Lake City, from there to Tacoma, Washington, then drove for a couple of hours to be in Moscow Idaho, in order to address Chief Justice Roberts.

After the lecture the audience was told, that they could ask questions (give their name and present a shot question). I was the first to run to the microphone and told Chief Justice Roberts the following:

"My name is Orly Taitz, I am an attorney from Southern California. I left home at three o'clock in the morning and flew and drove thousands of miles to talk to you and to ask you a question."

Justice Roberts seemed to be impressed by that and I continued.

"Are you aware that there is criminal activity going on in the Supreme Court of the United States?"

"I have submitted to you my case Lightfoot v Bowen. You agreed to hear it in the conference of all 9 Justices on January 23rd. Your clerk, Danny Bickle, on his own accord refused to forward to you an important supplemental brief. He has hidden it from you and refused to post it on the docket. Additionally, my case was erased from the docket, completely erased one day after the inauguration, only two days before it was supposed to be heard in the conference."

"Outraged citizens had to call and demand for it to be posted. On Monday I saw Justice Scalia and he had absolutely no knowledge of my case, that was supposedly heard in conference on January 23rd. It is inexplicable, particularly knowing that roughly half a million American citizens have written to him and to you Justice Roberts demanding that you hear this issue concerning the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, to be the President of the United States."

At that point I showed to Roberts a stack of papers, that I held. Those were my pleadings and printouts that I got from WorldNetDaily. It contained your names, names of about 350,000 that signed the petition. (there were others that have written individual letters,) .

Roberts stated, "I will read your documents. I will review them. Give them to my Secret Service Agent and I will review them."

His Secret Service Agent approached me and stated, "Give me all the documents, I promise you Justice Roberts will get them."

I had a full suitcase of documents. The agent went to look for a box, he found a large box to fit all the documents. He showed me his badge, and introduced himself as Gilbert Shaw, Secret Service Agent assigned to the security of Chief Justice Roberts.

I gave him the following documents:

Motion fo reconsideration of Lightfoot v Bowen with all the supplemental briefs.
Quo Warranto Easterling et al v Obama et al
3300 pages of your names, people that signed WorldNetDaily petition, demanding that the Supreme Court hear Obama elligibility case.
Copy of a 164 page dossier and all the other documents sent to Eric Holder, Attorney General, describing suspected criminal activity, associated with Obama and his supporters.
It described a whole campaign of cyber crimes, intimidation, harassment, defamation and assassination of character, impersonation of US army officer Scott Easterling and impersonation of me.
It showed screen shots of information being erased from the docket of the Supreme Court.
It contained information of court cases being created, and fabricated in order to commit voter fraud and sway public opinion.
It contained a list of a 100 addresses for Barack Obama with numerous social security numbers, issued all over the country and attached to those addresses.
It showed the address Obama used in Somerville Massachusetts, attached to the social security of a man who is 118 years old.
It showed evidence of Obama committing perjury, and lying under oath.
It had his school registration from Indonesia under the name Barry Soetoro, citizen of Indonesia, religion Muslim.
Right after this page there was a page of Obama's registration to become an attorney and officer of the court in Illinois, where he stated under oath that his name is Barack Hussein Obama and he had no other prior names.
It contained a report from a federal agent Steven Coffman, stating that there are numerous signs of forgery in his Selective Service Certificate.
It contained a letter from a renown expert Sandra Line, stating that there are signs of forgery in Obama's short version Certification of Live Birth, and why the original birth certificate needs to be reviewed in order to ascertain his status.
It contained 130 current job positions for Barry Obama, Barack H. Obama and Michelle Obama, that were obtained from Intellius Jobs.com. None of them were reported on Obamas' tax returns.
All of these documents suggest possible massive tax fraud, corruption of a public official, bribery and massive campaign contributions fraud, whereby large campaign contributions, over allowed limits were reported as fictitious positions with different companies, not surprisingly involving most mainstream media outlets.

Regarding #16 - These need to be reviewed in light of a pattern, I've seen previously.

For example, as a State Senator Obama arranged for his friend Robert Blackwell from killerspin to get a grant of $320,000 of our taxpayers money for his ping-pong tournaments. In exchange Blackwell gave Obama back roughly a third, $100,000 in the form of a salary.

Similarly, Obama arranged for Chicago university hospital to get a $1 million grant of our taxpayer money, and they gave him back roughly a third $357,000 in the form of a board salary for his wife, Michelle, for working 20 hours a week. Not to mention that Michelle was totally worthless as a board member since she had zero medical education and her law licence is on a mandatory inactive status (I wonder why).

I am writing this in a hurry, ready to leave my hotel room, finishing yesterday's dinner (leftovers) and getting ready to board a plane for a grueling flight back home.

I'll add one more detail. As one of the announcers introduced Roberts, he stated that Roberts has his priorities straight. He described an event when Roberts missed most of a reception because he wanted to be there for his young son, at the sports tournament where his son was participating. He described Roberts as a caring and loving father. At that point I was just about ready to cry. I have 3 sons, I love them too and I would love to be there, attending their events.

I am a proud parent. My oldest son scored in the top one percent in the Nation in PSATs and he is in an IVY league school studying to be a doctor. He is also a gifted comedian, who formed a stand up comedic improv group and I would love to see him perform. My two younger sons are great students. My middle son has a beautiful, low bass, Elvis Presley voice, he sings opera and I would love to hear him perform. My youngest son is a top student taking 5AP classes in tenth grade, a gifted mathematician and basketball player, I would love to see him get academic awards and play basketball.

I have missed spending time with my children, time that will never come back because I am criss-crossing this country talking to Justices of the Supreme court, Representatives, Senators, FBI agents, Attorney Generals, and US attorneys, asking all of them, what is wrong with you? Did some evil magician put a spell on the men in this country and they stopped being men? Why are you afraid to speak up, to stand up for you Constitution? Why are you afraid to tell this arrogant jerk from Africa and Indonesia - You need to go home? You cannot be a President and Commander in Chief because you are not a Natural born Citizen.

To be a Natural born Citizen both of your parents have to have been US Citizens at the time of birth. Your father was never a US Citizen. You don't qualify and you also spit in our faces by refusing to unseal your vital records. There is no proof that you are even a citizen. For all we know, you need to go back to Kenya and wait for your green card, and even then, after we try you for all the crimes perpetrated upon American citizens. I hope Justice Roberts teaches his son that he is a descendant of people that were real men who fought in the Alamo and at Valley Forge. Chief Justice Roberts has a power to issue a stay and to appoint Joe Biden a President Pro-Tempore until Obama proves his qualifications, or until a new president is chosen. I hope Roberts teaches his son by example and not by empty words.

[Edited and re-posted by Larry Walker, Jr. with permission.]

www.defendourfreedoms.us

WND Exclusive BORN IN THE USA? Scalia: You need 4 votes for Obama eligibility case Lawyer confronts justice about prez's qualifications

2009-03-11T16:54:00.000-07:00

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91345

Posted: March 10, 2009
9:19 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Antonin Scalia

A lawyer lobbying the U.S. Justice Department and the U.S. Supreme Court for a review of Barack Obama's qualifications to be president says a key conservative justice has hinted that another conservative justice has been voting against hearing the dispute.

According to Orly Taitz, a California attorney working through her Defend Our Freedoms Foundation on several cases challenging Obama, said she was presented with an opportunity to ask a question of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia yesterday.

The issue of Obama's eligibility has been raised before the Supreme Court at least four times already but has yet to be given a single hearing. Cases have been brought by Taitz, Philip Berg, Cort Wrotnowski and Leo Donofrio.

While the requests have been heard "in conference" by the justices, no hearings have resulted on the evidence. WND previously has reported that cases brought to individual justices on an emergency basis can be discussed in such conferences, but they need the affirmative vote from four justices before a hearing on the merits can be scheduled.

The Supreme Court today is considered to have mainly a 4-4 conservative-liberal split, with one swing vote on most issues. On the conservative side generally are Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito, Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Anthony Kennedy often is the swing vote. The liberal side frequently includes Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.

No explanations on the court's response to the Obama citizenship issue have been offered until now.

Taitz reported she attended a reception for Scalia and stood "right by the mic, just to make sure I have an opportunity to ask a question. Only four lawyers out of about 300 in the audience got to ask their questions and I was lucky to be one of them."

She said, "I told Scalia that I was an attorney that filed Lightfoot v. Bowen that Chief Justice Roberts distributed for conference on Jan. 23 and now I represent nine state reps and 120 military officers, many of them high ranked, and I want to know if they will hear Quo Warranto and if they would hear it on original jurisdiction, if I bring Hawaii as an additional defendant to unseal the records and ascertain Obama's legitimacy for presidency."

Taitz said she had some worries asking the question.

"I have to say that I prepared myself to a lot of boo-ing, knowing that Los Angeles trial lawyers and entertainment elite are Obama's stronghold, however there was no boo-ing, no negative remarks," she said. "I actually could see a lot of approving nods, smiles, many gasped and listened intensely. I could tell, that even Obama's strongest supporters wanted to know the answer.

"Scalia stated that it would be heard if I can get four people to hear it. He repeated, you need four for the argument. I got a feeling that he was saying that one of these four that call themselves constitutionalists went to the other side," Taitz said.

"He did not say that it is a political question, he did not say that it is for the legislature to decide. For example, right after me another attorney has asked him about his case of taxing some Internet commerce and right away Scalia told him that he should address it with the legislature. He did not say it to me. He did not say that Quo Warranto is antiquated or not appropriate. No, just get four," she said.

She then bought Scalia's book and waited in line to get it autographed.

"I gave him the books to sign and asked, 'Tell me what to do, what can I do, those soldiers [her plaintiffs] can be court-martialed for asking a legitimate question, who is the president, is he legitimate.' He said, 'Bring the case, I'll hear it, I don't know about others.'"

Taitz' latest effort is a case of Quo Warranto submitted to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.

The legal phrase essentially means an explanation is being demanded for what authority Obama is using to act as president. An online constitutional resource says Quo Warranto "affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents."

The plaintiffs allege Obama failed to submit prima facie evidence of his qualifications before Jan. 20, 2009.

"Election officers failed to challenge, validate or evaluate his qualifications. Relators submit that as president elect, Respondent Obama failed [tO] qualify per U.S. CONST. Amend. XX [paragraph] 3," the document said.

John Eidsmoe, an expert on the U.S. Constitution working with the Foundation on Moral Law, said the demand is a legitimate course of action.

"She basically is asking, 'By what authority' is Obama president," he told WND. "In other words, 'I want you to tell me by what authority. I don't really think you should hold the office.'"

Taitz said Americans should flood Holder's office with calls, e-mails and faxes, urging him to take action on the case.

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

In case Mr. Holder is bored, here is another one from NH

2009-03-11T12:24:00.000-07:00

Forgot to copy you.....please know we're 100% in support of your efforts!

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: TomPMahoney
To: AskDOJ@usdoj.gov
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 1:35:45 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Eligibility

Dear Attorney General,

I am writing today to ask you to please take action to ensure our Constitution is worth more than the paper it was written on.

Please take action regarding the numerous challenges brought to the Supreme Court regarding Barack Hussein Obama's eligibility to be President of the United States.

The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

Dr. Orly Taitz, working through her Defend Our Freedoms Foundation deserves every American's support. Her most recent Quo Warranto approach involves nine State representatives and 120 Military officers - there is most definitely a NEED TO KNOW.

Please know that this request is not partisan in any way. Questions involving the relevancy of our Constitution are far more important than politics, race, or creed.

Thank you Dr. Taitz - for caring about the Constitution of the United States of America.

Thomas Mahoney

Newton, NH 03858

To Eric Holder- A petition with 324,000 signatures. Hear the case.

2009-03-11T12:12:00.000-07:00

Attorney General Holder:

Recently, Dr. Orly Taitz has sent you a great deal of information about Mr. Obama's Constitutional eligibility to be president, including a quo warranto request. I am just writing to let you know that many of us are well aware of this matter.

A petition at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81550 demanding the truth has over 324,000 signatures. This issue isn't going to go away and considering all of the evidence, the public concern and the repercussions of such a weighty matter, it is your duty to accede to the quo warranto request and appoint an independent counselor to immediately and publicly investigate the issue. America is watching to see what you will do.

Sincerely,
Nicholas Gausling

www.defendourfreedoms.us

The Obama Legacy: Not a Natural Born Citizen

2009-03-08T15:08:00.000-07:00

Holding to Vattel's definition of natural born Citizen as being one "born in the country to parents who are citizens", Barack Obama II is not a natural born citizen as required by Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution and thus not eligible to be President. In support of this fact, today we will look at the Paternal family of the, so called, President of the United States. All I can say is God forbid, the U.S. were to become engaged in some foreign war involving Kenya, Indonesia, or their neighbors while the usurper is still in office.

_________________________________________

The Obamas are members of the Luo, Kenya's third-largest ethnic group, which is part of a larger family of ethnic groups, collectively also known as Luo. This group belongs to the Eastern Sudanic branch of the Nilo-Saharan phylum. The Obama family is largely concentrated in the western province of Nyanza.

Barack Obama, Sr.
Barack Obama's father, (1936–1982). Government economist in Kenya. In addition to President Obama, Barack Obama Sr. fathered six other sons and a daughter.[37]

Hussein Onyango Obama
Barack Obama's paternal grandfather (c. 1895–1979);[38] he worked as a mission cook. He joined the British Army during World War I. (One source gives 1870–1975 as his dates of birth and death based on his tombstone reading "Mzee Hussein Onyango Obama" in his home village.[39] The term "mzee" is a Kenyan honorific meaning "old man" or "elder.") According to his third wife, Sarah, he originally converted to Catholicism, but took the name Hussein when he later converted to Islam; she said he passed the name, not the religion, on to his children.[40]

Habiba Akumu Obama
Barack Obama's paternal grandmother, and the second wife of Hussein Onyango Obama. A photograph of her holding her son, Barack Sr, on her lap is on the cover of her grandson's memoirs titled Dreams from my Father.[41]

Sarah Obama
Third wife of Obama's paternal grandfather, born 1922.[39] Also known, through the addition of her late husband's name, as Sarah Onyango Obama,[42] and sometimes referred to as Sarah Ogwel, Sarah Hussein Obama or Sarah Anyango Obama,[43] she lives in Nyang’oma Kogelo village, 30 miles west of western Kenya's main town, Kisumu, on the edge of Lake Victoria.[44][45]

Although not a blood relation, Barack Obama calls her "Granny Sarah".[43][46] Sarah, who speaks Luo and only a few words of English, communicates with President Obama through an interpreter.

On July 4, 2008, she attended the United States Independence Day celebrations in Nairobi, hosted by Michael Ranneberger, the US ambassador in Kenya.[47]

During the campaign she protested attempts to portray Obama as a foreigner to the United States or a Muslim, saying that while Obama's grandfather had been a Muslim, "In the world of today, children have different religions from their parents."[40] Sarah Obama herself is "a strong believer of the Islamic faith,” in her words.[48]

Kezia Obama
First wife of Barack Obama's father, born c. 1940. She is Barack Obama Sr.'s first wife, whom he married in Kenya before studying abroad in the United States. Also known as Kezia Grace Obama.[49][50] She currently lives in Bracknell, Berkshire, England.[51][52]

Malik Obama
Barack Obama's half-brother, also known as Abongo or Roy, born c. March, 1958,[51] son of Barack Obama, Sr. with his first wife, Kezia.[53] Malik Obama was born and raised in Nairobi, Kenya.[54] He earned a degree in accounting from the University of Nairobi.[55] He met his half-brother for the first time in 1985[54] when Barack flew from Chicago to Washington, D.C. to visit him.[56] Malik and his half-brother Barack were best men at each other's weddings.[54] Barack Obama brought his wife Michelle to Kenya three years later, and they met with Malik again while Barack was introducing Michelle to many other new relatives.[57]

Although much of the Obama family has dispersed throughout Kenya and overseas, most, including Malik Obama, still considered their rural village on the shores of Lake Victoria to be their true home, and feel that those who have left the village have become culturally "lost".[58] A frequent visitor to the United States,[57] and consultant in Washington, D.C. for several months per year,[54] he nevertheless settled in the Obamas' ancestral home, Nyang’oma Kogelo, a village of several hundred people that he prefers to the city for its slow pace.[54] He runs a small electronics shop a half hour drive outside of town.[54]

During his brother's presidential campaign, Malik Obama was a spokesman for the extended Obama family in Kenya, dealing with safety and privacy concerns arising from increased attention from the press.[59]

Abo Obama
Barack Obama's half-brother, born 1968. International telephone store manager in Kenya.

Auma Obama
Barack Obama's half-sister, born c. 1960.[60] As of July 2008, development worker in Kenya.[61] She studied German at the University of Heidelberg from 1981 to 1987. After her graduation in Heidelberg she went on for graduate studies at the University of Bayreuth, which awarded her a PhD in 1996. Her dissertation was about the conception of labor in Germany and its literary reflections.[61] Auma Obama lives in London, and in 1996 married an Englishman, Ian Manners. They have a daughter named Akinyi (b. 1997).[61][verification needed]

Bernard Obama
Barack Obama's half-brother, born 1970, son of Barack Obama, Sr. and his first wife, Kezia. He had been an auto parts supplier in Nairobi, Kenya, and has one child. Bernard converted to Islam as an adult and has said: "I’m a Muslim, I don’t deny it. My father was raised a Muslim. But it’s not an issue. I don’t know what all the hullabaloo is about."[62] He currently resides in Bracknell, England, with his mother Kezia.[62]

Ruth Ndesandjo
Born Ruth Nidesand, in US c. 1940s, Barack Obama Sr.'s third wife and a private kindergarten director in Kenya.[63] Ruth's two sons with Barack Obama, Sr., are Mark and David Ndesandjo; her third son, Joseph Ndesandjo, was born c. 1980 from a subsequent marriage to a Tanzanian.[64][65]

Mark Ndesandjo
Barack Obama's half-brother, son of Ruth Nidesand and Barack Obama Sr.[66] He runs an Internet company called WorldNexus that advises Chinese corporations how best to reach international customers.[67] Mark graduated from Brown University, studied physics at Stanford University, received an MBA from Emory University, and has lived in Shenzhen, China, since 2002 and is married to a Chinese woman.[68] He is also an accomplished pianist.[69]

David Ndesandjo
Barack Obama's half-brother (also known as David Opiyo Obama), son of Ruth Nidesand and Barack Obama Sr. Killed in a motorcycle accident.[70]

George Hussein Onyango Obama
Youngest half-brother of Barack Obama, born c.1982, son of Barack Obama Sr.[71] and Jael (now a resident of Atlanta, Georgia).[72][73] George was six months old when his father died in an automobile accident, after which he was raised in Nairobi by his mother and a French step-father. He later lived in South Korea for two years while his mother resided there for business reasons.[72] Returning to Kenya, George Obama "slept rough for several years," until his aunt gave him a six-by-eight foot corrugated metal shack in the Nairobi, Kenya, slum of Huruma Flats.[72] As of August 2008, Obama was studying to become a mechanic.[72] George received little attention until being featured in an article in the Italian language edition of Vanity Fair in August 2008, which portrayed him as living in poverty, shame, and obscurity.[74] The article quoted Obama as saying that he lived "on less than a dollar a month" and stated that he "does not mention his famous half-brother in conversation" out of shame at his poverty.[75] In later interviews George contradicted this picture. In an interview with The Times, Obama "said that he was furious at subsequent reports that he had been abandoned by the Obama family and that he was filled with shame about living in a slum."[73] He told The Times, "Life in Huruma is good." Obama said that he expects no favors, that he was supported by relatives, and that reports he lived on a dollar a month were "all lies by people who don’t want my brother to win.”[73] He told The Telegraph that he was inspired by his half-brother.[72] According to Time, George "has repeatedly denied...that he feels abandoned by Obama."[76] CNN quoted him as saying, "I was brought up well. I live well even now. The magazines, they have exaggerated everything... I think I kind of like it here. There are some challenges, but maybe it is just like where you come from, there are the same challenges."[74] George's reported poverty was seized on by conservative critics of Barack Obama. Columnist Dinesh D'Souza solicited donations for George Obama from his readers,[77] while Jerome Corsi planned to give him a $1,000 check during a trip to Kenya (Corsi was expelled from the country by immigration authorities).[76]

Omar Obama
Half-uncle of Barack Obama,[78] born on June 3, 1944 in Nyang’oma Kogelo. Oldest son of Onyango and Sarah Obama, resides in Boston, Massachusetts.[citation needed]

Zeituni Onyango
Half-aunt of Barack Obama,[79] born May 29, 1952, in Kenya,[80] Onyango is referred to as "Aunti Zeituni" in President Obama's memoir, Dreams from My Father.[81]

Yusuf Obama
Half-uncle of Barack Obama,[78] born c. 1950s in Nyang’oma Kogelo; son of Onyango and Sarah Obama.[citation needed]

Said Obama
Half-uncle of Barack Obama,[78][82] born c. 1950s in Nyang’oma Kogelo; son of Onyango and Sarah Obama.[citation needed]
_________________________________________

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_of_Barack_Obama

http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/vatt-119.htm

http://larrymwalkerjr.blogspot.com/2009/02/natural-born-citizens-citizens-and.html

Senate Definition of "Natural Born Citizen' - The Demise of Obama II

2009-03-07T14:26:00.000-08:00

In April of 2008 the U.S. Senate concured with the definition of Vattel via Senate Resolution 511 stating that a 'natural born Citizen' is a child who is born of American citizens [with an "s"].

Barack Obama clearly does not meet that definition no matter where he was born. That you would not be worried about the United States being diluted into some 'world' nation state is insane, any other country in the world that would allow such insanity would be short lived.

As our Senators have clearly forgotten or overlooked their own unanimous resolution, it is incumbent upon us Citizens to bring this matter to a head. Currenly 94 active and retired military members have joined a suit being filed with the attorney general's office. This matter will be brought to a head by those who understand the original intent of the law.
_____________________________________________

Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen. (Agreed to by Senate)

SRES 511 ATS

110th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. RES. 511
Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

April 10, 2008
Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. COBURN, Mrs. CLINTON, and Mr. WEBB) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

April 24, 2008
Reported by Mr. LEAHY, without amendment

April 30, 2008
Considered and agreed to

-------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c110:./temp/~c1100BnU9d::

True Definition of Natural Born Citizen

2009-03-01T16:57:00.000-08:00

Free Republic follows up on NBC definition: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2196957/posts

True Definition of Natural Born Citizen
Townhall ^ March 1, 2009 Glenn Flowers

Posted on Sunday, March 01, 2009 7:35:14 PM by 2ndDivisionVet

There has been much debate over what constitutes a natural born citizen. Much of the debate has been misinformed calling the concept of natural born an obscure technicality or an overight by the writers of the Constitution. Neither of these characterizations are true.

Many times the true meaning of consitutional wording must be determined by looking at the era and the circumstances, and, in some cases, terminology in other sections of the constitution, the inclusion or exclusion of supporting verbage, and even writings other than the Constitution.

Article 2, section 1 of the Constitution states, "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president; neither shall any person be eligible who shall not attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United Satates."

The addition of a grandfather clause in this paragraph says a lot as to the meaning of natural born. The first thing it says is that being born in the US is not enough to be natural born, otherwise the grandfather clause would not be necessary. The writers and delegates, having been born in the US, wanted to be eligible for the presidency, but most were the children of British subjects. Knowing that that eliminated them from being natural born and, thus, from eligibility, they included the grandfather clause which expired when the last person alive at the time of the ratification of the Constitution died. So, being a native born citizen is not the same as being natural born. If it were the framers would not have included the clause.

When asked to define natural born citizen, John Bingham, the author of the 14th ammendment which extended the bill of rights to former slaves, stated, "Any human born to parents who are US citizens and are under no other jurisdiction or authority." The Naturalization Act of 1790, also passed by this congress, declared "And the children of citizens of the US shall be considered as natural born, provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been a resident of the US." Neither of these definitions, one from US law, mentions birthplace, only the parents' citizenship.

This concept of citizenship by blood as opposed to citizenship by geography is a concept with a long history in British common law. A law passed in 1677 says that natural born citizens are those persons born to British citizens, including those born overseas. Alexander Porter wrote an article over 100 years ago in which he declares that the framers drew upon this difference in the law of heredity and territorial allegiance to define a third class of citizen applicable only to the eligibility to hold the office of president. According to Morse, "the framers thought it wise to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance only to the US at the time of birth." He goes on to say that the the eligibility of the president "was scarcely intended to bar the children of American citizens, whether born at sea or in foreign territory."

The concept of citizenship by blood also precludes the equation of natural born with native born as the latter strictly demands geographical requirements.

Many argue that Barack Obama was eligible to be a state senator and a US senator and could not suddenly be ineligible to be president, but that is exactly the case. If this premise were true, Arnold Schwarzenegger, governor of California, would also be eligible to be president, and it is established that he is not.

Barack Obama has proudly and publicly stated that his father was a citizen of Kenya. We know his mother was eigteen years old when he was born. These two facts make Obama ineligible to be president. No birth certificate is needed as proof, and it doesn't matter at all where Obama was born. His father's non-citizenship is all the law requires. He is ineligible from the beginning, meaning he is NOT the president and can be removed from office without any impeachment or trial, it requires only a ruling by the SCOTUS. HE is, in fact, a usurper, a pretender or a fake.

So why has Obama been shepharded into our highest elected office regardless of the fact that he is, according to his own statements and the law of the land, ineligible for that office? It is because those whose responsibility it is to insure the eligibility of the president, the SCOTUS, has chosen, in violation of the law, not to override the voters that voted for Obama. They are are cowards who violate their sworn oath rather than make an unpopular ruling. We are no longer a republic ruled by law, but, instead have become a democracy with rules made up as we go along, never to be written as law.

POSTSCRIPT: In each and every case dismissed by the SCOTUS challenging Obama's eligibility the reason for dismissal had nothing to do with the merits of the plaintiff's claim. Not once did the SCOTUS rule Obama was eligible or even consider whether he was or not, rather they dismissed each case on the technicality of plaitiff's lack of standing to file the case.

Barack Obama’s brother pushes Chinese imports on US

2009-03-01T14:54:00.000-08:00

July 27, 2008

London Times

Michael Sheridan

Shenzhen, China

BARACK Obama’s half-brother has been helping to promote cheap Chinese exports in a low-profile business career while the Democratic senator has been winning worldwide fame in his race for the White House.

He has gone to extraordinary lengths to avoid public attention and his family links remain unknown to most of his acquaintances in Shenzhen, a border boomtown in southern China where he has lived since 2002.

Mark Ndesandjo is the son of Barack Obama’s late father and his third wife, an American woman named Ruth Nidesand who runs the up-market Maduri kindergarten in Nairobi.

Obama, however, refers to him simply as “my brother” and says he was the only uncontested heir after their father, a Kenyan, died in a car crash in 1982.

Friends say he has a long-term Chinese girlfriend in her 20s from Henan, a poor landlocked province that sends millions of migrants to the coastal cities.

He lives in Nanshan, a brash new district of high-rises and streets teeming after dark with young migrants eating spicy street food and cramming into bars, karaoke joints and massage parlours.

“He is big, strong and full of energy, speaks good Chinese and is a really easygoing guy,” said a Chinese friend, “He always wears a hat over his shaven head. I believe he has several consultancy jobs.”

Chinese officials said there are unanswered questions about his internet-based company, Worldnexus Ltd. It has provided corporate communications and website design to Chinese firms seeking customers in English-speaking markets, of which the United States is the biggest.

Worldnexus is not registered to conduct business in Shenzhen and officials at the city’s commercial administration bureau said this raised potential issues of taxation and compliance with the law by its customers.

The company’s Chinese-language website promises “increased communication efficiency” to clients and lists Shenzhen exporters of electronics and machine parts among its contracts.

The website lists an office address in the west of the city but despite a search of the area and checks with local police, no such building could be located.

Nor is Worldnexus Ltd legally registered in Hong Kong, where many businesses choose to incorporate for their China trade, according to an official data check.

Contacted by The Sunday Times last week, Ndesandjo said: “Thanks for your interest. However I am not giving interviews at this time.”

He did not respond to four subsequent requests for comment.

However Ndesandjo told a Chinese businessman last week that Worldnexus was not trading at the moment, saying that he hoped to “re-start the business next year” and adding that the website was “out of date.”

Any family connection between the Democratic presidential contender and the flood of Chinese imports that are blamed by many Americans for destroying American jobs could be politically embarrassing.

Obama has staked out a populist position on trade with China in the US election campaign, calling in December 2007 for a ban on all toys from Chinese factories until safety inspections were put in place.

But although the kinship between the two men is bound to cause a sensation in China – as in their father’s native Kenya, no distinction is drawn between full and half brothers – they do not appear to be close.

Ndesandjo, who had an elite education in the United States, collecting a degree from Brown University, a masters in physics from Stanford and an MBA from Emory, did not share Obama’s emotional view of his roots.

Obama painted a disappointed picture of his half-brother in his 1995 memoir, Dreams from My Father, in which he celebrated his own return to Kenya and rediscovery of his African inheritance.

At a rather tense lunch, Obama quoted “Mark” – his family name is never given away in the book - as saying Kenya was “just another poor African country” to which he felt little attachment.

Mark added: “there’s not much work for a physicist, is there, in a country where the average person doesn’t have a telephone.”

According to Obama’s account, Mark looked him in the eye and said: “You think that somehow I’m cut off from my roots, that sort of thing. Well, you’re right.”

“At a certain point I made the decision not to think about who my real father was. He was dead to me even when he was still alive. I knew that he was a drunk and showed no concern for his wife and children. That’s enough.”

Barack Obama senior fathered eight children by four different women.

Obama wrote that Mark didn’t want to ask himself a lot of questions about the meaning of racial identity, dismissing the idea with the words: “life’s hard enough without all that excess baggage.”

Asked last week whether he was quoted accurately in the book, Ndesandjo did not respond.

Obama wrote that on parting, “we exchanged addresses and promised to write, with a dishonesty that made my heart ache.”

Two decades after that encounter, the extended and complex Obama family is bound to come under further scrutiny as the US election enters its final months after the Democratic and Republican party conventions.

“That not enough has been written about his family is strange,” wrote columnist Roger Cohen in the New York Times last March, “If nominated, Obama’s family baggage will be pored over.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4406813.ece

Natural Born Citizens, Citizens, and Cowards

2009-02-26T19:20:00.000-08:00

By: Larry

February 27, 2009

Did you know that the Constitutional requirements to be a U.S. Congressman or U.S. Senator are different than the requirements to be U.S. President or Vice President?

The requirements may be found at the following website: click here.

The Constitutional requirements to become a U.S. Senator or Congressman include having been a U.S. Citizen for a certain number of years. And, in order to be President or Vice President, the Constitution requires that one be a Natural Born Citizen and a resident for a certain number of years.

Now is it possible that the terms Citizen and Natural Born Citizen are synonymous? Were our founding fathers just a bunch of poorly educated, bumbling idiots, who used complicated words just to confuse the masses? Do you really know the difference? Do you care about protecting, defending and upholding the United States Constitution?

Constitutional Requirements

U.S. Congressman
Article I, Section 2, Clause 2
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

U.S. Senator
Article I, Section 3, Clause 3
No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

U.S. President
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

The United States Constitution requires that Presidents (and Vice Presidents) of the United States be natural born citizens of the United States. It is undisputed that children of American citizens born in the U.S. are eligible to hold the office of President upon reaching the required age, and that persons naturalized as U.S. citizens after birth are disqualified from holding that office.

The special term "Natural Born Citizen" is used in particular as a requirement for eligibility to serve as President or Vice President of the United States.

Additionally, the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that: "[N]o person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

Grandfather provision of Article II, Section I

“…or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…”

The grandfather provision of the Natural Born Citizen Clause thus covered the first several presidents and vice-presidents, who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, but who had been born as British Citizens before the American Revolution. [In other words, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution no Citizen of the United States could have been a Natural Born Citizen, because their parent’s were not U.S. Citizens at the time of their birth.]

It is generally agreed that these Constitutional provisions mean that anyone born on American soil to parents who are U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen eligible to someday become president or vice-president. It is also agreed that anyone whose citizenship is acquired after birth as a result of the naturalization process or procedure is not a natural born citizen and is therefore ineligible for those two positions.

The Lineage of Barack Hussein Obama II

Barack Hussein Obama II was born to Stanley Ann Dunham, a White American from Wichita, Kansas of English and Irish descent, and Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a Luo from Nyang’oma Kogelo, Nyanza Province, Kenya. His parents met in 1960 while attending the University of Hawaii at Mānoa, where his father was a foreign student.

Barack Hussein Obama I was a citizen of Great Britain at the time of his son’s birth. The senior Obama never became a Citizen of the United States. Obama II acquired British Citizenship at birth by virtue of this father, and later, Kenyan citizenship by virtue of his father, once Kenya won its independence.

Although Obama II’s mother was a U.S. Citizen at the time of his birth, the fact that his father was not created a condition of dual citizenship. Being born with dual citizenship disqualified Obama II from ever being considered to be a natural born citizen.

The Definition and Original Meaning

The drafters of our Constitution read Vattel’s Law of Nations, and incorporated many of its definitions into the text.

Vattel’s Law of Nations Chapter 19, § 212. Citizens and natives:

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

And of Our Constitutional Republic?

In real life, a law must be changed or amended before it may be broken without punishment. What gives Barack Obama II the right to be the President of the United States?

Nothing gives him that right. You know it, I know it, Congress knows it, and the Supreme Court knows it. To date, not one single eligibility case against Obama II has been heard on the merits. That means there has been no hearing, no subpoenas, no production of evidence, nothing. Each case has been thrown out on a technicality without having been tried.

Many Americans assume that this case has been heard, and that Obama II was proven to be a Natural Born Citizen. They are wrong. If you think that the case has been tried, then I would encourage you to search. Search each and every eligibility challenge taken to court, and review the disposition of those cases. You will find that not one single case has ever been tried on the merits. Why you ask? Because as Eric Holder stated, ‘we are a nation of cowards’.

If you know the truth, and are afraid to speak it, then you sir/madam are a coward.

Sources:

http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/vattel/id3.html

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentandcabinet/a/presrequire.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen

http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/vatt-119.htm

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/previous_questions.html

Keyes: Obama owes success to cowardice Holder decries

2009-02-25T14:37:00.000-08:00

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

by: Dr. Alan Keyes

Source: www.loyaltoliberty.com

According to Eric Holder (Holder: US is nation of cowards on racial matters) "in things racial we [Americans] have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards." I find myself quite unexpectedly agreeing with him, but I couldn't help but see the profound irony of that remark, especially coming from someone in his position. He claims the title of Attorney General of the United States by appointment from a man whose victory in the last election was mainly due to that kind of cowardice; a man whose constitutional eligibility for the office of President remains under a debilitating cloud of suspicion, because of that kind of cowardice; a man whose whole career as a left-wing activist and politician has exploited that kind of cowardice. Though Holder purports to see this cowardice in other Americans, I wonder whether he sees, or would honestly admit, how much it has influenced and determined the outlook and activities of left-wing and liberal blacks like himself and his new boss.

Because it so well served their purposes of self-advancement, the liberal black elite became adept at exploiting the fear of perceived racism so prevalent since the Civil Rights movement's conquest of America's conscience in the 1960s. In the process they actually strengthened and perpetuated negative stereotypes, to such a degree that black Americans fell into the trap of seeing their ethnic identity in almost entirely negative terms. Years ago, in my essay Masters of the Dream, I described the tragically self-defeating nature of the liberal black establishment's negative pre-occupation with racism.

…the belief that the black identity has no positive content means that, in dealing with the problems of the black community, one neglects to think about policies based on the community's internal values, institutions and resources. Instead, one assumes that the solutions must come from without. The passive victims of history become the passive beneficiaries of philanthropy, the passive clients of bureaucracy, the passive subjects of the domineering welfare state. Despite all good intentions to the contrary, this type of liberalism pushes black Americans back toward a condition of endless childhood, servitude and subjection. Liberal hope becomes liberal slavery.

In reaction against racial prejudice the black elite unwittingly embraced race and racism as the defining preoccupation of the black American identity. This leads them to be blind to the development of a distinctly positive black American identity, rooted in the assumption that personal moral and spiritual worth persist despite all the demeaning assaults predicated on racial inferiority. The history of that moral identity reveals an incessant spiritual guerrilla war against the devaluation of their humanity that centered ultimately around a simple and unyielding faith in God as the true standard of human worth, and Christ as the one whose suffering, sacrifice and resurrection validated the Godly dignity of every human being willing to put their faith in Him.

Instead of embracing this moral identity the liberal black elite aped the snobby (and often atheistic) scientific materialism that became increasingly characteristic of the American liberal establishment in the course of the twentieth century. They jumped on the bandwagon of leftist social analyses that defined groups in terms of quantifiable characteristics. Apparently they do not realize how much this implicitly validates the dehumanizing practice of classifying beings by physical characteristics, to which practice all truly racist ideologies owe their repugnant pedigree.

In the introduction to the essay quoted above I allude to the deadly effects of this surrender of moral identity.

Already, generations of black children have grown up without any sense of their true heritage. Consciously or unconsciously, their minds are influenced by those who, for whatever reason, spread the doctrine that racists ripped black Americans from our African roots, stripped us of our values and institutions, and left us with no shred of our own culture or humanity. Leaders like Louis Farrakhan, who claim to be strong enemies of racism, have taken this demeaning doctrine as a major premise of their creed. Ironically, in order to prove the worst in others, it requires that we deny the best in ourselves.

The black American liberal elites celebrate the election of Barak Obama as some kind of breakthrough for black Americans. This is the ultimate and deeply self-abasing fruit of their moral surrender. Except for the physical characteristics derived from his biological heritage, I cannot see what connection Obama has with the positive, moral identity of Black Americans. Black Americans are in fact a physically motley ethnic group. But despite physical differences, a common spirit and heart were refined, forged and tempered in the historic experiences of slavery, "Jim Crow" segregation and the stifling environment of pervasive racial prejudice. Many of the deepest emotional struggles, and the strong spiritual resources arising from the reality of that heritage take root during childhood and adolescence, formative years during which Obama was being raised in contexts devoid of the need to confront and deal with it. Though Holder laments American cowardice with respect to racial matters, Obama is the ultimate concession to that cowardice. Defined in racial terms he is a man whites need not fear- with dark skin but devoid of the spiritual tension characteristic of black Americans- W.E.B. Dubois' "two souls in one body" that pull between resentment and affiliation: the smoldering despair that true justice will ever really be served battling with the undying faith that God's love will ultimately and truly transform the American heart, the human heart, to be open to the race we all have in common.

I agree with Holder that we need to get beyond this cowardice. It will require that we get beyond the idea that Obama's election is the historic breakthrough that carries America out of the shadow of racism. Maybe that's the larger meaning of the doubt as to his identity that hangs over his claim to the Presidency. Even if he ultimately shows proof that he is a natural born citizen, as the Constitution requires, that will still not be enough to prove that he is what he and so many others falsely proclaim him to be. For in the end the burden from racism in America isn't about physical appearances- it's about moral and spiritual realities. It's about trying to do what's right regardless of racial feelings and perceptions. From this perspective, Obama's rejection of the simple premise that all human beings are created equal (including our nascent offspring) means that his election rather reasserts than transcends the ruthless disregard for humanity that made race and racism such potent instruments of evil.

[Re-posted with permission from Dr. Keyes]

The Republicans: A Curious Response

2009-02-25T14:02:00.000-08:00

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

By: Dr. Alan Keyes

[Re-posted with his permission]

Check out www.loyaltoliberty.com sign up and keep an open mind.

________________________

Gregory (Scotland Yard detective): "Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"

Holmes: "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."

Gregory: "The dog did nothing in the night-time."

Holmes: "That was the curious incident."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Blaze

Aficionados of the Sherlock Holmes stories know that the dog didn't bark because the supposed culprit in the night was well and favorably known to the pooch. In fact the murderer in the Silver Blaze story wasn't a wrongdoer at all but a horse, who kills its trainer in furious reaction to his attempt to nick its tendon just enough to prevent it from winning an important race the next day.

For all his phony posturing, Obama's actions seem calculated to drive the United States over the cliff of bankruptcy, while leaving us defenseless against our enemies. Just when we thought the race was over, Obama and his cronies come along to make sure we lose forever. We're headed for a day of reckoning alright, and he's been raised up to make sure we show up on time.

As he leads us to the slaughter, here comes the Republican party- the one a lot of people have been feeding with their votes at election time in hopes that it will at least bark loudly when danger threatens. Instead, the only sounds we hear are the typical yaps and whimpers a dreaming watchdog makes in its sleep. Socialism is on the march. Soviet style one-party rule has already turned the corner. The Constitution is being prepared as tomorrow's trash can liner. Yet all we hear in the Republican response are the usual bleats about spending and irresponsibility, along with the quiet acknowledgement that the Republicans have no right to talk. "I guess that'll show those burgerlers."

Of course Obama's media claque would pounce if anyone whispered words like socialism, communism or despotism. No gulag yet, but they'll laugh and ridicule. They'll mention you in the same breath as (God forbid) Alan Keyes, a sure sign that the owners of the two-party system have taken you off the roster and posted you off the premises.

If you had your eye on the Republican nomination in 2012, would you risk that? Leave aside the fact that your cowardice, and that of all the Republicans like you, guarantees that the Republican nomination will be as worthless to liberty in 2012 as it was in 2008. Politics isn't about making choices that are good for the American people, just those that avoid the wrath of their now unchallenged keepers. ("There used to be a home for the brave around here somewhere, but I think it finally went back to the bank. Couldn't make the payments, I guess. Nice folks, but mortgaged way over their heads.")

http://loyaltoliberty.blogspot.com/2009/02/republicans-curious-response.html

Real Change Step One: Abolish the Income Tax

2009-02-23T19:21:00.000-08:00

By: Dr. Alan Keyes

[Re-posted with his permission]

Source: www.loyaltoliberty.com

I saw today that Rep. John Linder (R, GA-7) and 44 Republican co-sponsors have introduced a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives to abolish the income tax and replace it with an implementation of the fair tax proposal. As they say, this represents real, positive change. It is a critical element of the agenda that could avert the economic collapse made imminent by our country's long and damaging flirtation with socialism. Unfortunately, with Obama occupying the White House and the Democrats in control of Congress, what we're likely to get at the moment is just the opposite: a short engagement followed by a shotgun wedding that forces America into a Soviet-style marriage of inconvenience, then prolonged depression and a psychotic break.

Obama's Soviet-style communist state is a Tyrannosaurus Rex on parade in the Jurassic Park of dangerous political excursions. For a moment it's exciting to get close-up and touchy-feely with something so old that we thought of as extinct. Then we remember that at feeding time, we're on the menu. Okay! That's no fun. But if the prospect means we're ready to end the vacation and get on with real life, what's to do? Well, it would be nice to make sure we get out of the Park alive. For this, just like the characters in the movie, we need to apply the know-how that made our little excursion possible. We need to remember our home address (that may strike you as a gimme, but don't forget how easily the mind goes blank during a life and death encounter with a resurrected monstrosity.) Once we retrieve the address, we need to remember how to get there. Then, we head for home. We open the place up, air out all the rooms and get back to being ourselves, that is, the first and greatest free people in human history. Now, being ourselves is hard work, but doing it well has been a source of great satisfaction in our lives. Smart people take vacations mainly to remind themselves of that. Unfortunately some people voted absentee in the last election, while their brains were still on vacation. Hence, the Obamasaurus hex.

There's been a noticeable spike in hate mail from the Obama worshippers since I called his communist agenda by its right name. I've also gotten a lot of encouragement and thanks from Americans who want to preserve liberty in this country, and the prosperity that goes with it. Typical is this brief comment from someone reacting to a WND.com story on my remarks: "I read your WND article, and I agree with you regarding stopping this mess, my question is what do you propose for a solution to stopping this? Thanks for all you do, and I think we need to start to pull together and get things turned around in a hurry."

In one remark, I see what I love and admire about Americans, but also what I find so frustrating. When we see a problem, immediately we ask the question- "What's the solution?" Wallowing in the mess is thankfully not the disposition of real Americans. On the other hand, we are, quite frankly, an impatient bunch anxious to get to the action in a hurry. Because of the first trait, we want a solution badly. Because of the second, we'll grab at a bad solution. But for the latter impulse, Obama would not be resident in the White House. During the election, people would have stepped back from his empty rhetoric to ask hard questions about just what kind of change he is proposing. They would have examined it long and hard enough to see that it's not change at all- just the same ugly grab for power and control that has marred every socialist movement in the world, and produced the sort of results that toppled the Soviet Empire and that have taken other countries (like Zimbabwe, for example) from prosperity to starvation.

Anyway, African countries provide at least a bit of evidence for the simple truth that electing a leader with a black skin is no guarantee of progress. (No, really, I'm not kidding.) In fact, in Africa it has occasionally been the harbinger of personality cults, repression and economic ruin. (Okay, now I am kidding.) Racial preoccupations have deeply wounded the American psyche, but the guilt induced delusion that we're putting a little pathetic salve on those old wounds hardly warrants national suicide. We don't need a phony savior. What we need is a reminder that, with God's help, ordinary folks built this great land, with government from time to time as their instrument, not their master. Though the socialist minded tinkerers of the twentieth century concluded that industrialization and urbanization meant doom for the culture of liberty, the technological leaps of the last thirty years have produced just the tools needed to prove them wrong. Government of, by and for the people- based on self-confident individuals, the God-ordained family, and other private associations now has more potency for economic and political success than ever before in human history. One person with a good idea can literally reach out and offer their ingenuity to the world. Maybe that's why the forces of elite tyranny are so anxious to get a stranglehold on our economy and government. These days, people motivated by a common cause can form a national network to advance it overnight. The information needed to substantiate their thinking and inform their actions is at their fingertips. Remembering the old Latin motto, "Festina Lente", let's get busy.

So much for introductions: tomorrow, I'll go more fully into the three revolutionary changes we need to get America on the way back home, starting with the one the Linder bill seeks to implement: ABOLITION (of the income tax, that is.)

Obama Threatens Keyes and other Eligibility Plaintiffs

2009-02-17T22:16:00.000-08:00

By: Dr. Alan Keyes

February 14, 2009

As many of you know, I am party to one of the lawsuits seeking evidence that would help to establish, one way or the other, whether Obama in fact meets the U.S. Constitution's eligibility requirements for the office of President of the United States. To understand my view of the critical issues involved see the WND articles The End of the Constitutional Republic, and Obama, Oaths and the End of Constitutional Government.) Now Obama's lawyers have filed a motion to quash our effort to obtain the relevant documents (cf. Bob Unruh's WND article Sanctions sought in eligibility case.) I am told that it includes a demand that monetary penalties be assessed against me and the other plaintiffs in the suit. Though not unexpected, this motion confirms Obama's ruthless determination to destroy anyone who continues to seek the information the Constitution requires. Why should they demand penalties against citizens who are simply seeking the enforcement of the Supreme Law of the Land? It is simply because their persistence runs contrary to the will of a supposedly popular demagogue? This smacks of tyrannical arrogance. That Obama thus signals his intent to bring financial ruin on those who won't accept his cover-up of the circumstances of his birth is a tactical escalation. It confirms the common sense suspicion that he won't act forthrightly in this matter because he has something to hide.

As one of the targets of this escalation, I need no more convincing proof of the ruthless disposition so far successfully masked by his empty rhetoric of hope and change. Obviously he means to offer hope only to those willing to surrender their most basic rights. To any who insist on questioning his actions, he offers the drastic change of ruin and destruction. So be it. We shall be among those who learn firsthand the meaning of the sacrifices made by the Founders of our free republic, as they pledged and gave up their lives, their fortunes and the world's esteem.

To tell you the truth, I expected Obama's ruthlessness, as I expect that it will escalate until his threats extend to liberty and even life itself. Tyrants are like that (yeah, they are.) What I am not so certain of is the disposition of the people of this country, and in particular of those who still avow allegiance to the Constitutional Republic. For all their posturing in opposition to Obama's socialist schemes, Republican Party leaders show no disposition to notice, much less decry, his determination to subvert the Constitution. But does the self-serving reticence of such so-called leadership truly represent the disposition of the people whose sovereignty they seem so ready to abandon? In politics as in war, real leadership does not consist in titles and position, but in those willing to stand in the forefront of the battle, where taunts and wounds and even death await the ones who raise a rallying flag. The fate of that flag depends, however, not on their willingness to brave the dangers, but on the courage and heart of those who, seeing that flag, return with renewed courage to the fight. Though they know not if it will stand or fall, will they decide that either way it should not meet its fate without them?

People who have been watching recent events with any discernment must realize by now that, for all his talk of material salvation for the masses, the Obama faction really means to strengthen only those willing to serve in the army of their domineering ambition. Thanks to the phony stimulus package, they will soon have billions of taxpayer dollars with which to nourish this servile allegiance to his will. Including myself, many of the people willing to articulate and act against his overthrow of Constitutional liberty have nothing in their coffers except the grace from God to see a little truth, and the courage to speak it, drawing upon the example of His Son. But time and again in America's history, a little truth has been sufficient to reach into the reserve of love for God and liberty on tap in the patriot hearts and consciences of those who would be free.

So to my fellow plaintiffs with the courage to stand firm, and to all those who may lose by the price they pay for it, I say keep faith and pray- not so much for yourselves as for the heart and conscience of the good people of your country. Trust that there still burns a candlelight of liberty within them, and a thought for those who would rather be consumed as its wick than surrender to the wickedness that now seeks its destruction.

http://loyaltoliberty.blogspot.com/2009/02/obama-threatens-keyes-and-other.html

OK State Rep to Reintroduce State Sovereignty Bill

2009-02-01T20:35:00.000-08:00

Submitted by Phil

on Sat, Jan 31, 2009

George Mason University economics professor and one of Rush Limbaugh’s fill-in radio hosts Dr. Walter E. Williams posted a July 16, 2008 article on a State sovereignty bill introduced by State Rep. Charles Key that passed the State House but got stopped in the State Senate during last year’s Legislative session and is slated to be reintroduced during this session:

One of the unappreciated casualties of the War of 1861, erroneously called a Civil War, was its contribution to the erosion of constitutional guarantees of state sovereignty. It settled the issue of secession, making it possible for the federal government to increasingly run roughshod over Ninth and 10th Amendment guarantees. A civil war, by the way, is a struggle where two or more parties try to take over the central government. Confederate President Jefferson Davis no more wanted to take over Washington, D.C., than George Washington wanted to take over London. Both wars are more properly described as wars of independence.

Oklahomans are trying to recover some of their lost state sovereignty by House Joint Resolution 1089, introduced by State Rep. Charles Key.

The resolution’s language, in part, reads:

“Whereas, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: ‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’; and Whereas, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and whereas, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and Whereas, today, in 2008, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government. … Now, therefore, be it resolved by the House of Representatives and the Senate of the 2nd session of the 51st Oklahoma Legislature: that the State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States. That this serve as Notice and Demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.”

Key’s resolution passed in the Oklahoma House of Representatives with a 92 to 3 vote, but it reached a bottleneck in the Senate where it languished until adjournment. However, Key plans to reintroduce the measure when the legislature reconvenes.

Federal usurpation goes beyond anything the Constitution’s framers would have imagined. James Madison, explaining the constitution, in Federalist Paper 45, said, “The powers delegated … to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. … The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.” Thomas Jefferson emphasized that the states are not “subordinate” to the national government, but rather the two are “coordinate departments of one simple and integral whole. … The one is the domestic, the other the foreign branch of the same government.”

Both parties and all branches of the federal government have made a mockery of the checks and balances, separation of powers and the republican form of government envisioned by the founders. One of the more disgusting sights for me to is to watch a president, congressman or federal judge take an oath to uphold and defend the United States Constitution, when in reality they either hold constitutional principles in contempt or they are ignorant of those principles.

State efforts, such as Oklahoma’s, create a glimmer of hope that one day Americans and their elected representatives will realize that the federal government is the creation of the states. A bit of rebellion by officials in other states will speed that process along.

If there ever was a theme promoted by this site, it would be to begin these kinds of initiatives at the State level in the Legislative branch thereof, and go from there.

A current listing of State-based initiatives can be found here.

Source: "OK State Rep to Reintroduce State Sovereignty Bill"

_____________________________________________________

What does this have to do with Obama II's eligibility? A lot. For starters, all of the State Courts, and Secretary's of State who have been passing the buck to the Federal level [while the Federal Courts have been passing it back] have it backwards. The power to challenge a President's eligibility belongs to the people through the States. The Federal government was set up to be an agent of the States. The power really belongs to the States. It's amazing that it has only taken 230 years for the whole foundation of the American system of Government to be forgotten. Time to get back to basics. - Larry

_____________________________________________________

So Far Not A Single Obama II Eligibility Case Has Been Heard On The Merits

2009-01-30T19:46:00.000-08:00

[Dr. Orly Taitz hits a brick wall in Texas State Court, yet finds light at the end of the tunnel.]

January 22, 2009

Texas Judge, Burt Carnes, allowed me to represent Jody Brockhausen against the Secretary of State of TX. He signed my application to represent her Pro Hac Vice (out of state attorney), yet his decision was that he had no jurisdiction to hear the case in the State Court.

He looked like his mind was made up even before the hearing. He asked the Assistant Attorney General how much time she needed. She stated 15-20 minutes. His response was that he only needed 3 minutes. He didn't even ask the plaintiff if she needed any time. When I protested, he was not willing to let me talk.

When I asked him to allow me to represent her pro hac vice, pro bono since I had made an effort of flying and driving from CA all night long, he stated that he didn't sign pro hac vice applications. When I stated that nothing was preventing him from signing it now, he reluctantly agreed.

I stated that the examples given by the Attorney General related to the Federal Courts and issues prior to Obama's election. That to the best of my knowledge, there is nothing in Texas law, or precedents that would prevent a Citizen from having standing to seek verification of the eligibility and legitimacy of the sitting President.

Judge Carnes provided no response, stated that there is no jurisdiction, and told us to go. We certainly did go. We went straight to the U.S. Attorney's office and filed a criminal complaint. My client's civil rights under the 1st, 9th, 10th and 14th amendments had been violated.

If there is no jurisdiction in Federal or State courts, then Citizens have had their civil rights taken away from them de facto, and have been reduced to the level of slaves.

A group of patriots and I had a meeting with Assistant U.S. Attorney, Chris Peele, and the Chief U.S. Attorney for the North-Western District of Texas for Criminal Matters, Richard Durbin. Mr. Durbin agreed to hear the matter and asked for our paperwork. We were shocked to find out how little they knew about the Obama eligibility cases.

Mr. Peele told us that he was under the impression that the case had been heard on the merits. Neither of them had a clue that not one single Obama eligibility case was ever heard on the merits; that not one judicial subpoena was ever issued; and that no one has ever examined Barack Obama's original birth certificate.

We are currently coordinating personal meetings between groups of volunteers and Chief U.S. Attorney's for Criminal Matters in each and every District of the United States. Ken Burr and George Lewis will be in charge of this project.

email: Ken Burr at patriot@tx.rr.com for more information.

by: Orly Taitz, Attorney

http://drorly.blogspot.com/

[as edited by: larrymwalkerjr]

BREAKING NEWS! The Shocking Secrets That Could Destroy Obama's Presidency!

2009-01-24T03:40:00.000-08:00

January 20, 2009

BREAKING NEWS! The Shocking Secrets That Could Destroy Obama's Presidency!

It's the story every American needs to read! Barack Obama is hiding eight shocking secrets that could destroy his presidency before it even gets off the ground, political insiders say. In a blockbuster Special Report, insiders rip the lid off the scandals about where Obama was REALLY born, his sex life, drug abuse and the mysterious past he's hiding from the world. The new President has artfully dodged some of the most serious questions ever posed to a Commander-in-Chief. But top political leaders are demanding answers NOW - and the mounting pressure could trigger a firestorm that will bring down his administration. Don't miss a single word - only in GLOBE!

The comments are definitely leaning in "ursurper" direction. There are a lot of people who believe that he is NOT qualified!

8 Questions experts say the new President MUST answer!

1. Where were you really born?
2. What is your real name?
3. Are you secretly a Muslim?
4. Why did you have your records at Columbia SEALED?
5. Did you travel to trouble-torn Pakistan on an Indonesian passport at the age of 20?
6. Did you cheat on wife Michelle with both a man and a woman?
7. When did you stop using drugs
8. Are you connected to the shooting death of Donald Young?

Berg v. Obama: SCOTUS Denies Stay Application

2009-01-21T18:41:00.000-08:00

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=2990

Berg v. Obama: SCOTUS Denies Stay Application

According to today’s Supreme Court Orders, the second Conference disposition of Berg v. Obama for injunctive relief has been denied:

08A505

BERG, PHILIP J. V. OBAMA, BARACK, ET AL.

(08-570)

The application for stay addressed to Justice Scalia and referred to the Court is denied.

Tomorrow and Friday will bring about events on two additional lawsuits (as I originally covered for this week), Brockhausen v. Andrade and Lightfoot v. Bowen. It should again be noted that Lightfoot will be the first eligibility-based lawsuit reaching the Supreme Court that includes among the Plaintiffs an Electoral College Elector as well as a candidate for the vice presidency. We shall see if this variable is any kind of determining factor that persuades the Justices in any way.

A current listing of eligibility lawsuits can be found here.

Update: Ballot-Access.org also covered this case, though I disagree with their analysis: “Phil Berg has been the nation’s most energetic proponent of the idea that the Courts should examine President Obama’s qualifications.” Rather, I think a commenter there is helping to point the publisher in the right direction:

– next case up (Lightfoot) is this Friday. Standing issue should not be available to provide political cover for SCOTUS.

Keyes v. Obama: Legal Action Filed in CA Federal Court Based on Executive Order

2009-01-19T18:30:00.000-08:00

Mon, Jan 19, 2009

On Friday, January 16, President George W. Bush’s recent Executive Order on reinvestigating individuals at the federal level. According to RovingPatrol blog, this Order could be another way to approach the President-Elect’s many legal issues. It is also thought that OK State Rep. Mike Ritze may be pushing some things at the State level.

The best part? Activist, agitator of the elites, dentist and attorney Dr. Orly Taitz has today filed suit in the Federal Court of the Central District of California for a writ of Mandamus, declaratory Relief and Injunctive Relief on the issue of the President-Elect’s eligibility for the presidency.

Here’s the presser:

For immediate release01.19.09.

Based on the executive order issued by President George w. Bush on the 01.16.09., a legal action is being filed in the Federal Court in the Central District of California. The executive order provides for Reciprocity and Reinvestigation of Individuals in positions of public trust. Section 2 (e), provides for investigation of required level of character and conduct.

On behalf of Ambassador Dr. Alan Keyes, Wiley S. Drake and Markham Robinson attorney Orly Taitz has filed a legal action for a writ of Mandamus, declaratory Relief and Injunctive Relief on the issue of legitimacy for presidency of Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Obama aka Barry Soetoro and directing Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, Director of FBI Robert Mueller, and director of Personnel Michael Hager to provide all necessary documentation in regards to Mr. Obama’s (Soetoro’s) legitimacy for presidency and US citizenship.

Dr. Orly Taitz Esq

The complete case - Click Here

Source: The Right Side of Life

Audio: Obama Inauguration Questions

2009-01-18T16:04:00.000-08:00

01/18/09

A7 Radio's "Weekend Edition" with Tamar Yonah

Listen Now!

Tamar speaks with Phil Berg and gets an update on the Obama birth certificate issue. Will a man who may not be eligible to be president, be inaugurated nonetheless?

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Radio/News.aspx/535

PRESS RELEASE: Status of court cases filed challenging Obama's qualifications

2009-01-16T04:14:00.000-08:00

For Immediate Release: - 01/15/2009

For Further Information Contact:
Philip J. Berg, Esquire
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531

Cell (610) 662-3005
(610) 825-3134
(800) 993-PHIL [7445]
Fax (610) 834-7659
philjberg@obamacrimes.com

Berg is ‘outraged’ at Congress as they failed the citizens of the United States by ‘not’ challenging Obama during the Electoral Vote on January 8, 2009 and Demands that Congressional Hearings be held regarding the ‘qualifications’ of Obama as we are headed for a ‘Constitutional Crisis’ by having an ‘ineligible’ President

Lafayette Hill, PA – 01/15/09) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of "qualifications" to serve as President of the United States and his case, Berg vs. Obama, in the U.S. Supreme Court is still pending regarding an Application for an Injunction, announced today that he wrote a letter to ‘each’ Member of Congress requesting they call for Congressional Hearings regarding Obama’s lack of qualifications for President due to their failure to question Obama during the Joint Session of Congress for the counting of the Electoral Votes.

[A copy of the letter to Congress is at the end of this Release]

Berg said, "I am disappointed for the 300+ million U.S. citizens, our ‘Forefathers’ and for the tens of thousands that have died defending ‘our’ Constitution regarding the recent denial by the U.S. Supreme Court.

I am committed to keeping our efforts going to continue litigation until the truth of Obama being ‘not qualified’ for President comes out. The Obama candidacy is the biggest ‘HOAX’ ever put forth to the citizens of the United States in 230 years.

In addition to the current case in the U.S. Supreme Court, we have or will have:

1. A case filed two [2] months ago captioned Berg vs. Obama, said case ‘under seal’ so I cannot comment further;

2. The case of Hollister vs. Barry Soetoro a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama, filed 12/31/08 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 08-02254; said case being an ‘Interpleader’ case with the Plaintiff, a retired Colonel from the U.S. Air Force, who is questioning whether to obey or disobey an order if Obama recalls him, based upon whether or not Obama is a ‘qualified’ President;

3. The case that was denied in the U.S. Supreme Court is still pending in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Berg vs. Obama, with our Brief due by January 20, 2009; and

4. If Obama is sworn in as President, we will file a Petition for Writ of ‘Quo Warranto,’ a case that will challenge Obama as being ineligible to serve as President because he is ‘not qualified.’

Berg states ‘if Soetoro a/k/a Obama is sworn in’ because Obama knows he is ‘not qualified’ and he should hold a Press Conference and Obama should state that I, as a black American, received more votes than anyone else on November 4, 2008 for President and on January 8, 2009 the Joint Session of Congress counted the Electoral College votes and announced that I am President-elect, but because of things in my background, I cannot be sworn in as President. However, Obama is not man enough to state the above!

More and more people are aware of the fact that Obama does not meet the constitutional ‘qualifications’ for President. When the truth finally comes out, individuals including Barack Hussein Obama, Michelle Obama, Howard Dean [Chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC)], other top officials of the DNC, senior campaign staff and some of his new administration should be brought into the criminal justice system, indicted and tried with incarceration for those convicted.

Berg continued, "Obama is setting himself up to be blackmailed and perhaps he is already being blackmailed. He was the candidate for ‘change,’ but look at his cabinet – 70% from President Clinton’s days and how about his Secretary of Defense, Gates. Give me a break!

There is nothing more important than ‘our’ U.S. Constitution and we will fight on!"

Accordingly, I wrote the Members of Congress requesting immediate hearings. The letter I sent follows:

555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531

January 15, 2009

Dear Member of Congress:

It is your duty, as a duly elected representative of the American people; to regain the respect you have lost by your inaction in not vetting Soetoro a/k/a Obama, by calling for a Congressional Hearing ASAP to determine the truth regarding qualifications of Barry Soetoro, otherwise known as Barack Hussein Obama, to be President of the United States.

My, my, you and the other Members of Congress just showed your true character, that being, no guts, no backbone and only interested in getting re-elected.

I refer to each of you in your lack of action regarding the now President-elect Soetoro/Obama.

As you must be aware, there are many unresolved questions concerning Soetoro/Obama’s status or lack thereof, as a ‘natural born’ American citizen, as required by ‘our’ U.S. Constitution.

On January 8, 2009, you failed your constituencies, your voters, the citizens in your district, as well as all citizens in our nation. Yes, you failed all of us, the ‘We the People,’ yes, the words that begin our U.S. Constitution. Federal Law, 3 U.S.C. 15 provides a method to challenge the counting of the electoral votes in the Joint Session of Congress. If only one [1] Member of the House and one [1] Member of the Senate announced in writing that they were objecting to the Electorial Vote in any/every state, the counting of the votes would stop and the Joint Session would cease until the House and Senate meet, discussed and voted on each States Electorial Votes.

Because of your failure to ‘question’ the eligibility of Soetoro/Obama, we are headed for a ‘Constitutional Crisis.’ Yes, a ‘Constitutional Crisis’ because Soetoro/Obama who appears not to be a ‘natural born’ U.S. citizen is ‘ineligible’ under ‘our’ U.S. Constitution to serve as President.

Soetoro/Obama, being ‘ineligible/unqualified’ due to his lack of being ‘natutal born’ means that Obama will be ‘usurping’ the powers of the Office of President of the United States. It will result in every, yes every law that Soetoro/Obama signs, every appointment to an Ambassador or Judgeship, all will be invalid. Soetoro/Obama is setting himself up to be blackmailed, both internally and externally.

There are millions of Americans who believe that Soetoro/Obama does not meet the 3rd qualification pursuant to ‘our’ U.S Constitution, that being ‘natural born.’ Soetoro/Obama satisfies the 1st two [2], that being at least thirty-five [35] years of age and lived in the United States for fourteen [14] years.

The document that Soetoro/Obama’s people keep pushing on the American public is a fraudulent ‘Certification of Live Birth’ and not a ‘Birth Certificate.’ And significant is the fact that in an attempt to quash the rumors that Soetoro/Obama was not ‘natural born,’ in the Soetoro/Obama campaign web site ‘fightthesmears.com’ in June 2008, they put up this fraudulent ‘Certification of Live Birth’ indicating Soetoro/Obama was born in Hawaii. The fact that Soetoro/Obama has never released his ‘Birth Certificate’ is a very strong indication that he was not born in Hawaii.

There is evidence that:

1. Soetoro/Obama was born in Kenya and because of his mother’s age, he was only naturalized.’

2. Soetoro/Obama was adopted in Indonesia and his legal name became and probably still is ‘Barry Soetoro.’

3. Obama, otherwise known as ‘Barry Soetoro’ became a ‘natural’ citizen of Indonesia.

4. At age ten [10] Obama returned to Hawaii from Indonesia and:

a. If Soetoro/Obama went through U.S. Immigration he would have been given a ’Certification of Citizenship’ indicating he was ‘naturalized.’

b. If, and it is believed that Soetoro/Obama, or rather Barry Soetoro, did not go through U.S. Immigration, then he is an ‘illegal alien’ – not only not qualified/eligible to be Preseident, but also ineligible to have been a U.S. Senator from Illinois.

5. Soetoro/Obama traveled to Pakistan in 1981 when he was twenty [20] years old on his Indonesia Passport:

a. If Soetoro/Obama was a U.S. citizen in 1981, he did an ‘overt’ act against the U.S. by travelling to a nation, Pakistan that was restricted as Pakistan was a non-travel nation.

Without truthful information concerning Soetoro/Obama’s eligibility to serve as President, ‘We the People’ have been injured. Our fundamental right to cast an informed vote for an eligible Democratic Presidential candidate has been violated. Further, our First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association have been violated because we have been robbed of the opportunity to cast our objections through our Representatives to the counting of the Electoral Votes.

To redeem yourself, I implore you to call with your Congressional colleagues for a Congressional Hearing and ask the questions that you failed to do regarding President-elect Soetoro/Obama, even after he tries to hide behind the Office of the Presidency, to resolve the issue without question of the citizenship status and qualifications as set forth in ‘our’ U.S. Constitution. Such a procedure has and is occurring regarding the proposed members of the Cabinet.

Thank you.

Respectfully,

Philip J. Berg PJB:jb * * ** * * For copies of all Press Releases and Court Pleadings, go to obamacrimes.com