Scott W. Johnson of Powerline Blog offers a convincing analysis of the numerous parallels between Barack Obama and Keith Ellison, the Congressman from the Minneapolis area. Johnson writes:
>Both Ellison and Obama attended Louis Farrakhan's 1995 Million Man March. In Ellison's case, attendance came in the heyday of his involvement with the Nation of Islam. For Obama, attendance appears to have been an act of racial solidarity. In Obama's eyes, Farrakhan himself was retrograde...
>Obama nevertheless found the functional equivalent of Farrakhan in Jeremiah Wright. Wright had no such reservations regarding Farrakhan. He has an enduring relationship with Farrakhan that goes back at least as far as their joint trip to visit Col. Gadaffi in 1984. In casting his lot with Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ, Obama found the useful Christian analogue of the Nation of Islam.
>Ellison abandoned his affiliation with the Nation of Islam after he unsuccessfully sought the Democratic endorsement for a state legislative seat as a self-identified member of the Nation of Islam running under the name Keith Ellison-Muhammad in 1998. In 2002, as a Muslim, Ellison won the Democratic endorsement for the legislative seat minus the -Muhammad. This year, after avowing his allegiance to Wright in a celebrated speech, Obama famously cast aside Wright and Trinity United Church under pressure late in the primary season.
>In seeking their respective nominations, both Ellison and Obama found support among Hamas and friends. The Hamas-related support for Ellison and Obama is indicative of the melding of the left with Islamist forces at home and abroad. It is an alliance that Ellison embodies.
Read the whole thing here.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Obama Campaign Enraged Over Wright Ad
I just received the following from Scott Wheeler. Note the Obama campaign's continuing suppression of opposition speech.
We have now raised over $8 million in our final emergency effort to stop Barack Obama.
I can tell you that the Obama campaign is absolutely enraged by our activities and our new ad reminding voters of the close relationship between Rev. Wright and Obama.
Two of the major TV networks have temporarily suspended our ad because of complaints by the Obama campaign. They have complained about the pictures used in the ad depicting Obama and Rev. Wright.
Our legal team is fighting back. We expect to be back on the air!
Other pro-Obama supporters are claiming Obama was not really that close to Rev. Wright and that we are exaggerating the relationship.
The facts: Obama has stated that he was converted to Christianity by the Rev. Wright in his late 20s. Previous to that, as a child Obama had been raised by his stepfather as a Muslim.
Obama has described the Rev. Wright as a mentor, friend and advisor. His description, not ours.
Obama stated he could not reject Rev. Wright any more than he could reject the Black Church.
Again, his words, not ours.
All of Obama's attacks indicates this ad is having a powerful effect.
We are planning a final, major effort Monday night on television in key swing states and on Tuesday morning.
Anything you can contribute today will help our important cause.
Time is absolutely critical. Help us defeat Obama — Go Here Now.
Thank you.
We have now raised over $8 million in our final emergency effort to stop Barack Obama.
I can tell you that the Obama campaign is absolutely enraged by our activities and our new ad reminding voters of the close relationship between Rev. Wright and Obama.
Two of the major TV networks have temporarily suspended our ad because of complaints by the Obama campaign. They have complained about the pictures used in the ad depicting Obama and Rev. Wright.
Our legal team is fighting back. We expect to be back on the air!
Other pro-Obama supporters are claiming Obama was not really that close to Rev. Wright and that we are exaggerating the relationship.
The facts: Obama has stated that he was converted to Christianity by the Rev. Wright in his late 20s. Previous to that, as a child Obama had been raised by his stepfather as a Muslim.
Obama has described the Rev. Wright as a mentor, friend and advisor. His description, not ours.
Obama stated he could not reject Rev. Wright any more than he could reject the Black Church.
Again, his words, not ours.
All of Obama's attacks indicates this ad is having a powerful effect.
We are planning a final, major effort Monday night on television in key swing states and on Tuesday morning.
Anything you can contribute today will help our important cause.
Time is absolutely critical. Help us defeat Obama — Go Here Now.
Thank you.
NYC Gives 8% Raise to Municipal Union
At the height of a so-called "financial meltdown" when New York City depends for 20% of its tax revenue on Wall Street, Sharad Karkhanis sent me Kathleen Lucadamo's and Lis Colangleo's Daily News article:
"Members the city's largest municipal union will receive more than 8% in salary increases as part of a new two-year contract, the Daily News has learned."
Other city unions such as the correction officers, will also receive 8% through 2011.
"Members the city's largest municipal union will receive more than 8% in salary increases as part of a new two-year contract, the Daily News has learned."
Other city unions such as the correction officers, will also receive 8% through 2011.
Christian Anti-Defamation League on Obama
Nancy Razik has sent me this link to the Website of the Christian "Anti-Defamation Commission".
>Challenges Obama Christianity Claims
Christian Group Reviews Obama History, Writings, and Interviews
To Expose Presidential Candidate’s Disingenuous Religious Proclamations
Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate for president of the United States, has repeatedly claimed to be a Christian, but there is more evidence disputing that declaration than affirming it according to Dr. Gary Cass, Chairman and CEO of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission.
Dr. Cass observes, “From his speeches and his writings, even his personal history—despite protestations to the contrary—it appears that Obama’s ‘Christianity’ is carefully constructed to appease traditional American voters.”
Read the whole thing here.
>Challenges Obama Christianity Claims
Christian Group Reviews Obama History, Writings, and Interviews
To Expose Presidential Candidate’s Disingenuous Religious Proclamations
Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate for president of the United States, has repeatedly claimed to be a Christian, but there is more evidence disputing that declaration than affirming it according to Dr. Gary Cass, Chairman and CEO of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission.
Dr. Cass observes, “From his speeches and his writings, even his personal history—despite protestations to the contrary—it appears that Obama’s ‘Christianity’ is carefully constructed to appease traditional American voters.”
Read the whole thing here.
Mark Steyn's Jewish Thing
>This may be a Jewish thing but... [Mark Steyn of NRO h/t Larwyn]
>So writes a Democrat for McCain, who notes that the Obots recommend memorializing your service to the cause by getting numbers tattooed on your forearm. As Mr Warsch adds:
>No wisdom, no memory, no historical perspective.
God save us from these people.
>Ignorance is O-bliss.
>So writes a Democrat for McCain, who notes that the Obots recommend memorializing your service to the cause by getting numbers tattooed on your forearm. As Mr Warsch adds:
>No wisdom, no memory, no historical perspective.
God save us from these people.
>Ignorance is O-bliss.
All Republicans Should Go On Welfare and Bring Social Democracy Down
Part of the reason America has pursued the path of redistribution, socialization and monetary inflation over the past century is that hard working people have been willing to allow themselves to be exploited. There is a distinction between achievement and security. Two psychologists, David McClelland and Abraham Maslow talk about these needs. Achievement is targeting a standard of excellence and security means being free from anxiety. Americans have a strong need for achievement and for security, and these often transcend the need for money.
Redistribution from achievement in the interest of security means that the individual who focuses on achievement becomes a fool, a sucker. He is willing to work hard but allow the fruit from his hard work to be stolen from him and redistributed to others who are disinterested in hard work. This is true in the corporate system, which emphasizes teamwork and interpersonal skills, the indulgence of power needs and kowtowing, at the expense of innovation and achievement. It is also true across the economy, where unproductive teachers and academics, quack medical researchers, lawyers who destroy rather than produce wealth and investment bankers who speculate are rewarded and those who till, produce and innovate are taxed in order to subsidize the special interests.
There has likely been a destruction of innovation since the New Deal and Great Society. It is impossible to know how much innovation there would have been had there not been increased taxation, inflation and regulation in the twentieth century. At the same time, security needs were frustrated in a laissez faire economy. The game plan of the social democrats has been to provide two cents to the poor to enhance the psychology of security, and then transfer 98 cents to special interests and the educated elite who produce little and have become the chief beneficiaries of the state.
In the 19th century there were considerable fluctuations in prices and in the late 19th century a long deflation due to productive innovation. This created insecurity. But there was a link between the explosion of innovation and the price deflation. Through inflation, non-innovative investments are subsidized. In turn, there is an incentive to turn from engineering and innovation to investment banking and law. Innovation slows but income inequality increases as inflation erodes wages and capital is diverted into the hands of Wall Street and hedge funds. When the speculators fail, the entire system, Democratic and Republican, lurches up to advocate further direct subsidies to the unproductive interests. Faux cries of deflation energize demands for ever greater money creation placed into the hands of Wall Street. Thus, the Progressive state enhances an illusion of safety at the expense of achievement.
What sustains this exploitation of achievement are the achievers themselves, who are willing to work despite the harrassment that they receive from inflation, taxation and regulation.
In the 1950s in Atlas Shrugged Ayn Rand postulated a situtation where the most productive Americans simply drop out. Hard working people should begin to consider giving up hard work. Hard workers are fools under a socialist economy. It is time for those who work to consider putting their dollars into Euros and gold and simply retiring. If millions of Republicans go on welfare, then the system will collapse. Then, achievers can begin building a new America from scratch.
Redistribution from achievement in the interest of security means that the individual who focuses on achievement becomes a fool, a sucker. He is willing to work hard but allow the fruit from his hard work to be stolen from him and redistributed to others who are disinterested in hard work. This is true in the corporate system, which emphasizes teamwork and interpersonal skills, the indulgence of power needs and kowtowing, at the expense of innovation and achievement. It is also true across the economy, where unproductive teachers and academics, quack medical researchers, lawyers who destroy rather than produce wealth and investment bankers who speculate are rewarded and those who till, produce and innovate are taxed in order to subsidize the special interests.
There has likely been a destruction of innovation since the New Deal and Great Society. It is impossible to know how much innovation there would have been had there not been increased taxation, inflation and regulation in the twentieth century. At the same time, security needs were frustrated in a laissez faire economy. The game plan of the social democrats has been to provide two cents to the poor to enhance the psychology of security, and then transfer 98 cents to special interests and the educated elite who produce little and have become the chief beneficiaries of the state.
In the 19th century there were considerable fluctuations in prices and in the late 19th century a long deflation due to productive innovation. This created insecurity. But there was a link between the explosion of innovation and the price deflation. Through inflation, non-innovative investments are subsidized. In turn, there is an incentive to turn from engineering and innovation to investment banking and law. Innovation slows but income inequality increases as inflation erodes wages and capital is diverted into the hands of Wall Street and hedge funds. When the speculators fail, the entire system, Democratic and Republican, lurches up to advocate further direct subsidies to the unproductive interests. Faux cries of deflation energize demands for ever greater money creation placed into the hands of Wall Street. Thus, the Progressive state enhances an illusion of safety at the expense of achievement.
What sustains this exploitation of achievement are the achievers themselves, who are willing to work despite the harrassment that they receive from inflation, taxation and regulation.
In the 1950s in Atlas Shrugged Ayn Rand postulated a situtation where the most productive Americans simply drop out. Hard working people should begin to consider giving up hard work. Hard workers are fools under a socialist economy. It is time for those who work to consider putting their dollars into Euros and gold and simply retiring. If millions of Republicans go on welfare, then the system will collapse. Then, achievers can begin building a new America from scratch.
Judge Tosses Ohio Law Suits--Hawaii Rules Barack Born There
According to SeattlePI.com the State of Hawaii officials state that Barack Obama was born there. As well, Ohio's Warren County Magistrate Andrew Hasselbach has tossed David Neal's law suit. Similar suits have been tossed in Seattle (Steve Marquis) and Philadelphia (Phil Berg). The article does not say who the Hawaiian officials who made this ruling are or or whether they are willing to reveal the father's name on the vault copy birth certificate. Andy Martin has claimed that the father is Franklin Marshall Davis and that there would likely be "unknown" next to the father's name. Senator Obama has been claiming that his true father is Barack Obama, Sr.
Department Of Energy Is the Funniest Joke Ever
A good illustration of the failure of big government solutions is the Department of Energy. I received the following e-mail from Contrairimairi. Two questions that leap to mind: (1) Why do we still have a Department of Energy 28 years after the election of Ronald Reagen and (2) Might this perpetuation of Progressive approaches under successive Republican administrations have something to do with the Republicans' current political fortunes?
Absolutely The Funniest Joke Ever ! ON US
Does anybody out there have any memory of the reason given
For the establishment of the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY during
The Carter Administration? Anybody? Anything? No?
Didn't think so.
Bottom line . . We've spent several hundred billion
Dollars in support of an agency the reason for which not
One person who reads this can remember.
Ready? It was very simple, and at the time everybody
Thought it very appropriate.
The Department of Energy was instituted 8-04-1977 TO
'LESSEN OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL'.
HEY, PRETTY EFFICIENT,.......HUH?
AND NOW IT'S 2008, 31 YEARS LATER, AND THE BUDGET FOR
THIS NECESSARY DEPARTMENT IS AT $24.2 BILLION A YEAR, THEY
HAVE 16,000 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, AND APPROXIMATELY 100,000
CONTRACT EMPLOYEES AND LOOK AT THE JOB THEY HAVE DONE!
THIS IS WHERE YOU SLAP YOUR FOREHEAD AND SAY:
'WHAT WAS I THINKING?'
Ah yes, good ole bureaucracy. And now we are going to turn
The Banking system over to them?.............. 'God Help us'.
Absolutely The Funniest Joke Ever ! ON US
Does anybody out there have any memory of the reason given
For the establishment of the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY during
The Carter Administration? Anybody? Anything? No?
Didn't think so.
Bottom line . . We've spent several hundred billion
Dollars in support of an agency the reason for which not
One person who reads this can remember.
Ready? It was very simple, and at the time everybody
Thought it very appropriate.
The Department of Energy was instituted 8-04-1977 TO
'LESSEN OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL'.
HEY, PRETTY EFFICIENT,.......HUH?
AND NOW IT'S 2008, 31 YEARS LATER, AND THE BUDGET FOR
THIS NECESSARY DEPARTMENT IS AT $24.2 BILLION A YEAR, THEY
HAVE 16,000 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, AND APPROXIMATELY 100,000
CONTRACT EMPLOYEES AND LOOK AT THE JOB THEY HAVE DONE!
THIS IS WHERE YOU SLAP YOUR FOREHEAD AND SAY:
'WHAT WAS I THINKING?'
Ah yes, good ole bureaucracy. And now we are going to turn
The Banking system over to them?.............. 'God Help us'.
Enforcement of Election Fraud and the Birth Certificate
Might it pay to write a letter to the Department of Justice?
Ms. J. Kulig just sent me an e-mail concerning enforcement of election fraud laws. Apparently, the Department of Justice Criminal Division's Public Integrity Unit has the power and authority to investigate election fraud. Falsification of eligibility documentation by a candidate may fall under one or more of the causes of action that the DOJ's manual describes. For instance, "conspiracy to cause illegal voting". It would seem possible that the DOJ is responsible to at least investigate Pamela Geller's and others' accusations that Senator Obama was not born in Hawaii.
Kulig concludes by asking:
I would be interested in finding out why no lawsuits have been filed against the DOJ or if any contacts have been made to the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section to ask for clarification and/or action on any of these issues/offences.
Kulig quotes the DOJ-PIS manual and asks "Who's job is it to check presidential eligibility when the states, the FEC and the judiciary fail in their duty?"
She argues:
"Congress has already granted authority to the DOJ to look into and resolve matters that may take away someone's opportunity to vote for an 'eligible' candidate of their choice or to verify that there is no corruption, conspiracy, misinformation or other irregularities that may taint an election, whether proven or not.
"Election fraud involves a substantive irregularity relating to the voting act which has the potential to taint the election itself. activity intended to interfere corruptly with any of the principles indicated below may be actionable as a federal crime:
1. All qualified voters have the right to have their votes counted fairly and honestly. (a vote for a usurper is not a vote. In fact, voting for a usurper may be treason and/or a criminal offence.)
2. Invalid ballots dilute the worth of valid ballots, and therefore will not be counted. (ballets that do not have the name of an eligible candidate are invalid.)
Simply put, then, election fraud is conduct intended to corrupt. For example:
• The process by which ballots are obtained, marked, or tabulated.
• The process by which election results are canvassed and certified. (invalid ballets/votes for a usurper can not be certified as valid ballots or votes)
>Q, WHO's JOB IS IT TO CHECK PRESIDENTAL ELIGIBLITY WHEN THE STATES, THE FEC AND JUDICIARY FAIL IN THEIR DUTY?
>A. Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section/DOJ
The following information is taken form the DOJ manual on prosecuting Election fraud. It appears that ultimately, it is the DOJ's Criminal Division's Public Integrity has the authority to step in and sort out this mess...The federal government asserts jurisdiction over an election offense to ensure that basic rights of United States citizenship, and a fundamental process of representative democracy, remain uncorrupted...the federal interest is based on the presence of a federal candidate, whose election may be tainted, or appear tainted, by the fraud, a potential effect that Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate under Article I, Section 2, clause 1; Article I, Section 4, clause 1; Article II, Section 1, clause 2; and the Seventeenth Amendment.
>In 2002, the Department of Justice established a Ballot Access and Voting Integrity Initiative to spearhead its increased efforts to address election crimes and voting rights violations. Under the ongoing Initiative, election crimes are a high law enforcement priority of the Department.
>The Constitution confers upon the states primary authority over the election process. Accordingly, federal law does not directly address how elections should be conducted. However, local law enforcement often is not equipped to prosecute election offenses. Federal law enforcement might be the only enforcement
option available.
>The federal prosecutor’s role in matters involving corruption of the process by which elections are conducted, on the other hand, focuses on prosecuting individuals who commit federal crimes in connection with an election. (This DOES NOT mean that preventative measures have never be taken by the DOJ, they have!)
>Determining whether an election fraud allegation warrants federal criminal investigation and possible prosecution requires that federal prosecutors and investigators answer two basic questions.
(1) Is criminal prosecution the appropriate remedy for the allegations and facts presented? Criminal prosecution is most appropriate when the facts demonstrate that the defendant’s objective was to corrupt the process by which voters were registered, or by which ballots were obtained, cast, or counted.
(2) Is there potential federal jurisdiction over the conduct? Answering this question requires determining whether the conduct is cognizable under the federal criminal statutes that apply to election crimes. These generally allow for the prosecution of corrupt acts that occur in elections when the name of a federal candidate appears on the ballot, that are committed “under color of law,” that involve voting by non-citizens, that focus on registering to vote, and when the election fraud is part of a larger public corruption problem reachable using general anti-corruption statutes, such as 18 U.S.C. §§ 666, 1341, 1346, 1951, and 1952.
Justice Department supervision over the enforcement of all criminal statutes and prosecutive theories involving corruption of the election process, criminal patronage violations, and campaign financing crimes is delegated to the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section. This Headquarters’ consultation policy is set forth in the U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE, U.S. ATTORNEYS’ MANUAL (USAM), Section 9-85.210.
The Public Integrity Section and its Election Crimes Branch are available to assist United States Attorneys’ Offices and FBI field offices in handling election crime matters. This assistance includes evaluating election crime allegations, structuring investigations, and drafting indictments and other pleadings. The Election Crimes Branch also serves as the point of contact between the Department of Justice and the FEC, which share enforcement jurisdiction over federal campaign financing violations.
A Historic background regarding the election process details many early Enforcement Acts that were put in place to ensure that elections were free from corruption for the general public. Many of the Enforcement Acts had broad jurisdictional predicates that allowed them to be applied to a wide variety of corrupt election practices when a federal candidate was on the ballot. In Coy, the Supreme Court held that Congress had authority under the Constitution’s Necessary and Proper Clause to regulate any activity during a mixed federal/state election that exposed the federal election to potential harm, whether that harm materialized or not. Coy is still applicable law. United States v. Carmichael, 685 F.2d 903, 908 (4th Cir. 1982); United States v. Mason, 673 F.2d 737, 739 (4th Cir.1982); United States v. Malmay, 671 F.2d 869, 874-75 (5th Cir. 1982); United States v. Bowman, 636 F.2d 1003, 1010 (5th Cir.1981).
After Reconstruction, federal activism in election matters subsided. The repeal of most of the Enforcement Acts in 1894 eliminated the statutory tools that had encouraged federal activism in election fraud matters. Two surviving provisions of these Acts, now embodied in 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242, covered only intentional deprivations of rights guaranteed directly by the Constitution or federal law. The courts during this period held that the Constitution directly conferred a right to vote only for federal officers, and that conduct aimed at corrupting nonfederal contests was not prosecutable in federal courts. See United States v. Gradwell, 243 U.S. 476 (1917); Guinn v. United States, 238 U.S. 347 (1915). Federal attention to election fraud was further limited by case law holding that primary elections were not part of the official election process, Newberry v. United States, 256 U.S. 232 (1918), and by cases like United States v. Bathgate, 246 U.S. 220 (1918), which read the entire subject of vote buying out of federal criminal law, even when it was directed at federal contests.
In 1941, the Supreme Court reversed direction, overturning Newberry. The Court recognized that primary elections are an integral part of the process by which candidates are elected to office.United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941). Classic changed the judicial attitude toward federal intervention in election matters and ushered in a new period of federal activism. Federal courts now regard the right to vote in a fairly conducted election as a constitutionally protected feature of United States citizenship. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964). In 1973, the use of Section 241 to address election fraud began to expand. See, e.g., United States v. Anderson, 481 F.2d 685 (4th Cir. 1973), aff’d on other grounds, 417 U.S. 211 (1974). Since then, this statute has been successfully applied to prosecute certain types of local election fraud. United States v. Wadena, 152 F.3d 831 (8th Cir. 1998); United States v. Howard, 774 F.2d 838 (7th Cir.1985); United States v. Olinger, 759 F.2d 1293 (7th Cir. 1985); United States v. Stollings, 501 F.2d 954 (4th Cir. 1974).
Over the past forty years Congress has enacted new criminal laws with broad jurisdictional bases to combat false voter registrations, vote buying, multiple voting, and fraudulent voting in elections in which a federal candidate is on the ballot. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973i(c), 1973i(e), 1973gg-10. These statutes rest on Congress’s power to regulate federal elections (U.S. CONST. art. I, § 4) and on its power under the Necessary and Proper Clause (U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 18) to enact laws to protect the federal election process from the potential of corruption. The federal jurisdictional predicate underlying these statutes is satisfied as long as either the name of a federal candidate is on the ballot or the fraud involves corruption of the voter registration process in a state where one registers to vote simultaneously for federal as well as other offices. United States v. Slone, 411 F.3d 643 (6th Cir. 2005); United States v. McCranie, 169 F.3d 723 (11th Cir. 1999); United States v. Howard, 774 F.2d 838 (7th Cir. 1985); United States v. Olinger, 759 F.2d 1293 (7th Cir. 1985); United States v. Garcia, 719 F.2d 99 (5th Cir. 1983); United States v. Mason, 673 F.2d 737 (4th Cir. 1982); United States v. Malmay, 671 F.2d 869 (5th Cir. 1982); United States v. Bowman, 636 F2d 1003 (5th Cir. 1981); United States v. Barker, 514 F.2d 1077 (7th Cir. 1975); United States v. Cianciulli, 482 F. Supp. 585 (E.D. Pa. 1979).
(As we can see, although election laws may have changed and evolved over the years, Congress has already granted authority to the DOJ to look into and resolve matters that may take away someone's opportunity to vote for an "eligible" candidate of their choice or to verify that there is no corruption, conspiracy, misinformation or other irregularities that may taint an election, whether proven or not.)
Election fraud involves a substantive irregularity relating to the voting act which has the potential to taint the election itself. activity intended to interfere corruptly with any of the principles indicated below may be actionable as a federal crime:
1 All qualified voters have the right to have their votes counted fairly and honestly. (a vote for a usurper is not a vote. In fact, voting for a usurper may be treason and/or a criminal offence.)
2. Invalid ballots dilute the worth of valid ballots, and therefore will not be counted. (ballets that do not have the name of an eligible candidate are invalid.)
Simply put, then, election fraud is conduct intended to corrupt. For example:
• The process by which ballots are obtained, marked, or tabulated.
• The process by which election results are canvassed and certified. (invalid ballets/votes for a usurper can not be certified as valid ballots or votes)
The following is a basis for federal prosecution under the statutes referenced in each category:
• Conspiring to prevent voters from participating in elections in which a federal candidate is on the ballot,or when done “under color of law” in any election, federal or nonfederal (18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242).
(Tricking voters into thinking that an eligible candidate is on the ballot is a conspiracy to defraud)
In the Conspiracy Against Rights. 18 U.S.C. § 241, Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to “conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States” under color of law. The Supreme Court long ago recognized that the right to vote for federal offices is among the rights secured by Article I, Sections 2 and 4, of the Constitution, and hence is protected by Section 241. United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941); Ex parte Yarborough, 110 U.S. 651 (1884). (Remember, a vote for a usurper is NOT a vote! A citizen can not exercise his/her voting right, if there is no equalized candidate to vote for in the same way as a citizen can not sell you his/her neighbor's car if he/she does not hold the title to the car. Therefore, the DOJ has an obligation to make certain before a federal election that a presidential candidacies is eligible to hold office.)
Section 241 has been an important statutory tool in election crime prosecutions. Originally held to apply only to schemes to corrupt elections for federal office. Section 241 embraces conspiracies such as to injure, threaten, or intimidate a voter in the exercise of his right to vote, Wilkins v.United States, 376 F.2d 552 (5th Cir. 1967); Fields v. United States, 228 F.2d 544 (4th Cir. 1955). Section 241 does not require that the conspiracy be successful, United States v. Bradberry, 517 F.2d 498 (7th Cir. 1975), nor need there be proof of an overt act. Section 241 reaches conduct affecting the integrity of the federal election process as a whole, and does not require fraudulent action with respect to any particular voter. United States v. Nathan, 238 F.2d 401 (7th Cir. 1956). (Notice section 241 embraces conspiraces intended to injure. In this case, an injury does NOT even need to occur, nor does anyone have to have conclusive proof of an overt act. In the case of Obama, only the question has to be raised that he "may not" meet the "eligiblity" requirements to become fairly and rightfully elected to the office of POTUS.)
In election fraud cases, this public official is usually an election officer using his office to dilute valid ballots with invalid ballots or to otherwise corrupt an honest vote tally in derogation of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g., United States v. Haynes, 977 F.2d 583 (6th Cir. 1992) (table) (available at 1992 WL 296782); United States v. Townsley, 843 F.2d 1070 (8th Cir. 1988); United States v. Howard, 774 F.2d 838 (7th Cir. 1985); United States v. Olinger, 759 F.2d 1293 (7th Cir. 1985); United States v. Stollings, 501 F.2d 954 (4th Cir. 1974); United States v. Anderson, 481 F.2d 685 (4th Cir. 1973), aff’d on other grounds, 417 U.S. 211 (1974). (In failing to fulfill his/her fiduciary duties, our Secr. of State and Federal Election Commission officials who allow "invalid" candidates to be placed on ballots corrupts an honest vote and violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clause of the Fourteeth Amerdment.)
Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law18 U.S.C. § 242. Section 242, also enacted as a post-Civil War statute, makes it unlawful for anyone acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive a person of any right, privilege, or immunity secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Prosecutions under Section 242 need not show the existence of a conspiracy. However, the defendants must have acted illegally “under color of law,” i.e., the case must involve a public scheme, as discussed above. This element does not require that the defendant be a de jure officer or a government official; it is sufficient if he or she jointly acted with state agents in committing the offense, United States v. Price, 383 U.S. 787 (1966), or if his or her actions were made possible by the fact that they were clothed with the authority of state law, Williams v. United States, 341 U.S. 97 (1951); United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941). (This law would make it a CRIME for ANYONE who knowing acted in concert with Obama to cover up his scheme to defraud the American people, by posing as an "eligible" candidate."
False Information in, and Payments for, Registering and Voting. 42 U.S.C. § 1973i(c) Section 1973i(c) makes it unlawful, in an election in which a federal candidate is on the ballot, to knowingly and willfully conspire with another person to vote illegally. Congress added Section 1973i(c) to the 1965 Voting Rights Act to ensure the integrity of the balloting process in the context of an expanded franchise. In so doing, Congress intended that Section 1973i(c) have a broad reach. (If Obama or his co-conspirators knowingly registered voters by because he promised Change and Hope, knowing full well that he was NOT "elibible" to hold office, not only did he commit fraud, but he committed a crime against 42 U.S.C.)
Section 1973i(c) has been held to protect two distinct aspects of a federal election: the actual results of the election, and the integrity of the process of electing federal officials. United States v. Cole, 41 F.3d 303 (7th Cir. 1994). In Cole, the Seventh Circuit held that federal jurisdiction is satisfied so long as a single federal candidate is on the ballot – even if the federal candidate is unopposed – because fraud in a mixed election automatically has an impact on the integrity of the federal election process. See also United States v.Slone, 411 F.3d 643 (6th Cir. 2005); and United States v. McCranie, 169 F.3d 723 (11th Cir. 1999) (jurisdiction under Section 1973i(c) satisfied by name of unopposed federal candidate on ballot). (Any conduct that violates the "integrity" of an election is a CRIME. Obviously, the integrity of this election has been comprimised as more internet blogs pick up the story becausae of Obama's failure to provide the mysterious "vault copy" of his birth certificate. Therefore the DOJ has an obligaion to act, as the integrity of the presidential election has already been called into question by a silent majority of Americans.)
Section 1973i(c) is particularly useful for two reasons: (1) it eliminates the unresolved issue of the scope of the constitutional right to vote in matters not involving racial discrimination, and (2) it eliminates the need to prove that a given pattern of corrupt conduct had an actual impact on a federal election. (This is a big one, because this states that the DOJ can get involved in any matter not involving racial discrimination and it also eliminates the NEED TO PROVE that a corrupt conduct had an actual impact on the election.)
Conspiracy to cause illegal voting. The second clause of Section 1973i(c) criminalizes conspiracies to encourage “illegal voting.” The phrase “illegal voting” is not defined in the statute. On its face it encompasses unlawful conduct in connection with voting. (This is important, because the phrase "illegal" voting has not been defined by statute. Surely, a vote for candidate you know or suspect does not meet the eligibility requirements could be considered an "illegal" vote," because, if it is proven, that this in deed IS the case, the person voting would be committing a CRIME.)
Conspiracy against rights and deprivation of constitutional rights. 18 U.S.C. § 241 and § 242 Section 241 makes it a ten-year felony to “conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate” any person in the free exercise of any right or privilege secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States” – including the right to vote. (Another CRIME committed by Mr. Obama, in conspiring with the DNC and the rest of his cronies by prohibiting Americans to exercise their rights under law.)
False claims of citizenship. 18 U.S.C. § 911 Section 911 prohibits the knowing and willful false assertion of United States citizenship by a noncitizen. See, e.g., United States v. Franklin, 188 F.2d 182 (7th Cir. 1951); Fotie v. United States, 137 F.2d 831 (8th Cir. 1943). Violations of Section 911 are punishable by up to three years of imprisonment As noted, all states require United States citizenship as a prerequisite for voting. Section 911 requires proof that the offender was aware he was not a United States citizen, and that he was falsely claiming to be a citizen. Violations of Section 911 are felonies, punishable by up to
three years of imprisonment. (If Mr. Obama presents himself as a U.S. Citizen and he is NOT, when he votes in this election, he is committing yet, another CRIME.)
“Honest services” fraud. 18 U.S.C. § 1346 As summarized above, prior to McNally nearly all the circuits had held that a scheme to defraud the public of a fair and impartial election was one of the “intangible rights” schemes covered by the mail and wire fraud statutes. McNally repudiated this theory in an opinion that not only rejected the intangible rights theory of mail and wire fraud, but did so by citing several election fraud cases as examples of the kinds of fraud the Court found outside these criminal laws.
The following year, Congress responded to McNally by enacting 18 U.S.C. § 1346, which defined “scheme or artifice to defraud” to include “the intangible right of honest services.” However, this language did not clearly restore the use of these statutes to election frauds. This is because Section 1346 encompasses only schemes to deprive a victim of the intangible right of “honest services,” and most voter fraud schemes do not appear to involve such an objective. Moreover, jurisprudence in the arena of public corruption has generally confined Section 1346 to schemes involving traditional forms of corruption that involve a clear breach of the fiduciary duty of “honest services” owed by a public official to the body politic, e.g., bribery, extortion, embezzlement, theft, conflicts of interest, and, in some instances, gratuities. (Obviously, whether knowingly or not, elected officials and other public servants have breached their fiduciary duty to provide "honest services" to American citizens.)
“Cost-of-election” theory. 18 U.S.C. § 1341 One case, United States v. DeFries, 43 F.3d 707 (D.C. Cir.1995), has held that a scheme to cast fraudulent ballots in a labor union election, which had the effect of tainting the entire election, was a scheme to defraud the election authority charged with running the election of the costs involved. DeFries was not a traditional election fraud prosecution. Rather, it involved corruption of a union election when supporters of one candidate for union office cast fraudulent ballots for that candidate. When the scheme was uncovered, the United States Department of Labor ordered that a new election be held, thereby causing the union to incur an actual pecuniary loss. The D.C. Circuit held that the relationship between that pecuniary loss and the voter fraud scheme was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of McNally. (The fraud that Mr. Obama would have perpetrated on the American people if he is later found out to be ineligible for president will have indeed caused John McCain the presidential election. Worse yet, if it is found out AFTER the election that Obama did not meet the eligibility requirements to hold office, off votes for Obama/Biden would be "illegal" and "invalid" votes and would therefore should not be counted. Therefore, Biden can not be President either if a an "illegal" and "invalid" vote was cast for a Obama/Biden ticket. In this case, the presidential election will, most likely, have to be reheld and/or John McCain would be declared the winner, because the McCain/Palin ticket would have received the most "valid" and "legal" votes.)
Election-related allegations range from minor infractions, such as campaigning too close to the polls, to sophisticated criminal enterprises aimed at ensuring the election of corrupt public officials. Such matters present obvious and wide disparities in their adverse social consequences. As the Department has long strived to achieve a nationally consistent response to electoral fraud, it is important that federal investigators and prosecutors avail themselves of the expertise and institutional knowledge that the Public Integrity Section possesses in this sensitive area of law enforcement.
Lastly, Interference in election by employees of federal, state, or territorial governments: 18 U.S.C. § 595 Section 595 was enacted as part of the original 1939 Hatch Act. The statute prohibits any public officer or employee, in connection with an activity financed wholly or in part by the United States, from using his or her official authority to interfere with or affect the nomination or election of a candidate for federal office. This statute is aimed at the misuse of official authority. Section 595 applies to all public officials, whether elected or appointed, federal or nonfederal. For example, an appointed policymaking government official who bases a specific governmental decision on an intent to influence the vote for or against an identified federal candidate violates Section 595. (This Code may certain apply to those officials who used public computers to find "dirt" on Joe The Plumber, if it can be proved, that the intent was to discredit Joe to interfere or "affect" the election process.)
Ms. J. Kulig just sent me an e-mail concerning enforcement of election fraud laws. Apparently, the Department of Justice Criminal Division's Public Integrity Unit has the power and authority to investigate election fraud. Falsification of eligibility documentation by a candidate may fall under one or more of the causes of action that the DOJ's manual describes. For instance, "conspiracy to cause illegal voting". It would seem possible that the DOJ is responsible to at least investigate Pamela Geller's and others' accusations that Senator Obama was not born in Hawaii.
Kulig concludes by asking:
I would be interested in finding out why no lawsuits have been filed against the DOJ or if any contacts have been made to the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section to ask for clarification and/or action on any of these issues/offences.
Kulig quotes the DOJ-PIS manual and asks "Who's job is it to check presidential eligibility when the states, the FEC and the judiciary fail in their duty?"
She argues:
"Congress has already granted authority to the DOJ to look into and resolve matters that may take away someone's opportunity to vote for an 'eligible' candidate of their choice or to verify that there is no corruption, conspiracy, misinformation or other irregularities that may taint an election, whether proven or not.
"Election fraud involves a substantive irregularity relating to the voting act which has the potential to taint the election itself. activity intended to interfere corruptly with any of the principles indicated below may be actionable as a federal crime:
1. All qualified voters have the right to have their votes counted fairly and honestly. (a vote for a usurper is not a vote. In fact, voting for a usurper may be treason and/or a criminal offence.)
2. Invalid ballots dilute the worth of valid ballots, and therefore will not be counted. (ballets that do not have the name of an eligible candidate are invalid.)
Simply put, then, election fraud is conduct intended to corrupt. For example:
• The process by which ballots are obtained, marked, or tabulated.
• The process by which election results are canvassed and certified. (invalid ballets/votes for a usurper can not be certified as valid ballots or votes)
>Q, WHO's JOB IS IT TO CHECK PRESIDENTAL ELIGIBLITY WHEN THE STATES, THE FEC AND JUDICIARY FAIL IN THEIR DUTY?
>A. Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section/DOJ
The following information is taken form the DOJ manual on prosecuting Election fraud. It appears that ultimately, it is the DOJ's Criminal Division's Public Integrity has the authority to step in and sort out this mess...The federal government asserts jurisdiction over an election offense to ensure that basic rights of United States citizenship, and a fundamental process of representative democracy, remain uncorrupted...the federal interest is based on the presence of a federal candidate, whose election may be tainted, or appear tainted, by the fraud, a potential effect that Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate under Article I, Section 2, clause 1; Article I, Section 4, clause 1; Article II, Section 1, clause 2; and the Seventeenth Amendment.
>In 2002, the Department of Justice established a Ballot Access and Voting Integrity Initiative to spearhead its increased efforts to address election crimes and voting rights violations. Under the ongoing Initiative, election crimes are a high law enforcement priority of the Department.
>The Constitution confers upon the states primary authority over the election process. Accordingly, federal law does not directly address how elections should be conducted. However, local law enforcement often is not equipped to prosecute election offenses. Federal law enforcement might be the only enforcement
option available.
>The federal prosecutor’s role in matters involving corruption of the process by which elections are conducted, on the other hand, focuses on prosecuting individuals who commit federal crimes in connection with an election. (This DOES NOT mean that preventative measures have never be taken by the DOJ, they have!)
>Determining whether an election fraud allegation warrants federal criminal investigation and possible prosecution requires that federal prosecutors and investigators answer two basic questions.
(1) Is criminal prosecution the appropriate remedy for the allegations and facts presented? Criminal prosecution is most appropriate when the facts demonstrate that the defendant’s objective was to corrupt the process by which voters were registered, or by which ballots were obtained, cast, or counted.
(2) Is there potential federal jurisdiction over the conduct? Answering this question requires determining whether the conduct is cognizable under the federal criminal statutes that apply to election crimes. These generally allow for the prosecution of corrupt acts that occur in elections when the name of a federal candidate appears on the ballot, that are committed “under color of law,” that involve voting by non-citizens, that focus on registering to vote, and when the election fraud is part of a larger public corruption problem reachable using general anti-corruption statutes, such as 18 U.S.C. §§ 666, 1341, 1346, 1951, and 1952.
Justice Department supervision over the enforcement of all criminal statutes and prosecutive theories involving corruption of the election process, criminal patronage violations, and campaign financing crimes is delegated to the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section. This Headquarters’ consultation policy is set forth in the U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE, U.S. ATTORNEYS’ MANUAL (USAM), Section 9-85.210.
The Public Integrity Section and its Election Crimes Branch are available to assist United States Attorneys’ Offices and FBI field offices in handling election crime matters. This assistance includes evaluating election crime allegations, structuring investigations, and drafting indictments and other pleadings. The Election Crimes Branch also serves as the point of contact between the Department of Justice and the FEC, which share enforcement jurisdiction over federal campaign financing violations.
A Historic background regarding the election process details many early Enforcement Acts that were put in place to ensure that elections were free from corruption for the general public. Many of the Enforcement Acts had broad jurisdictional predicates that allowed them to be applied to a wide variety of corrupt election practices when a federal candidate was on the ballot. In Coy, the Supreme Court held that Congress had authority under the Constitution’s Necessary and Proper Clause to regulate any activity during a mixed federal/state election that exposed the federal election to potential harm, whether that harm materialized or not. Coy is still applicable law. United States v. Carmichael, 685 F.2d 903, 908 (4th Cir. 1982); United States v. Mason, 673 F.2d 737, 739 (4th Cir.1982); United States v. Malmay, 671 F.2d 869, 874-75 (5th Cir. 1982); United States v. Bowman, 636 F.2d 1003, 1010 (5th Cir.1981).
After Reconstruction, federal activism in election matters subsided. The repeal of most of the Enforcement Acts in 1894 eliminated the statutory tools that had encouraged federal activism in election fraud matters. Two surviving provisions of these Acts, now embodied in 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242, covered only intentional deprivations of rights guaranteed directly by the Constitution or federal law. The courts during this period held that the Constitution directly conferred a right to vote only for federal officers, and that conduct aimed at corrupting nonfederal contests was not prosecutable in federal courts. See United States v. Gradwell, 243 U.S. 476 (1917); Guinn v. United States, 238 U.S. 347 (1915). Federal attention to election fraud was further limited by case law holding that primary elections were not part of the official election process, Newberry v. United States, 256 U.S. 232 (1918), and by cases like United States v. Bathgate, 246 U.S. 220 (1918), which read the entire subject of vote buying out of federal criminal law, even when it was directed at federal contests.
In 1941, the Supreme Court reversed direction, overturning Newberry. The Court recognized that primary elections are an integral part of the process by which candidates are elected to office.United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941). Classic changed the judicial attitude toward federal intervention in election matters and ushered in a new period of federal activism. Federal courts now regard the right to vote in a fairly conducted election as a constitutionally protected feature of United States citizenship. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964). In 1973, the use of Section 241 to address election fraud began to expand. See, e.g., United States v. Anderson, 481 F.2d 685 (4th Cir. 1973), aff’d on other grounds, 417 U.S. 211 (1974). Since then, this statute has been successfully applied to prosecute certain types of local election fraud. United States v. Wadena, 152 F.3d 831 (8th Cir. 1998); United States v. Howard, 774 F.2d 838 (7th Cir.1985); United States v. Olinger, 759 F.2d 1293 (7th Cir. 1985); United States v. Stollings, 501 F.2d 954 (4th Cir. 1974).
Over the past forty years Congress has enacted new criminal laws with broad jurisdictional bases to combat false voter registrations, vote buying, multiple voting, and fraudulent voting in elections in which a federal candidate is on the ballot. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973i(c), 1973i(e), 1973gg-10. These statutes rest on Congress’s power to regulate federal elections (U.S. CONST. art. I, § 4) and on its power under the Necessary and Proper Clause (U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 18) to enact laws to protect the federal election process from the potential of corruption. The federal jurisdictional predicate underlying these statutes is satisfied as long as either the name of a federal candidate is on the ballot or the fraud involves corruption of the voter registration process in a state where one registers to vote simultaneously for federal as well as other offices. United States v. Slone, 411 F.3d 643 (6th Cir. 2005); United States v. McCranie, 169 F.3d 723 (11th Cir. 1999); United States v. Howard, 774 F.2d 838 (7th Cir. 1985); United States v. Olinger, 759 F.2d 1293 (7th Cir. 1985); United States v. Garcia, 719 F.2d 99 (5th Cir. 1983); United States v. Mason, 673 F.2d 737 (4th Cir. 1982); United States v. Malmay, 671 F.2d 869 (5th Cir. 1982); United States v. Bowman, 636 F2d 1003 (5th Cir. 1981); United States v. Barker, 514 F.2d 1077 (7th Cir. 1975); United States v. Cianciulli, 482 F. Supp. 585 (E.D. Pa. 1979).
(As we can see, although election laws may have changed and evolved over the years, Congress has already granted authority to the DOJ to look into and resolve matters that may take away someone's opportunity to vote for an "eligible" candidate of their choice or to verify that there is no corruption, conspiracy, misinformation or other irregularities that may taint an election, whether proven or not.)
Election fraud involves a substantive irregularity relating to the voting act which has the potential to taint the election itself. activity intended to interfere corruptly with any of the principles indicated below may be actionable as a federal crime:
1 All qualified voters have the right to have their votes counted fairly and honestly. (a vote for a usurper is not a vote. In fact, voting for a usurper may be treason and/or a criminal offence.)
2. Invalid ballots dilute the worth of valid ballots, and therefore will not be counted. (ballets that do not have the name of an eligible candidate are invalid.)
Simply put, then, election fraud is conduct intended to corrupt. For example:
• The process by which ballots are obtained, marked, or tabulated.
• The process by which election results are canvassed and certified. (invalid ballets/votes for a usurper can not be certified as valid ballots or votes)
The following is a basis for federal prosecution under the statutes referenced in each category:
• Conspiring to prevent voters from participating in elections in which a federal candidate is on the ballot,or when done “under color of law” in any election, federal or nonfederal (18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242).
(Tricking voters into thinking that an eligible candidate is on the ballot is a conspiracy to defraud)
In the Conspiracy Against Rights. 18 U.S.C. § 241, Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to “conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States” under color of law. The Supreme Court long ago recognized that the right to vote for federal offices is among the rights secured by Article I, Sections 2 and 4, of the Constitution, and hence is protected by Section 241. United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941); Ex parte Yarborough, 110 U.S. 651 (1884). (Remember, a vote for a usurper is NOT a vote! A citizen can not exercise his/her voting right, if there is no equalized candidate to vote for in the same way as a citizen can not sell you his/her neighbor's car if he/she does not hold the title to the car. Therefore, the DOJ has an obligation to make certain before a federal election that a presidential candidacies is eligible to hold office.)
Section 241 has been an important statutory tool in election crime prosecutions. Originally held to apply only to schemes to corrupt elections for federal office. Section 241 embraces conspiracies such as to injure, threaten, or intimidate a voter in the exercise of his right to vote, Wilkins v.United States, 376 F.2d 552 (5th Cir. 1967); Fields v. United States, 228 F.2d 544 (4th Cir. 1955). Section 241 does not require that the conspiracy be successful, United States v. Bradberry, 517 F.2d 498 (7th Cir. 1975), nor need there be proof of an overt act. Section 241 reaches conduct affecting the integrity of the federal election process as a whole, and does not require fraudulent action with respect to any particular voter. United States v. Nathan, 238 F.2d 401 (7th Cir. 1956). (Notice section 241 embraces conspiraces intended to injure. In this case, an injury does NOT even need to occur, nor does anyone have to have conclusive proof of an overt act. In the case of Obama, only the question has to be raised that he "may not" meet the "eligiblity" requirements to become fairly and rightfully elected to the office of POTUS.)
In election fraud cases, this public official is usually an election officer using his office to dilute valid ballots with invalid ballots or to otherwise corrupt an honest vote tally in derogation of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g., United States v. Haynes, 977 F.2d 583 (6th Cir. 1992) (table) (available at 1992 WL 296782); United States v. Townsley, 843 F.2d 1070 (8th Cir. 1988); United States v. Howard, 774 F.2d 838 (7th Cir. 1985); United States v. Olinger, 759 F.2d 1293 (7th Cir. 1985); United States v. Stollings, 501 F.2d 954 (4th Cir. 1974); United States v. Anderson, 481 F.2d 685 (4th Cir. 1973), aff’d on other grounds, 417 U.S. 211 (1974). (In failing to fulfill his/her fiduciary duties, our Secr. of State and Federal Election Commission officials who allow "invalid" candidates to be placed on ballots corrupts an honest vote and violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clause of the Fourteeth Amerdment.)
Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law18 U.S.C. § 242. Section 242, also enacted as a post-Civil War statute, makes it unlawful for anyone acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive a person of any right, privilege, or immunity secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Prosecutions under Section 242 need not show the existence of a conspiracy. However, the defendants must have acted illegally “under color of law,” i.e., the case must involve a public scheme, as discussed above. This element does not require that the defendant be a de jure officer or a government official; it is sufficient if he or she jointly acted with state agents in committing the offense, United States v. Price, 383 U.S. 787 (1966), or if his or her actions were made possible by the fact that they were clothed with the authority of state law, Williams v. United States, 341 U.S. 97 (1951); United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941). (This law would make it a CRIME for ANYONE who knowing acted in concert with Obama to cover up his scheme to defraud the American people, by posing as an "eligible" candidate."
False Information in, and Payments for, Registering and Voting. 42 U.S.C. § 1973i(c) Section 1973i(c) makes it unlawful, in an election in which a federal candidate is on the ballot, to knowingly and willfully conspire with another person to vote illegally. Congress added Section 1973i(c) to the 1965 Voting Rights Act to ensure the integrity of the balloting process in the context of an expanded franchise. In so doing, Congress intended that Section 1973i(c) have a broad reach. (If Obama or his co-conspirators knowingly registered voters by because he promised Change and Hope, knowing full well that he was NOT "elibible" to hold office, not only did he commit fraud, but he committed a crime against 42 U.S.C.)
Section 1973i(c) has been held to protect two distinct aspects of a federal election: the actual results of the election, and the integrity of the process of electing federal officials. United States v. Cole, 41 F.3d 303 (7th Cir. 1994). In Cole, the Seventh Circuit held that federal jurisdiction is satisfied so long as a single federal candidate is on the ballot – even if the federal candidate is unopposed – because fraud in a mixed election automatically has an impact on the integrity of the federal election process. See also United States v.Slone, 411 F.3d 643 (6th Cir. 2005); and United States v. McCranie, 169 F.3d 723 (11th Cir. 1999) (jurisdiction under Section 1973i(c) satisfied by name of unopposed federal candidate on ballot). (Any conduct that violates the "integrity" of an election is a CRIME. Obviously, the integrity of this election has been comprimised as more internet blogs pick up the story becausae of Obama's failure to provide the mysterious "vault copy" of his birth certificate. Therefore the DOJ has an obligaion to act, as the integrity of the presidential election has already been called into question by a silent majority of Americans.)
Section 1973i(c) is particularly useful for two reasons: (1) it eliminates the unresolved issue of the scope of the constitutional right to vote in matters not involving racial discrimination, and (2) it eliminates the need to prove that a given pattern of corrupt conduct had an actual impact on a federal election. (This is a big one, because this states that the DOJ can get involved in any matter not involving racial discrimination and it also eliminates the NEED TO PROVE that a corrupt conduct had an actual impact on the election.)
Conspiracy to cause illegal voting. The second clause of Section 1973i(c) criminalizes conspiracies to encourage “illegal voting.” The phrase “illegal voting” is not defined in the statute. On its face it encompasses unlawful conduct in connection with voting. (This is important, because the phrase "illegal" voting has not been defined by statute. Surely, a vote for candidate you know or suspect does not meet the eligibility requirements could be considered an "illegal" vote," because, if it is proven, that this in deed IS the case, the person voting would be committing a CRIME.)
Conspiracy against rights and deprivation of constitutional rights. 18 U.S.C. § 241 and § 242 Section 241 makes it a ten-year felony to “conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate” any person in the free exercise of any right or privilege secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States” – including the right to vote. (Another CRIME committed by Mr. Obama, in conspiring with the DNC and the rest of his cronies by prohibiting Americans to exercise their rights under law.)
False claims of citizenship. 18 U.S.C. § 911 Section 911 prohibits the knowing and willful false assertion of United States citizenship by a noncitizen. See, e.g., United States v. Franklin, 188 F.2d 182 (7th Cir. 1951); Fotie v. United States, 137 F.2d 831 (8th Cir. 1943). Violations of Section 911 are punishable by up to three years of imprisonment As noted, all states require United States citizenship as a prerequisite for voting. Section 911 requires proof that the offender was aware he was not a United States citizen, and that he was falsely claiming to be a citizen. Violations of Section 911 are felonies, punishable by up to
three years of imprisonment. (If Mr. Obama presents himself as a U.S. Citizen and he is NOT, when he votes in this election, he is committing yet, another CRIME.)
“Honest services” fraud. 18 U.S.C. § 1346 As summarized above, prior to McNally nearly all the circuits had held that a scheme to defraud the public of a fair and impartial election was one of the “intangible rights” schemes covered by the mail and wire fraud statutes. McNally repudiated this theory in an opinion that not only rejected the intangible rights theory of mail and wire fraud, but did so by citing several election fraud cases as examples of the kinds of fraud the Court found outside these criminal laws.
The following year, Congress responded to McNally by enacting 18 U.S.C. § 1346, which defined “scheme or artifice to defraud” to include “the intangible right of honest services.” However, this language did not clearly restore the use of these statutes to election frauds. This is because Section 1346 encompasses only schemes to deprive a victim of the intangible right of “honest services,” and most voter fraud schemes do not appear to involve such an objective. Moreover, jurisprudence in the arena of public corruption has generally confined Section 1346 to schemes involving traditional forms of corruption that involve a clear breach of the fiduciary duty of “honest services” owed by a public official to the body politic, e.g., bribery, extortion, embezzlement, theft, conflicts of interest, and, in some instances, gratuities. (Obviously, whether knowingly or not, elected officials and other public servants have breached their fiduciary duty to provide "honest services" to American citizens.)
“Cost-of-election” theory. 18 U.S.C. § 1341 One case, United States v. DeFries, 43 F.3d 707 (D.C. Cir.1995), has held that a scheme to cast fraudulent ballots in a labor union election, which had the effect of tainting the entire election, was a scheme to defraud the election authority charged with running the election of the costs involved. DeFries was not a traditional election fraud prosecution. Rather, it involved corruption of a union election when supporters of one candidate for union office cast fraudulent ballots for that candidate. When the scheme was uncovered, the United States Department of Labor ordered that a new election be held, thereby causing the union to incur an actual pecuniary loss. The D.C. Circuit held that the relationship between that pecuniary loss and the voter fraud scheme was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of McNally. (The fraud that Mr. Obama would have perpetrated on the American people if he is later found out to be ineligible for president will have indeed caused John McCain the presidential election. Worse yet, if it is found out AFTER the election that Obama did not meet the eligibility requirements to hold office, off votes for Obama/Biden would be "illegal" and "invalid" votes and would therefore should not be counted. Therefore, Biden can not be President either if a an "illegal" and "invalid" vote was cast for a Obama/Biden ticket. In this case, the presidential election will, most likely, have to be reheld and/or John McCain would be declared the winner, because the McCain/Palin ticket would have received the most "valid" and "legal" votes.)
Election-related allegations range from minor infractions, such as campaigning too close to the polls, to sophisticated criminal enterprises aimed at ensuring the election of corrupt public officials. Such matters present obvious and wide disparities in their adverse social consequences. As the Department has long strived to achieve a nationally consistent response to electoral fraud, it is important that federal investigators and prosecutors avail themselves of the expertise and institutional knowledge that the Public Integrity Section possesses in this sensitive area of law enforcement.
Lastly, Interference in election by employees of federal, state, or territorial governments: 18 U.S.C. § 595 Section 595 was enacted as part of the original 1939 Hatch Act. The statute prohibits any public officer or employee, in connection with an activity financed wholly or in part by the United States, from using his or her official authority to interfere with or affect the nomination or election of a candidate for federal office. This statute is aimed at the misuse of official authority. Section 595 applies to all public officials, whether elected or appointed, federal or nonfederal. For example, an appointed policymaking government official who bases a specific governmental decision on an intent to influence the vote for or against an identified federal candidate violates Section 595. (This Code may certain apply to those officials who used public computers to find "dirt" on Joe The Plumber, if it can be proved, that the intent was to discredit Joe to interfere or "affect" the election process.)
Olbermann Names Pamela Geller One of Ten Worst
Pamela Geller has hit many home runs this year such as the breaking story about the Obama birth certificate. Now, Pamela reports (h/t Larwyn) media boob Keith Olbermann has named Pamela one of the worst people in the world. Apparently, Olbermman considers Geller (and of course Sarah Palin as well) to be worse than Robert Mugabe, who has tortured journalists, Radovan Karadzic, the Serbian war criminal convicted of genocidal murder of 8,000 Muslims, or Fidel Castro, murderer of 100,000 Cubans. No, Geller and Palin are much worse than Mugabe, Karadzic and Castro.
In any case--hats off to Pamela Geller. Being called "the worst" by a pissant like Keith Olberman is an honor indeed.
In any case--hats off to Pamela Geller. Being called "the worst" by a pissant like Keith Olberman is an honor indeed.
All Things Are Ready If Our Minds Be So
Shakespeare's Henry V is about the 100 Years War and the famous battle at Agincourt in which 7,000 English commoners defeated 20,000 French noblemen through the use of the long bow. I use a clip of King Harry's famous "band of brothers" speech at Agincourt in some of my classes when discussing motivation and charisma. Perhaps John McCain should study both Sir Laurence Olivier and Kenneth Branagh, who offer excellent renditions.
Here's the St. Crispian's Day speech:
WESTMORELAND
O that we now had here
But one ten thousand of those men in England
That do no work to-day!
KING HENRY V
What's he that wishes so?
My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin:
If we are mark'd to die, we are enow
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires:
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England:
God's peace! I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more, methinks, would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made
And crowns for convoy put into his purse:
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is called the feast of Crispian:
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe* when the day is named,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian:'
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars.
And say 'These wounds I had on Crispin's day.'
Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember with advantages
What feats he did that day: then shall our names.
Familiar in his mouth as household words
Harry the king, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester,
Be in their flowing cups freshly remember'd.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember'd;
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.
Re-enter SALISBURY
SALISBURY
My sovereign lord, bestow yourself with speed:
The French are bravely in their battles set,
And will with all expedience charge on us.
KING HENRY V
All things are ready, if our minds be so.
WESTMORELAND
Perish the man whose mind is backward now!
KING HENRY V
Thou dost not wish more help from England, coz?
WESTMORELAND
God's will! my liege, would you and I alone,
Without more help, could fight this royal battle!
KING HENRY V
Why, now thou hast unwish'd five thousand men;
Which likes me better than to wish us one.
You know your places: God be with you all!
*St. Crispian is the patron saint of shoemakers.
Here's the St. Crispian's Day speech:
WESTMORELAND
O that we now had here
But one ten thousand of those men in England
That do no work to-day!
KING HENRY V
What's he that wishes so?
My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin:
If we are mark'd to die, we are enow
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires:
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England:
God's peace! I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more, methinks, would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made
And crowns for convoy put into his purse:
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is called the feast of Crispian:
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe* when the day is named,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian:'
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars.
And say 'These wounds I had on Crispin's day.'
Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember with advantages
What feats he did that day: then shall our names.
Familiar in his mouth as household words
Harry the king, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester,
Be in their flowing cups freshly remember'd.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember'd;
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.
Re-enter SALISBURY
SALISBURY
My sovereign lord, bestow yourself with speed:
The French are bravely in their battles set,
And will with all expedience charge on us.
KING HENRY V
All things are ready, if our minds be so.
WESTMORELAND
Perish the man whose mind is backward now!
KING HENRY V
Thou dost not wish more help from England, coz?
WESTMORELAND
God's will! my liege, would you and I alone,
Without more help, could fight this royal battle!
KING HENRY V
Why, now thou hast unwish'd five thousand men;
Which likes me better than to wish us one.
You know your places: God be with you all!
*St. Crispian is the patron saint of shoemakers.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Obama Not Antichrist, But Is Likely Supporter
Conservative Chloe has forwarded Jack van Impe's discussion of the criteria for someone to be considered the Antichrist. It is clear that Barack Obama is not the Antichrist per se, but it seems equally likely that he is closely aligned with him. Van Impe establishes specific criteria for someone to be the Antichrist.
First, he begins to call himself God. This is indeed one of Obama's characteristics. Hence, there is perhaps a connection. But the Antichrist is enmeshed in the European Union, which does not seem to be the case with Obama. However, it is also true that Obama has kept his birth information a locked secret, and there are numerous contradictions surrounding stories of his birth, such as that his mother was registered at the University of Washington at the same time that she is recorded to have given birth in Hawaii as well as a mystery as to who the father was (Franklin Marshall Davis, Barack Obama, Sr., etc.).
Is it possible that Obama was really born in the European Union? Why does he hide his vault birth certificate so aggressively, to the point of spending tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees to prevent Phil Berg from obtaining it? Moreover, Obama's religious affiliation is controversial. Some of his opponents say that he is a Muslim, while his media supporters say that he is a Christian. Impe argues that a "one-world religious system" will characterize a coming one-world dictator. Many people such as Louis Farrakhan have called Obama the "Messiah". This overlay of religious and secular power seems consistent with Impe's analysis.
While Obama may not be the "one-world dictator" he may be laying the groundwork for him. One trend in this direction is Europe's revival as a monetary power as America debases its currency and falters economically due to powers of the Federal Reserve Bank. The resulting strengthening of the Euro relative to the dollar increases the likelihood that the Euro could become the one-world currency, the role the dollar currently occupies. As the Euro becomes dominant, Europe would become the center of the world's economy. Obama's efforts to socialize and weaken the American economy, pursue inflation and redistribute wealth from productive Americans to those who do not produce would be consistent with this turn of events.
Impe writes that "Rome will again be the center of the world economically, politically, militarily, and spiritually." Given the collapse of the dollar under liberal policies, which Obama represents, and the American left's attack on human effort, freedom and the free market economic system, it seems that it has been necessary for the Antichrist to be at least supported by an attack on America "from inside" by New Age, left wing extremists in order to permit the European Union to become dominant. Obama might be playing this role.
Similarly, the current emphasis on regional alliances such as NAFTA, the European Union and ASEAN, is consistent with biblical prophecy. The emphasis on regional alliances flies in the face of economic logic, for unimpeded trade rather than regional trade barriers are economically optimal, as the economist Jagdish N. Bhagwati has pointed out. Yet, there has been increasing pressure from various quarters to break up the globe into economic regions. The Bible predicts this.
It does not appear that Barack Obama is the Antichrist for some other reasons. First, according to Impe, "Not only does (the Antichrist) have to arise out of the EU but he does not desire women." But Barack is married, although he does appear rather effeminate or unisex, and no one knows what his desires are. At the same time, there are many similarities between Obama and the Antichrist, according to Impe:
1. The Antrichrist will do according to his own will; is "a person driven by self"; and is only altruistic in order to advance his agenda.
2. He exalts and magnifies himself. The Antichrist is likely a public figure from early on who thrives on attention.
3. Verse 37 says that he will have no regard for the God of his fathers.
4. He will Honor a god of 'fortresses'. Fortresses refers to power hungry politician type.
5. He will act against the strongest world power in conjunction with a foreign god . He will advance the religion of this false god, and ultimately cause this false religion t rule over many.
6. He will cause division within the world.
Impe adds:
"Revelation says that the number of the beast is 666, and it is a number of a man. The number 6, always refers to man. Three 6's is obviously 3 men. I submit that these three men have the following roles."
1- Politician
2- Religious leader (false prophet)
3- Beast
Might Obama represent one leg of this three-legged stool?
First, he begins to call himself God. This is indeed one of Obama's characteristics. Hence, there is perhaps a connection. But the Antichrist is enmeshed in the European Union, which does not seem to be the case with Obama. However, it is also true that Obama has kept his birth information a locked secret, and there are numerous contradictions surrounding stories of his birth, such as that his mother was registered at the University of Washington at the same time that she is recorded to have given birth in Hawaii as well as a mystery as to who the father was (Franklin Marshall Davis, Barack Obama, Sr., etc.).
Is it possible that Obama was really born in the European Union? Why does he hide his vault birth certificate so aggressively, to the point of spending tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees to prevent Phil Berg from obtaining it? Moreover, Obama's religious affiliation is controversial. Some of his opponents say that he is a Muslim, while his media supporters say that he is a Christian. Impe argues that a "one-world religious system" will characterize a coming one-world dictator. Many people such as Louis Farrakhan have called Obama the "Messiah". This overlay of religious and secular power seems consistent with Impe's analysis.
While Obama may not be the "one-world dictator" he may be laying the groundwork for him. One trend in this direction is Europe's revival as a monetary power as America debases its currency and falters economically due to powers of the Federal Reserve Bank. The resulting strengthening of the Euro relative to the dollar increases the likelihood that the Euro could become the one-world currency, the role the dollar currently occupies. As the Euro becomes dominant, Europe would become the center of the world's economy. Obama's efforts to socialize and weaken the American economy, pursue inflation and redistribute wealth from productive Americans to those who do not produce would be consistent with this turn of events.
Impe writes that "Rome will again be the center of the world economically, politically, militarily, and spiritually." Given the collapse of the dollar under liberal policies, which Obama represents, and the American left's attack on human effort, freedom and the free market economic system, it seems that it has been necessary for the Antichrist to be at least supported by an attack on America "from inside" by New Age, left wing extremists in order to permit the European Union to become dominant. Obama might be playing this role.
Similarly, the current emphasis on regional alliances such as NAFTA, the European Union and ASEAN, is consistent with biblical prophecy. The emphasis on regional alliances flies in the face of economic logic, for unimpeded trade rather than regional trade barriers are economically optimal, as the economist Jagdish N. Bhagwati has pointed out. Yet, there has been increasing pressure from various quarters to break up the globe into economic regions. The Bible predicts this.
It does not appear that Barack Obama is the Antichrist for some other reasons. First, according to Impe, "Not only does (the Antichrist) have to arise out of the EU but he does not desire women." But Barack is married, although he does appear rather effeminate or unisex, and no one knows what his desires are. At the same time, there are many similarities between Obama and the Antichrist, according to Impe:
1. The Antrichrist will do according to his own will; is "a person driven by self"; and is only altruistic in order to advance his agenda.
2. He exalts and magnifies himself. The Antichrist is likely a public figure from early on who thrives on attention.
3. Verse 37 says that he will have no regard for the God of his fathers.
4. He will Honor a god of 'fortresses'. Fortresses refers to power hungry politician type.
5. He will act against the strongest world power in conjunction with a foreign god . He will advance the religion of this false god, and ultimately cause this false religion t rule over many.
6. He will cause division within the world.
Impe adds:
"Revelation says that the number of the beast is 666, and it is a number of a man. The number 6, always refers to man. Three 6's is obviously 3 men. I submit that these three men have the following roles."
1- Politician
2- Religious leader (false prophet)
3- Beast
Might Obama represent one leg of this three-legged stool?
McCain Likely to Win--Florida and Election Dynamics on His Side
Two blogs (h/t Bob Robbins and Contrairimairi) capture a re-energized McCain campaign. This information contradicts the opinions of poller Sabado who appeared on Bob Grant the other night. First, Conservative Edge notes that early voting in Florida has resulted in a stunning shift:
"In a stunning shift in poll numbers, the LA Times estimates that John McCain leads Barack Obama 49-45 of those who have already voted in Florida, Just last week, a Times poll showed Obama leading 50-47 in the Sunshine state.
"But, the news gets worse for Obama. According to Florida Governor Charlie Crist, of the total citizens who have already voted, 54% are Democrats while 30% are Republicans. If these numbers hold up, and there is not a huge defection of GOP voters from McCain, Florida could be a blowout win for McCain.
"The coup de grace for Obama may come from Israel. Exit polls for absentee voting in that country show McCain winning 3-1 over Obama, despite a higher level of registered Democrats than Republicans."
Second, Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs features an eye-opening Red State.com post from a former Hillary worker now employed in the Obama campaign who argues that:
"Barack Obama doesn’t have a chance. His only chance is to foster disorganization, chaos, despair, and a sense of inevitability among the Republicans. It has worked up until now. Joe the Plumber has put the focus on the issues again, and this scares us more than anything. Being in a position to know these things, I will rate what the Obama campaign already knows are their weak links from the most important on down."
Potential breakdowns in the Obama campaign include former Hillary voters, Sarah Palin (whom the college educated elite hate but they wouldn't vote for McCain anyhow), and Obama's radical connections.
Read the whole thing here.
"In a stunning shift in poll numbers, the LA Times estimates that John McCain leads Barack Obama 49-45 of those who have already voted in Florida, Just last week, a Times poll showed Obama leading 50-47 in the Sunshine state.
"But, the news gets worse for Obama. According to Florida Governor Charlie Crist, of the total citizens who have already voted, 54% are Democrats while 30% are Republicans. If these numbers hold up, and there is not a huge defection of GOP voters from McCain, Florida could be a blowout win for McCain.
"The coup de grace for Obama may come from Israel. Exit polls for absentee voting in that country show McCain winning 3-1 over Obama, despite a higher level of registered Democrats than Republicans."
Second, Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs features an eye-opening Red State.com post from a former Hillary worker now employed in the Obama campaign who argues that:
"Barack Obama doesn’t have a chance. His only chance is to foster disorganization, chaos, despair, and a sense of inevitability among the Republicans. It has worked up until now. Joe the Plumber has put the focus on the issues again, and this scares us more than anything. Being in a position to know these things, I will rate what the Obama campaign already knows are their weak links from the most important on down."
Potential breakdowns in the Obama campaign include former Hillary voters, Sarah Palin (whom the college educated elite hate but they wouldn't vote for McCain anyhow), and Obama's radical connections.
Read the whole thing here.
The Fable of Little Johnny
Contrairimairi has forwarded this fable of Little Johnny. I have not confirmed the facts with the Elmira school district.
LITTLE JOHNNY
A teacher in Elmira, New York asked her 6th grade class how many of them were Obama fans. Not really knowing what an Obama fan is, but wanting to be liked by the teacher, all the kids raised their hands except for Little Johnny.
The teacher asked Little Johnny why he has decided to be different again.
Little Johnny said, "Because I'm not an Obama fan."
The teacher asked, "Why aren't you an Obama fan?"
Johnny said, "Because I'm a Republican."
The teacher asked him why he's a Republican.
Little Johnny answered, "Well, my Mom's a Republican and my Dad's a Republican, so I'm a Republican."
Annoyed by this answer, the teacher asked, "If your mom was a moron and your dad was an idiot, what would that make you?"
With a big smile, Little Johnny replied, "That would make me an Obama fan."
: ) Little Johnny - wise beyond his years.
LITTLE JOHNNY
A teacher in Elmira, New York asked her 6th grade class how many of them were Obama fans. Not really knowing what an Obama fan is, but wanting to be liked by the teacher, all the kids raised their hands except for Little Johnny.
The teacher asked Little Johnny why he has decided to be different again.
Little Johnny said, "Because I'm not an Obama fan."
The teacher asked, "Why aren't you an Obama fan?"
Johnny said, "Because I'm a Republican."
The teacher asked him why he's a Republican.
Little Johnny answered, "Well, my Mom's a Republican and my Dad's a Republican, so I'm a Republican."
Annoyed by this answer, the teacher asked, "If your mom was a moron and your dad was an idiot, what would that make you?"
With a big smile, Little Johnny replied, "That would make me an Obama fan."
: ) Little Johnny - wise beyond his years.
Potential Constitutional Crisis
Reader Ms. J Kulig has sent me a link to Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr.'s excellent post concerning a potential crisis following the possible election of Barack Obama (hopefully a non-event):
Vieira notes:
>In disposing of the lawsuit Berg v. Obama, which squarely presents the question of Obama’s true citizenship, the presiding judge complained that Berg “would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and who underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary in living memory.” This is exceptionally thin hogwash. A proper judicial inquiry into Obama’s eligibility for “the Office of President” will not deny his supporters a “right” to vote for him-—rather, it will determine whether they have any such “right” at all. For, just as Obama’s “right” to stand for election to “the Office of President” is contingent upon his being “a natural born Citizen,” so too are the “rights” of his partisans to vote for him contingent upon whether he is even eligible for that “Office.” If Obama is ineligible, then no one can claim any “right” to vote for him. Indeed, in that case every American who does vote has a constitutional duty to vote against him.
Dr. Vieira is absolutely right. The quality of our courts have deteriorated to the point where the courts have become ringleaders of a democratic lynch mob. Vieira goes on to slice, dice and execute the judge's competence. What gives the court authority? If it is not the Constitution, then why should anyone pay attention to the courts, other than their potential threat of violence? And if that is all the courts have to offer, then perhaps honest, God fearing Americans should consider constituting a Lockean militia and removing the judicial thugs from office and sending them down the Delware River in tar and feathers.
Vieira adds:
"In fact...Every American has what lawyers call "an implied cause of action"—directly under Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution—to require that anyone standing for "the Office of President" must verify his eligibility for that position, at least when serious allegations have been put forward that he is not eligible, and he has otherwise refused to refute those allegations with evidence that should be readily available if he is eligible. That "Case[ ]" is one the Constitution itself defines. And the Constitution must be enforceable in such a "Case[ ]" in a timely manner, by anyone who cares to seek enforcement, because of the horrendous consequences that will ensue if it is flouted."
Read the whole article here.
Ms. J Kulig asks:
"Have you received a response back yet from the FEC regarding BO's BC?
"I am extremely concerned that this is going to cause a constitutional crisis. And here's an interesting question that no one is asking: "If I vote for Barack Obama am I disenfranchising myself, aiding and abetting, committing felony treason and other crimes if Mr. Obama is not eligible to hold office?"
I thought you would enjoy reading this artcle written by a Harvard JD/Constitutional Attorney. Maybe you could post it on your blog."
My response:
I am enjoying Dr. Veira's article. I have received one rebuff after the next from the FEC and the state board of elections. I would call our election system a mismanaged sham. It is as bad as the judicial system.
Vieira notes:
>In disposing of the lawsuit Berg v. Obama, which squarely presents the question of Obama’s true citizenship, the presiding judge complained that Berg “would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and who underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary in living memory.” This is exceptionally thin hogwash. A proper judicial inquiry into Obama’s eligibility for “the Office of President” will not deny his supporters a “right” to vote for him-—rather, it will determine whether they have any such “right” at all. For, just as Obama’s “right” to stand for election to “the Office of President” is contingent upon his being “a natural born Citizen,” so too are the “rights” of his partisans to vote for him contingent upon whether he is even eligible for that “Office.” If Obama is ineligible, then no one can claim any “right” to vote for him. Indeed, in that case every American who does vote has a constitutional duty to vote against him.
Dr. Vieira is absolutely right. The quality of our courts have deteriorated to the point where the courts have become ringleaders of a democratic lynch mob. Vieira goes on to slice, dice and execute the judge's competence. What gives the court authority? If it is not the Constitution, then why should anyone pay attention to the courts, other than their potential threat of violence? And if that is all the courts have to offer, then perhaps honest, God fearing Americans should consider constituting a Lockean militia and removing the judicial thugs from office and sending them down the Delware River in tar and feathers.
Vieira adds:
"In fact...Every American has what lawyers call "an implied cause of action"—directly under Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution—to require that anyone standing for "the Office of President" must verify his eligibility for that position, at least when serious allegations have been put forward that he is not eligible, and he has otherwise refused to refute those allegations with evidence that should be readily available if he is eligible. That "Case[ ]" is one the Constitution itself defines. And the Constitution must be enforceable in such a "Case[ ]" in a timely manner, by anyone who cares to seek enforcement, because of the horrendous consequences that will ensue if it is flouted."
Read the whole article here.
Ms. J Kulig asks:
"Have you received a response back yet from the FEC regarding BO's BC?
"I am extremely concerned that this is going to cause a constitutional crisis. And here's an interesting question that no one is asking: "If I vote for Barack Obama am I disenfranchising myself, aiding and abetting, committing felony treason and other crimes if Mr. Obama is not eligible to hold office?"
I thought you would enjoy reading this artcle written by a Harvard JD/Constitutional Attorney. Maybe you could post it on your blog."
My response:
I am enjoying Dr. Veira's article. I have received one rebuff after the next from the FEC and the state board of elections. I would call our election system a mismanaged sham. It is as bad as the judicial system.
Andy Martin Asks: Where Was BO Born?
I told Andy that since the Anti-Christ must be born in Europe, Barack Obama must have been born in Europe.
Do you have a theory?
>Andy Martin asks his readers for help figuring this one out
Where was Barack Obama born, and where did his mother leave him?
Martin asks his readers to help him connect the dots between Obama's birth and his mother's college attendance, both in 1961
Is there a secret Obama, and an "Obama Code," author Andy Martin asks
(NEW YORK)(October 31, 2008) I have been writing and researching Barack Obama for over four years. In that time, he has become more opaque, more mysterious, more contradictory and more confusing. Almost every day new radical associations or questions arise or are expanded.
And every day hundreds of "Obama" e-mails fly across my desk. Some of them are complete nonsense and are immediately deleted. Others appear plausible but melt under the sunlight of deeper inquiry. Some thoughts in these communications make sense. And some just leave me more confused. Some merit further investigation, and some of these have led to information breakthroughs in deciphering "The Obama Code."
Today I am going to ask you to help me make sense of something I don't have time to research extensively in the waning days of the campaign.
How do we connect the dots between Barack Obama's alleged birth in Hawai'i and his mother's matriculation at the University of Washington a few weeks later?
This inquiry, as many do, began with an e-mail from someone making a suggestion: Obama's mother could not have given birth in Hawai'i because she was a college student in Washington at virtually the same time. In fact, the dates do not completely conflict. But they do not connect or make sense either.
Obama was born in Honolulu on August 4, 1961. A month later his mother was apparently a college student in Seattle, Washington.
I checked out the name on the e-mail, and contacted the University of Washington myself. Here is the university's response:
Subject: Re: Verification of enrollment of Stanley Ann Dunham
Date: 10/30/2008 1:46:19 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: pubrec@u.washington.edu
Reply To:
To: Andymart20@aol.com
These are the records the University of Washington has.
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 Andymart20@aol.com wrote:
> I recently received an e-mail which said it was from your offices:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pubrec@u.washington.edu [mailto:pubrec@u.washington.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 2:24 PM
> To: bdienst
> Subject: Re: Stanley "Ann" Dunham 1960 to 1970 class registration
>
> Ms. Stanley Ann Dunham was enrolled at the University of Washington for:
>
> Autumn 1961
> Winter 1962
> Spring 1962
>
> The records responsive to your request from the University of Washington are
> above as provided by the Public Disclosure Laws of Washington State. This
> concludes the University's response to your Public Records request. Please
> feel free to contact our office if you have any questions or concerns.
>
> Madolyne Lawson
> Office of Public Records
> 206-543-9180
>
> I just wanted to verify whether this was an accurate, true and correct
> e-mail. As a writer and researcher, I try very hard to search for accurate
> information.
>
> Thanks for your courtesy in responding.
>
> Andy Martin
> Executive Editor
> ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com
> ContrarianCommentary.wordpress.com
> ContrarianCommentary.com
> Toll-free (866) 706-2639
> Cell (917) 664-9329 (not always turned on)
> Author of:
> Obama: The Man Behind The Mask
> http://orangestatepress.com
> Published: July 2008
> http://StopObamaCoalition.comhttp://CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.c
> om
So how do we connect these facts? Did she give birth in Honolulu and then leave her son and head for Seattle? Did she really give birth in Washington? It seems strange that Anne Dunham would give birth and abandon her son four weeks later to attend college. But maybe that's what happened. She appears to have been a very unstable person.
It is these kinds of doubts and gaps in the factual history of Obama that fuel the endless speculation about his origins.
I am more determined than ever to ask the Honolulu court on November 18th to release the typewritten hard copy of Obama's "original" Certificate of Live Birth. And I am more suspicious as well. (I have my own theories, but I'll hold them for the moment.)
I have seen, of course, theories about Obama's birth ranging from birth in Mombassa, Kenya, to Hawai'i, to Canada, to Washington State. But no one seems to have asked the obvious question: What happened to the boy when Anne matriculated in college? Who cared for him?
Have I missed something, overlooked something, fumbled some fact or piece of critical information? Frankly, the birth in Hawai'i in August and school attendance in Seattle four weeks later do not compute for me. I am left wondering what the facts are.
What is the truth? Did she have the baby and then abandon him four weeks later to attend college. Did grandma hire a nurse? What happened? Is the above e-mail a hoax?
I hate to add to the suspicion, or fuel the paranoia, but I invite all of my readers and anyone else who can furnish verifiable, factual information to join in creating a timeline connecting Barack Obama's birth and his mother's registration at college four weeks later. Perhaps there is a simple and straightforward answer. (We are swamped, on the eve of the election, and can't devote our limited resources to the inquiry.) Who cared for the baby? Where? What records or stories do we have to verify these claims?
If I am confused, and I am a recognized expert on Obama, is it any wonder the general public and ordinary voters are even more confused by this man, who could hold ultimate power in our nation for the next four years?
Barack Obama has not adequately answered these questions about himself. Given that he had a very unstable family life, there is a justifiable concern about his earliest nurturing and overwhelming interest in who provided it. Where was mom?
You tell me.
MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639 or CELL (917) 664-9329
E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com
Do you have a theory?
>Andy Martin asks his readers for help figuring this one out
Where was Barack Obama born, and where did his mother leave him?
Martin asks his readers to help him connect the dots between Obama's birth and his mother's college attendance, both in 1961
Is there a secret Obama, and an "Obama Code," author Andy Martin asks
(NEW YORK)(October 31, 2008) I have been writing and researching Barack Obama for over four years. In that time, he has become more opaque, more mysterious, more contradictory and more confusing. Almost every day new radical associations or questions arise or are expanded.
And every day hundreds of "Obama" e-mails fly across my desk. Some of them are complete nonsense and are immediately deleted. Others appear plausible but melt under the sunlight of deeper inquiry. Some thoughts in these communications make sense. And some just leave me more confused. Some merit further investigation, and some of these have led to information breakthroughs in deciphering "The Obama Code."
Today I am going to ask you to help me make sense of something I don't have time to research extensively in the waning days of the campaign.
How do we connect the dots between Barack Obama's alleged birth in Hawai'i and his mother's matriculation at the University of Washington a few weeks later?
This inquiry, as many do, began with an e-mail from someone making a suggestion: Obama's mother could not have given birth in Hawai'i because she was a college student in Washington at virtually the same time. In fact, the dates do not completely conflict. But they do not connect or make sense either.
Obama was born in Honolulu on August 4, 1961. A month later his mother was apparently a college student in Seattle, Washington.
I checked out the name on the e-mail, and contacted the University of Washington myself. Here is the university's response:
Subject: Re: Verification of enrollment of Stanley Ann Dunham
Date: 10/30/2008 1:46:19 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: pubrec@u.washington.edu
Reply To:
To: Andymart20@aol.com
These are the records the University of Washington has.
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 Andymart20@aol.com wrote:
> I recently received an e-mail which said it was from your offices:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pubrec@u.washington.edu [mailto:pubrec@u.washington.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 2:24 PM
> To: bdienst
> Subject: Re: Stanley "Ann" Dunham 1960 to 1970 class registration
>
> Ms. Stanley Ann Dunham was enrolled at the University of Washington for:
>
> Autumn 1961
> Winter 1962
> Spring 1962
>
> The records responsive to your request from the University of Washington are
> above as provided by the Public Disclosure Laws of Washington State. This
> concludes the University's response to your Public Records request. Please
> feel free to contact our office if you have any questions or concerns.
>
> Madolyne Lawson
> Office of Public Records
> 206-543-9180
>
> I just wanted to verify whether this was an accurate, true and correct
> e-mail. As a writer and researcher, I try very hard to search for accurate
> information.
>
> Thanks for your courtesy in responding.
>
> Andy Martin
> Executive Editor
> ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com
> ContrarianCommentary.wordpress.com
> ContrarianCommentary.com
> Toll-free (866) 706-2639
> Cell (917) 664-9329 (not always turned on)
> Author of:
> Obama: The Man Behind The Mask
> http://orangestatepress.com
> Published: July 2008
> http://StopObamaCoalition.comhttp://CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.c
> om
So how do we connect these facts? Did she give birth in Honolulu and then leave her son and head for Seattle? Did she really give birth in Washington? It seems strange that Anne Dunham would give birth and abandon her son four weeks later to attend college. But maybe that's what happened. She appears to have been a very unstable person.
It is these kinds of doubts and gaps in the factual history of Obama that fuel the endless speculation about his origins.
I am more determined than ever to ask the Honolulu court on November 18th to release the typewritten hard copy of Obama's "original" Certificate of Live Birth. And I am more suspicious as well. (I have my own theories, but I'll hold them for the moment.)
I have seen, of course, theories about Obama's birth ranging from birth in Mombassa, Kenya, to Hawai'i, to Canada, to Washington State. But no one seems to have asked the obvious question: What happened to the boy when Anne matriculated in college? Who cared for him?
Have I missed something, overlooked something, fumbled some fact or piece of critical information? Frankly, the birth in Hawai'i in August and school attendance in Seattle four weeks later do not compute for me. I am left wondering what the facts are.
What is the truth? Did she have the baby and then abandon him four weeks later to attend college. Did grandma hire a nurse? What happened? Is the above e-mail a hoax?
I hate to add to the suspicion, or fuel the paranoia, but I invite all of my readers and anyone else who can furnish verifiable, factual information to join in creating a timeline connecting Barack Obama's birth and his mother's registration at college four weeks later. Perhaps there is a simple and straightforward answer. (We are swamped, on the eve of the election, and can't devote our limited resources to the inquiry.) Who cared for the baby? Where? What records or stories do we have to verify these claims?
If I am confused, and I am a recognized expert on Obama, is it any wonder the general public and ordinary voters are even more confused by this man, who could hold ultimate power in our nation for the next four years?
Barack Obama has not adequately answered these questions about himself. Given that he had a very unstable family life, there is a justifiable concern about his earliest nurturing and overwhelming interest in who provided it. Where was mom?
You tell me.
MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639 or CELL (917) 664-9329
E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com
Deflation? Unemployment?
Seasonally adjusted CPI
Someone just e-mailed that there is deflation in the making. The above table (in case of viewing trouble, the chart is located here) shows the Consumer Price Index over the past year. The numbers at the end, 2.6 and 4.9, indicate the inflation rate over the three months and twelve months ended September 2008. A 4.9% annual inflation rate is historically high. Note that there was recently a more than 50% fall in oil prices due to a speculative crash. Despite this, inflation in September was zero. Between 1913 and 2008 the CPI increased more than 4.9% only 19 times. That means that this year has had the 20th highest inflation in the past 95 years and represents the 21st percentile. I would call it above-average inflation. I am puzzling over how there can be deflation and inflation at the same time, but apparently today's economists and media pundits have figured out a way. It is true that the CPI deliberately excludes an element that ought to be counted toward inflation--house prices. The problem with including house prices now is that they were excluded since the 1980s and so inflation has been understated every year since 1983. If they add it in then inflation will have been 1/4 higher. It would seem that the Federal Reserve's regime has been one of price instability.
It is true that unemployment has been increasing. In February of this year unemployment was 4.8%. Unemployment is up 24%, from 4.9% in January to 6.1% in September. This would seem to reflect the decline in construction due to falling house prices.
In days gone by some economists claimed that unemployment implied deflation or reduced inflation and vice-versa. However, in the 1970s there was both high unemployment and high inflation, earning the appellation "stagflation".
Nouriel Roubini describes his fear of deflation in a Forbes article. Roubini argues that slack consumer markets, falling commodity prices, a global recession and unemployment will cause deflation. He notes that commodity prices are down 30% from their July peak. Also, inflation-adjusted treasury bonds are selling for more than non-inflation-adjusted treasury bonds. He argues that the federal government will not monetize (print money to cover) the trillion dollar bailout and that "central banks will mop up" the massive increase in the money supply in the past few months. These last points are speculative. Why would he think that a fifty percent increase in monetary reserves will be "mopped up" by the banking system? Banks are sitting on surplus reserves and they will eventually use them to make ever worse investments.
The 30% contraction in commodity prices to which Roubini refers follows a large increase in oil prices. The average oil price in 2007 was approximately equal to the current price. Thus, there was likely a speculative run up in oil prices over the past 18 months. The current oil price of $64.42 is almost triple the average price in 2002, $22.81. Comparing gold, which has fallen 26% from its 2008 high (which is the nominal all-time). In January 2001 the gold price was approximately $280 per ounce. It peaked at approximately $1,000 in March and is now about $736, 2.6 times higher than or almost triple its low in 2001. Might there have been excessive speculation in commodity markets that exceeded inflation and so caused a pull-back? These fluctuations would be greater than normal, but occur all the time in commodities markets.
The current banking problems have reduced new construction and are causing house prices to fall. However, this does not mean that there will be no inflation. The Fed's increase in monetary reserves of 60% is on top of several decades of healthy monetary expansion. Much of the monetary expansion was invested in worthless sub-prime and other real estate development. The Fed has already expanded the money supply to create unmarketable, worthless, investments to the tune of hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars. It is difficult to picture how food, energy and commodities will not increase in price given the destruction of resources in which borrowers from banks funded through Federal Reserve Bank Credit have engaged since 1981.
Someone just e-mailed that there is deflation in the making. The above table (in case of viewing trouble, the chart is located here) shows the Consumer Price Index over the past year. The numbers at the end, 2.6 and 4.9, indicate the inflation rate over the three months and twelve months ended September 2008. A 4.9% annual inflation rate is historically high. Note that there was recently a more than 50% fall in oil prices due to a speculative crash. Despite this, inflation in September was zero. Between 1913 and 2008 the CPI increased more than 4.9% only 19 times. That means that this year has had the 20th highest inflation in the past 95 years and represents the 21st percentile. I would call it above-average inflation. I am puzzling over how there can be deflation and inflation at the same time, but apparently today's economists and media pundits have figured out a way. It is true that the CPI deliberately excludes an element that ought to be counted toward inflation--house prices. The problem with including house prices now is that they were excluded since the 1980s and so inflation has been understated every year since 1983. If they add it in then inflation will have been 1/4 higher. It would seem that the Federal Reserve's regime has been one of price instability.
It is true that unemployment has been increasing. In February of this year unemployment was 4.8%. Unemployment is up 24%, from 4.9% in January to 6.1% in September. This would seem to reflect the decline in construction due to falling house prices.
In days gone by some economists claimed that unemployment implied deflation or reduced inflation and vice-versa. However, in the 1970s there was both high unemployment and high inflation, earning the appellation "stagflation".
Nouriel Roubini describes his fear of deflation in a Forbes article. Roubini argues that slack consumer markets, falling commodity prices, a global recession and unemployment will cause deflation. He notes that commodity prices are down 30% from their July peak. Also, inflation-adjusted treasury bonds are selling for more than non-inflation-adjusted treasury bonds. He argues that the federal government will not monetize (print money to cover) the trillion dollar bailout and that "central banks will mop up" the massive increase in the money supply in the past few months. These last points are speculative. Why would he think that a fifty percent increase in monetary reserves will be "mopped up" by the banking system? Banks are sitting on surplus reserves and they will eventually use them to make ever worse investments.
The 30% contraction in commodity prices to which Roubini refers follows a large increase in oil prices. The average oil price in 2007 was approximately equal to the current price. Thus, there was likely a speculative run up in oil prices over the past 18 months. The current oil price of $64.42 is almost triple the average price in 2002, $22.81. Comparing gold, which has fallen 26% from its 2008 high (which is the nominal all-time). In January 2001 the gold price was approximately $280 per ounce. It peaked at approximately $1,000 in March and is now about $736, 2.6 times higher than or almost triple its low in 2001. Might there have been excessive speculation in commodity markets that exceeded inflation and so caused a pull-back? These fluctuations would be greater than normal, but occur all the time in commodities markets.
The current banking problems have reduced new construction and are causing house prices to fall. However, this does not mean that there will be no inflation. The Fed's increase in monetary reserves of 60% is on top of several decades of healthy monetary expansion. Much of the monetary expansion was invested in worthless sub-prime and other real estate development. The Fed has already expanded the money supply to create unmarketable, worthless, investments to the tune of hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars. It is difficult to picture how food, energy and commodities will not increase in price given the destruction of resources in which borrowers from banks funded through Federal Reserve Bank Credit have engaged since 1981.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
What every Jew Should Know About Obama
A reader of this blog referred me to this video.
Also this:
Also see:
If Israel falls, who will be to blame?
Also this:
Also see:
If Israel falls, who will be to blame?
Is Barack Obama the Anti-Christ?
In recent weeks it has become clear that Barack Obama is a serial liar. His hypnotic public speaking facilitates a series of deceptions that may have deeper significance. Obama's associates, such as Pastor Jeremiah Wright and Rashid Khalidi, suggest a degree of anti-Semitism and hostility to the state of Israel. Yet, Senator Obama is willing to lie about this, and is able to convince the puissant media of a series of far-fetched distortions and misrepresentations.
I am not a theologian or a biblical scholar, but I can't help but wonder whether there is scriptural support for Barack Obama's being the Anti-Christ.
I am not a theologian or a biblical scholar, but I can't help but wonder whether there is scriptural support for Barack Obama's being the Anti-Christ.
Is Obama Leland Gaunt? He Refuses to Reveal COLB: Theories Fly
Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs (h/t Norma Segal) raises intriguing questions about the Obama birth certificate:
>o How could Stanley Ann Dunham have delivered Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. in August of 1961 in Honolulu, when official University of Washington records show her 2680 miles away in Seattle attending classes that same month?
oApparently the Governor of Hawaii has sealed Obama's birth certificate records. Why? Why seal the records? What is Obama afraid of?
Pamela notes that Obama has admitted having had dual citizenship with Kenya as a child. According to Doug Edelman in Postchronicle.com
"Thanks to the lawsuit filed by Philip Berg, Obama now ADMITS (on his "Fight the Smears" website and factcheck.org) that he held dual citizenship with Kenya as a child. This, in and of itself, may arguably disqualify him under Article II as the whole point of the "Natural Born Citizen" requirement is the avoidance of divided allegiances."
Obviously, Pamela's allegations contradict those of Andy Martin, who contends that Obama is really the son of Frank Marshall Davis.
Behind all of the rumors is, of course, Barack Obama's steadfast refusal to allow Berg, Martin or anyone else to obtain hard copy of the original Certificate of Live Birth, the typed vault copy that includes the father's name and other potentially embarrassing information. Incredibly, the Federal Elections Commission does not believe that this tidbit is relevant to its financial review of candidates, and State Boards of Elections run the election system much as the Public Health Service would run your health care under national health insurance. Thus, Obama has been able to lie.
The flurry of law suits and cross-claims reminds me of the Stephen King movie "Needful Things" in which Max von Sydow plays Leland Gaunt, a Satanic store owner who sells "needful things" to everyone in the town, but requires each customer to pull a prank, causing a major contretemps of all against all. Finally, Sheriff Alan Pangborn (Ed Harris) figures out that it is the devil in disguise, Leland Gaunt, who is behind the town's civil war. It may be coincidental that the name "pangborn" refers to birth, and the issue with Obama is his birth certificate. Really.
Will Obama's endless lying and deception lead to the next American Civil War?
>o How could Stanley Ann Dunham have delivered Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. in August of 1961 in Honolulu, when official University of Washington records show her 2680 miles away in Seattle attending classes that same month?
oApparently the Governor of Hawaii has sealed Obama's birth certificate records. Why? Why seal the records? What is Obama afraid of?
Pamela notes that Obama has admitted having had dual citizenship with Kenya as a child. According to Doug Edelman in Postchronicle.com
"Thanks to the lawsuit filed by Philip Berg, Obama now ADMITS (on his "Fight the Smears" website and factcheck.org) that he held dual citizenship with Kenya as a child. This, in and of itself, may arguably disqualify him under Article II as the whole point of the "Natural Born Citizen" requirement is the avoidance of divided allegiances."
Obviously, Pamela's allegations contradict those of Andy Martin, who contends that Obama is really the son of Frank Marshall Davis.
Behind all of the rumors is, of course, Barack Obama's steadfast refusal to allow Berg, Martin or anyone else to obtain hard copy of the original Certificate of Live Birth, the typed vault copy that includes the father's name and other potentially embarrassing information. Incredibly, the Federal Elections Commission does not believe that this tidbit is relevant to its financial review of candidates, and State Boards of Elections run the election system much as the Public Health Service would run your health care under national health insurance. Thus, Obama has been able to lie.
The flurry of law suits and cross-claims reminds me of the Stephen King movie "Needful Things" in which Max von Sydow plays Leland Gaunt, a Satanic store owner who sells "needful things" to everyone in the town, but requires each customer to pull a prank, causing a major contretemps of all against all. Finally, Sheriff Alan Pangborn (Ed Harris) figures out that it is the devil in disguise, Leland Gaunt, who is behind the town's civil war. It may be coincidental that the name "pangborn" refers to birth, and the issue with Obama is his birth certificate. Really.
Will Obama's endless lying and deception lead to the next American Civil War?
Demand That LA Times Release Obama Tape
I received this e-mail from Norma Segal:
With less than a week before Election Day, the L.A. Times has decided to withhold a potentially explosive video featuring presidential candidate Barack Obama and Rashid Khalidi, a pro-terrorist radical and one-time spokesman for the late PLO head Yasser Arafat, rather than allow the public to view the video and make up their own minds.
According to the L.A. Times report, the video shows Obama reminiscing about meals prepared by Khalidi's wife, and "conversations that had challenged his thinking, " but released no other details of the video.
If the L.A. Times professes to be in the news business, it should reveal all the news, not suppress it.
Given Obama's longtime, personal relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose anti-Israel rhetoric has been oft repeated, it's essential Americans have an opportunity to view the truths found on that videotape--before the election!
++ Action Item--Contact the L.A. Times
On the heals of an amazingly successful grassroots initiative directed at CNN just days ago, I'm urging members of the MRC Action Team to take fast action by contacting the L.A. Times and demanding they immediately release this video.
Go here to access the L.A. Times article, and send your personalized email to key L.A. Times staff:
http://www.mrcaction.org/r.asp?U=12866&CID=506&RID=18145069
Susan, at this late hour, we cannot allow the liberal
media to withhold key information from the American public.
We simply must take to task whenever we see liberal media bias--
and this is certainly a prime example.
Please take immediate action by contacting the L.A. Times today,
demanding release of that potentially explosive video by clicking here:
http://www.mrcaction.org/r.asp?U=12867&CID=506&RID=18145069
After sending your emails, and making your phone calls, forward this message to 20-30friends urging them to follow your lead by clicking here:
http://www.mrcaction.org/r.asp?U=12868&CID=506&RID=18145069
Again, there is far too much at stake to allow the liberal media elite to dictate what stories we are fed each day. The media have a responsibility to report the truth, and we must hold them accountable whenever necessary.
With your help, I believe we can make a difference here!
Thank you for your support!
Brent Bozell
Founder and President
With less than a week before Election Day, the L.A. Times has decided to withhold a potentially explosive video featuring presidential candidate Barack Obama and Rashid Khalidi, a pro-terrorist radical and one-time spokesman for the late PLO head Yasser Arafat, rather than allow the public to view the video and make up their own minds.
According to the L.A. Times report, the video shows Obama reminiscing about meals prepared by Khalidi's wife, and "conversations that had challenged his thinking, " but released no other details of the video.
If the L.A. Times professes to be in the news business, it should reveal all the news, not suppress it.
Given Obama's longtime, personal relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose anti-Israel rhetoric has been oft repeated, it's essential Americans have an opportunity to view the truths found on that videotape--before the election!
++ Action Item--Contact the L.A. Times
On the heals of an amazingly successful grassroots initiative directed at CNN just days ago, I'm urging members of the MRC Action Team to take fast action by contacting the L.A. Times and demanding they immediately release this video.
Go here to access the L.A. Times article, and send your personalized email to key L.A. Times staff:
http://www.mrcaction.org/r.asp?U=12866&CID=506&RID=18145069
Susan, at this late hour, we cannot allow the liberal
media to withhold key information from the American public.
We simply must take to task whenever we see liberal media bias--
and this is certainly a prime example.
Please take immediate action by contacting the L.A. Times today,
demanding release of that potentially explosive video by clicking here:
http://www.mrcaction.org/r.asp?U=12867&CID=506&RID=18145069
After sending your emails, and making your phone calls, forward this message to 20-30friends urging them to follow your lead by clicking here:
http://www.mrcaction.org/r.asp?U=12868&CID=506&RID=18145069
Again, there is far too much at stake to allow the liberal media elite to dictate what stories we are fed each day. The media have a responsibility to report the truth, and we must hold them accountable whenever necessary.
With your help, I believe we can make a difference here!
Thank you for your support!
Brent Bozell
Founder and President
Hearing Date Set for Martin v. Lingle
I just received the following press release from Andy Martin:
Hawai'i judge sets hearing date in Barack Obama birth certificate case
>FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Hawaii Circuit Judge Bert I Ayabe set a November 18 hearing in Andy Martin's case to release Barack Obama's original, typewritten 1961 birth certificate and any supporting documents
(HONOLULU)(October 29, 2008) Judge Bert I Ayabe Wednesday set a hearing in the case of Andy Martin vs. Linda Lingle, First Circuit for Honolulu, No. 08-1-2147-10.
The hearing is set for November 18, 2008 at 10:30 A.M.
Anyone wishing to contribute to the expenses of this litigation is welcome to do so:
http://CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com
---------------------------------------------
ANDY MARTIN
Post Office Box 1851
New York, NY 10150-1851
Toll-free tel. (866) 706-2639
Toll-free fax (866) 707-2639
Temporary Hawai'i
tel. (917) 664-9329
Plaintiff pro se
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
STATE OF HAWAII
ANDY MARTIN, ) CIVIL NUMBER: 08-1-2147-10
) (Declaratory Judgment)
Plaintiff, ) Judge Ayabe
)
vs. ) COMPLAINT FOR
) DECLARATORY JUDGMENT;
LINDA LINGLE, in her ) EXHIBIT 1: SUMMONS
Official capacity as Governor )
Of the State of Hawai'i, )
DR. CHIYOME FUKINO, in her )
official capacity as Director )
of the Department of Health, )
)
Defendants. )
_________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff ANDY MARTIN ("Plaintiff"), pro se, alleges in his Complaint for Declaratory Judgment against the Defendants as follows:
PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
Plaintiff ANDY MARTIN is the author of a book on Senator Barack Obama ("Senator Obama"). He has also been writing columns and commentary about the senator for over four (4) years.
Defendants LINDA LINGLE and DR. CHIYOME FUKINO are Governor and Director of the Department of Health, respectively.
This Complaint for Declaratory Relief and these proceedings are instituted pursuant to § 632-1, Hawai'i Revised Statutes.
Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to § 603-36, Hawaii Revised Statutes.
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
1. Plaintiff requested a certified copy of the birth certificate of Senator Obama from the Department of Health and tendered the requisite fee.
2. Defendants refused to provide a copy of said certificate, invoking the confidentiality statutes of the State.
3. The issue of the Senator's birth certificate has become a controversial topic of intense national speculation.
4. As an author who strives for factual accuracy and attempts to conduct thorough research Plaintiff wants a copy of the Senator's birth certificate attested to by the State and not a "certificate" which is posted on a web site and which has been debunked as possibly having been altered.
5. One of the more literate and temperate analyses of the unlawfulness of the Defendants' refusal to issue certified copies of the birth certificate is contained in Exhibit 1 attached hereto.
6. To the extent that the Defendants' files contain or retain original supporting data for the birth certificate, Plaintiff asks that he also be supplied with that information and/or material as well.
7. It is axiomatic that the birth certificate of a presidential candidate is a document of crucial public concern and significance.
8. While Hawai'i statutes call for a balancing or weighing test where production is considered by a court, most respectfully Plaintiff submits that the balance falls entirely on the side of disclosure where the original birth certificate of a presidential candidate is concerned.
DECLARATORY RELIEF SOUGHT
9. Based on the relevant statutes and constitutional law, including Article One, Section 4 ("freedom of the press") and § 92F-15 (e) and § 338-18 (a) (9), Plaintiff asks that the Court direct and order defendants to turn over forthwith a copy of Senator Obama's birth certificate and related files and records, and without any delay.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Andy Martin prays for relief as follows:
A. For a declaration by this Court that Plaintiff is an author and writer and is a person to whom the birth certificate of Senator Obama can and should properly be delivered forthwith;
B. For such other relief as this Court deems just and equitable.
Dated: Honolulu, Hawai'i, ______________________
Respectfully submitted,
ANDY MARTIN
Plaintiff Pro se
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
URGENT APPEAL: The Committee of One Million to Defeat Barack Obama is raising money to fight Barack Obama. http://CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com. Please give generously up to the maximum of $100. Our ability to fight and defeat Barack Obama is directly dependent on the generosity of every American."
The Committee of One Million to Defeat Barack Obama limits itself to $100 maximum contributions; there are no bundlers, fat cats or illegal contributions. Obama is opposed to everything America stands for," says Executive Director Andy Martin. "But while Obama has raised more than a third of a BILLION dollars, his opponents have raised virtually nothing. We can't just sit back and expect John McCain to do the job all alone. Americans can either contribute now, or pay later. If we do not succeed, Obama will."
E-mail: contact@CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com
---------------------------------------------
MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639 or CELL (917) 664-9329
E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com [NOTE: We frequently correct typographical errors and additions/subtractions on our blogs, where you can find the latest edition of this release.]
Hawai'i judge sets hearing date in Barack Obama birth certificate case
>FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Hawaii Circuit Judge Bert I Ayabe set a November 18 hearing in Andy Martin's case to release Barack Obama's original, typewritten 1961 birth certificate and any supporting documents
(HONOLULU)(October 29, 2008) Judge Bert I Ayabe Wednesday set a hearing in the case of Andy Martin vs. Linda Lingle, First Circuit for Honolulu, No. 08-1-2147-10.
The hearing is set for November 18, 2008 at 10:30 A.M.
Anyone wishing to contribute to the expenses of this litigation is welcome to do so:
http://CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com
---------------------------------------------
ANDY MARTIN
Post Office Box 1851
New York, NY 10150-1851
Toll-free tel. (866) 706-2639
Toll-free fax (866) 707-2639
Temporary Hawai'i
tel. (917) 664-9329
Plaintiff pro se
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
STATE OF HAWAII
ANDY MARTIN, ) CIVIL NUMBER: 08-1-2147-10
) (Declaratory Judgment)
Plaintiff, ) Judge Ayabe
)
vs. ) COMPLAINT FOR
) DECLARATORY JUDGMENT;
LINDA LINGLE, in her ) EXHIBIT 1: SUMMONS
Official capacity as Governor )
Of the State of Hawai'i, )
DR. CHIYOME FUKINO, in her )
official capacity as Director )
of the Department of Health, )
)
Defendants. )
_________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff ANDY MARTIN ("Plaintiff"), pro se, alleges in his Complaint for Declaratory Judgment against the Defendants as follows:
PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
Plaintiff ANDY MARTIN is the author of a book on Senator Barack Obama ("Senator Obama"). He has also been writing columns and commentary about the senator for over four (4) years.
Defendants LINDA LINGLE and DR. CHIYOME FUKINO are Governor and Director of the Department of Health, respectively.
This Complaint for Declaratory Relief and these proceedings are instituted pursuant to § 632-1, Hawai'i Revised Statutes.
Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to § 603-36, Hawaii Revised Statutes.
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
1. Plaintiff requested a certified copy of the birth certificate of Senator Obama from the Department of Health and tendered the requisite fee.
2. Defendants refused to provide a copy of said certificate, invoking the confidentiality statutes of the State.
3. The issue of the Senator's birth certificate has become a controversial topic of intense national speculation.
4. As an author who strives for factual accuracy and attempts to conduct thorough research Plaintiff wants a copy of the Senator's birth certificate attested to by the State and not a "certificate" which is posted on a web site and which has been debunked as possibly having been altered.
5. One of the more literate and temperate analyses of the unlawfulness of the Defendants' refusal to issue certified copies of the birth certificate is contained in Exhibit 1 attached hereto.
6. To the extent that the Defendants' files contain or retain original supporting data for the birth certificate, Plaintiff asks that he also be supplied with that information and/or material as well.
7. It is axiomatic that the birth certificate of a presidential candidate is a document of crucial public concern and significance.
8. While Hawai'i statutes call for a balancing or weighing test where production is considered by a court, most respectfully Plaintiff submits that the balance falls entirely on the side of disclosure where the original birth certificate of a presidential candidate is concerned.
DECLARATORY RELIEF SOUGHT
9. Based on the relevant statutes and constitutional law, including Article One, Section 4 ("freedom of the press") and § 92F-15 (e) and § 338-18 (a) (9), Plaintiff asks that the Court direct and order defendants to turn over forthwith a copy of Senator Obama's birth certificate and related files and records, and without any delay.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Andy Martin prays for relief as follows:
A. For a declaration by this Court that Plaintiff is an author and writer and is a person to whom the birth certificate of Senator Obama can and should properly be delivered forthwith;
B. For such other relief as this Court deems just and equitable.
Dated: Honolulu, Hawai'i, ______________________
Respectfully submitted,
ANDY MARTIN
Plaintiff Pro se
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
URGENT APPEAL: The Committee of One Million to Defeat Barack Obama is raising money to fight Barack Obama. http://CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com. Please give generously up to the maximum of $100. Our ability to fight and defeat Barack Obama is directly dependent on the generosity of every American."
The Committee of One Million to Defeat Barack Obama limits itself to $100 maximum contributions; there are no bundlers, fat cats or illegal contributions. Obama is opposed to everything America stands for," says Executive Director Andy Martin. "But while Obama has raised more than a third of a BILLION dollars, his opponents have raised virtually nothing. We can't just sit back and expect John McCain to do the job all alone. Americans can either contribute now, or pay later. If we do not succeed, Obama will."
E-mail: contact@CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com
---------------------------------------------
MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639 or CELL (917) 664-9329
E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com [NOTE: We frequently correct typographical errors and additions/subtractions on our blogs, where you can find the latest edition of this release.]
Renaming the Media
CNN, AP, the New York Times and the like are no longer entitled to be called "mainstream media". There is nothing "mainstream" about them, and their audiences don't warrant the moniker "mainstream". If the Libertarian Party is not a "mainstream" party, why is the New York Times a "mainstream" newspaper?
Circulation of New York Times: 1.1 million daily, 1.6 million Sunday
Votes received by Libertarian Party candidates for House of Reps: Over one million
Votes for Libertarian Party presidential candidate Michael Badnarik in 2006: 397,265
Readers of political blogs in 2004 (the number is much higher now): 32 million*
*27% x 120 million Internet users = 32.4 million
If the Libertarian Party is not a "mainstream" political party, why is a newspaper with 100,000, 300,000 or 1.1 million readers "mainstream"?
I have carefully thought about this question. The word "pissant" comes to mind as a good description of the media, but it is somewhat vulgar. The word "puissant" means the opposite of "pissant". Derived from Middle French, "puissant" is related to the words "posse" and "potent" and refers to "power". It is probably more accurate to say that the New York Times has power than that it is mainstream. In fact, I would argue that it represents an extremist social democratic point of view. On the other hand, "pissant" means insignificant or worthless, and derives from the word pismire, which in turn refers to the smell of uric acid on ant hills.
Although the two words are opposite in meaning, they both could apply to the media. Pissant is probably more accurate but because of its vulgarity the word "puissant", which means powerful but reminds one of "pissant" might be the best word.
The mainstream media is hereby dubbed the "puissant media".
Circulation of New York Times: 1.1 million daily, 1.6 million Sunday
Votes received by Libertarian Party candidates for House of Reps: Over one million
Votes for Libertarian Party presidential candidate Michael Badnarik in 2006: 397,265
Readers of political blogs in 2004 (the number is much higher now): 32 million*
*27% x 120 million Internet users = 32.4 million
If the Libertarian Party is not a "mainstream" political party, why is a newspaper with 100,000, 300,000 or 1.1 million readers "mainstream"?
I have carefully thought about this question. The word "pissant" comes to mind as a good description of the media, but it is somewhat vulgar. The word "puissant" means the opposite of "pissant". Derived from Middle French, "puissant" is related to the words "posse" and "potent" and refers to "power". It is probably more accurate to say that the New York Times has power than that it is mainstream. In fact, I would argue that it represents an extremist social democratic point of view. On the other hand, "pissant" means insignificant or worthless, and derives from the word pismire, which in turn refers to the smell of uric acid on ant hills.
Although the two words are opposite in meaning, they both could apply to the media. Pissant is probably more accurate but because of its vulgarity the word "puissant", which means powerful but reminds one of "pissant" might be the best word.
The mainstream media is hereby dubbed the "puissant media".
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Obama, Khalidi, and O'Reilly
Contrairimairi forwarded a Charles Lemos By the Fault article. In the Youtube video featured on Lemos's site, Obama denies any special connection to Khalidi.
Lemos notes that Obama failed to mention that Rashid Khalidi, Palestinian anti-Semite,
-hosted a fundraiser for Obama when he ran unsuccessfully for Congress in 2000, or that
-Obama attended a testimonial dinner for Khalidi and praised him when Khalidi left Chicago to chair Columbia’s Middle Eastern Studies Department, or that
-while Obama served on the Board of the Woods Fund, the board voted to grant $40,000.00 to the Arab American Network, an organization headed by Khalidi’s wife, Mona Khalidi.
The Woods Fund is also the focus of Obama's relationship with William Ayers.
At a dinner celebrating Palestinian culture the LA Times reported in April 2008 that:
"a special tribute came from Khalidi’s friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi’s wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking.
"His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been “consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It’s for that reason that I’m hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation — a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid’s dinner table,” but around “this entire world.”
Yet, the major news outlets are willing to accept Obama's claim that he hardly knew Khalidi. This is more than journalistic incompetence. Listening for about sixty seconds to O'Reilly tonight I heard O'Reilly speak of Obama's "presidential statesmanship." But O'Reilly has refused to discuss Obama's pathological lying or to question him about it when Obama appeared on his program. The mass media, from ABC to Fox, from O'Reilly to Lou Dobbs, has been a hall of mirrors.
Contrairimairis adds:
"These were BO's words back in May, when his affiliations with Rashid Khalidi came under closer scrutiny. My question is........WHERE are the "900" other friends? Why do we not have someone from the "hood" just coming forward to say......"Wow, I know Barack, what a great guy! I think you can really trust him. His kids and my kids used to play together...I think Barack has ALWAYS maintained a very 'clandestine' life because he has NEVER viewed America the way 'Americans' view America. His 'friends' all seem to think there is something seriously wrong with this Country, that needs to be RADICALLY fixed...
"You see, I truly believe that once the crown is on his head, all those waiting under the bus will be greeted with open arms at the WH. And probably with TONS of praise and thanks for their understanding that the prize had to be first obtained, and THEN the associations could resume at full speed. We may even start to see those questionable 'disbursements' begin once again.
"This is just so frightening, that so many Americans are willing to be duped...Seriously, it's not like there was a single person who hated America.....let's say Billy Boy, and another who said we should be against nuclear energy, and maybe another who thought we should be sharing technology with oh,....maybe Australia. That is not what these associations are, or show. They are all America hating, Jew/Israel hating..."
Mairi is right, of course. But this is not the first time "progressive" Jews have preferred the pride of political correctness and fashion over concern for palpable, potentially murderous anti-Semitism. In the 1930s, for example, New York's "progressive" Jewish community was passive during the lead up to the Holocaust, and their passivity was encouraged by the Ochs Sulzbergers, owners of the New York Times, who buried the Holocaust story in the remote inner pages of their newspaper. Today, "progressives" prefer to be cool, to side with fashion and to call Sarah Palin anti-Semitic because she once attended a meeting where a Jewish convert to Christianity spoke. Meanwhile, their favored candidate openly associates with an activist who aggressively supports those who murder Jews.
Lemos notes that Obama failed to mention that Rashid Khalidi, Palestinian anti-Semite,
-hosted a fundraiser for Obama when he ran unsuccessfully for Congress in 2000, or that
-Obama attended a testimonial dinner for Khalidi and praised him when Khalidi left Chicago to chair Columbia’s Middle Eastern Studies Department, or that
-while Obama served on the Board of the Woods Fund, the board voted to grant $40,000.00 to the Arab American Network, an organization headed by Khalidi’s wife, Mona Khalidi.
The Woods Fund is also the focus of Obama's relationship with William Ayers.
At a dinner celebrating Palestinian culture the LA Times reported in April 2008 that:
"a special tribute came from Khalidi’s friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi’s wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking.
"His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been “consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It’s for that reason that I’m hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation — a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid’s dinner table,” but around “this entire world.”
Yet, the major news outlets are willing to accept Obama's claim that he hardly knew Khalidi. This is more than journalistic incompetence. Listening for about sixty seconds to O'Reilly tonight I heard O'Reilly speak of Obama's "presidential statesmanship." But O'Reilly has refused to discuss Obama's pathological lying or to question him about it when Obama appeared on his program. The mass media, from ABC to Fox, from O'Reilly to Lou Dobbs, has been a hall of mirrors.
Contrairimairis adds:
"These were BO's words back in May, when his affiliations with Rashid Khalidi came under closer scrutiny. My question is........WHERE are the "900" other friends? Why do we not have someone from the "hood" just coming forward to say......"Wow, I know Barack, what a great guy! I think you can really trust him. His kids and my kids used to play together...I think Barack has ALWAYS maintained a very 'clandestine' life because he has NEVER viewed America the way 'Americans' view America. His 'friends' all seem to think there is something seriously wrong with this Country, that needs to be RADICALLY fixed...
"You see, I truly believe that once the crown is on his head, all those waiting under the bus will be greeted with open arms at the WH. And probably with TONS of praise and thanks for their understanding that the prize had to be first obtained, and THEN the associations could resume at full speed. We may even start to see those questionable 'disbursements' begin once again.
"This is just so frightening, that so many Americans are willing to be duped...Seriously, it's not like there was a single person who hated America.....let's say Billy Boy, and another who said we should be against nuclear energy, and maybe another who thought we should be sharing technology with oh,....maybe Australia. That is not what these associations are, or show. They are all America hating, Jew/Israel hating..."
Mairi is right, of course. But this is not the first time "progressive" Jews have preferred the pride of political correctness and fashion over concern for palpable, potentially murderous anti-Semitism. In the 1930s, for example, New York's "progressive" Jewish community was passive during the lead up to the Holocaust, and their passivity was encouraged by the Ochs Sulzbergers, owners of the New York Times, who buried the Holocaust story in the remote inner pages of their newspaper. Today, "progressives" prefer to be cool, to side with fashion and to call Sarah Palin anti-Semitic because she once attended a meeting where a Jewish convert to Christianity spoke. Meanwhile, their favored candidate openly associates with an activist who aggressively supports those who murder Jews.
Pinch Yourself---Before Reality Hits You in The Head
Dan Friedman just forwarded Melanie Phillips's fine Spectator article "Pinch Yourself". Phillips writes:
>"The contrast between, on the one hand, the huge amount of material about Obama’s radical associations that has been published in on-line journals and in a few brave newspapers, and on the other the refusal by big media to address it and to vilify those who do, becomes more astounding by the day...
"...through the Annenberg Challenge, Obama and Ayers channelled funds to extremist anti-American Afrocentric ‘educational’ programmes which were a carbon-copy of the world view of Pastor Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s black racist mentor who, under pressure, Obama was forced to repudiate. These programmes promoted, amongst other radical ideas, the ‘rites of passage’ philosophy which attempted to create a ‘virtually separate and intensely anti-American black social world’ in order to ‘counter the potentially detrimental effects of a Eurocentrically oriented society.’ One such teacher taught that
"‘The submission to Western civilization and its most outstanding offspring, American civilization, is, in reality, surrender to white supremacy.’"
The aftermath of the 2008 election may play out this way. The media's lying will hit home to America's bamboozled electorate when inflation, stagnant economic opportunity and reduced standards of living are coupled with Obama's egregious foreign policy mis-steps. The outcome may be a libertarian counter-revolution that is stronger and more pointed than the Reagan revolution and may result in a reformation or outright replacement of the Republican Party.
What is astonishing about this election is that it is as close as it is and that despite overt propagandizing by the media, which has done irreparable harm to it, along with three decades of Republican expansion of government, the recent overt and massive transfer of wealth from the average American to the wealthy, banks and debtors through the Republican bailout plan, and three decades of inflationary Republican monetary policies, the Republicans are as close as they are.
In other words, the media has had trouble lying for Barack Obama even though they have lied more aggressively than ever before and their lying has made them and their readers, viewers and listeners appear to be ignorant fools. This may be the election that does final damage to the remaining remnant of the PAM media's credibility.
Obama's going to go down because his ideas are so bad, and he is is going to bring Progressivism and the media down with him.
One final point: this may be good for freedom-loving Americans. The Republican Party has been the "Progressive Party" while the Democratic Party has been the "Social Democratic Party" for the last century. There is no longer any freedom party. A series of social upheavals created by a left-wing American government may become the best opportunity believers in freedom have had since the 1950s.
>"The contrast between, on the one hand, the huge amount of material about Obama’s radical associations that has been published in on-line journals and in a few brave newspapers, and on the other the refusal by big media to address it and to vilify those who do, becomes more astounding by the day...
"...through the Annenberg Challenge, Obama and Ayers channelled funds to extremist anti-American Afrocentric ‘educational’ programmes which were a carbon-copy of the world view of Pastor Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s black racist mentor who, under pressure, Obama was forced to repudiate. These programmes promoted, amongst other radical ideas, the ‘rites of passage’ philosophy which attempted to create a ‘virtually separate and intensely anti-American black social world’ in order to ‘counter the potentially detrimental effects of a Eurocentrically oriented society.’ One such teacher taught that
"‘The submission to Western civilization and its most outstanding offspring, American civilization, is, in reality, surrender to white supremacy.’"
The aftermath of the 2008 election may play out this way. The media's lying will hit home to America's bamboozled electorate when inflation, stagnant economic opportunity and reduced standards of living are coupled with Obama's egregious foreign policy mis-steps. The outcome may be a libertarian counter-revolution that is stronger and more pointed than the Reagan revolution and may result in a reformation or outright replacement of the Republican Party.
What is astonishing about this election is that it is as close as it is and that despite overt propagandizing by the media, which has done irreparable harm to it, along with three decades of Republican expansion of government, the recent overt and massive transfer of wealth from the average American to the wealthy, banks and debtors through the Republican bailout plan, and three decades of inflationary Republican monetary policies, the Republicans are as close as they are.
In other words, the media has had trouble lying for Barack Obama even though they have lied more aggressively than ever before and their lying has made them and their readers, viewers and listeners appear to be ignorant fools. This may be the election that does final damage to the remaining remnant of the PAM media's credibility.
Obama's going to go down because his ideas are so bad, and he is is going to bring Progressivism and the media down with him.
One final point: this may be good for freedom-loving Americans. The Republican Party has been the "Progressive Party" while the Democratic Party has been the "Social Democratic Party" for the last century. There is no longer any freedom party. A series of social upheavals created by a left-wing American government may become the best opportunity believers in freedom have had since the 1950s.
What Does Election Management Say About Gov't's Ability to Manage Health Care?
Bob Robbins just sent me a piece by Bert Case from WLBT in Jackson, Mississippi. The piece notes that
"Mississippi's voter situation is hard to believe. Places like Madison County have over 123% more registered voters than people over the age of 18.
Sue Sautermeister, First District Election Commissioner in Madison County, tried to purge the rolls, but ran into trouble when it was discovered it takes a vote of three of the five election commissioners and the purge cannot take place within 90 days of a federal election...
"Sue Sautermeister is working hard in the First District of Madison County to start a purging of the voter rolls as soon after the election as possible. She has file drawers full of names of people who haven't voted in years and are known to be dead.
"'We have people who registered in 1965 who have never voted," she says. "We have 486 people (registered who are) over 105.'"
Given the bureaucracy, incompetence, fraud and dishonesty associated with state and federal government's handling of elections, do we really want this same organization to run our health care? I can picture it now--thousands of dead corpses lying for weeks on hospital beds, just as their names remain on voter rolls and ACORN registers homeless people in their names.
"Mississippi's voter situation is hard to believe. Places like Madison County have over 123% more registered voters than people over the age of 18.
Sue Sautermeister, First District Election Commissioner in Madison County, tried to purge the rolls, but ran into trouble when it was discovered it takes a vote of three of the five election commissioners and the purge cannot take place within 90 days of a federal election...
"Sue Sautermeister is working hard in the First District of Madison County to start a purging of the voter rolls as soon after the election as possible. She has file drawers full of names of people who haven't voted in years and are known to be dead.
"'We have people who registered in 1965 who have never voted," she says. "We have 486 people (registered who are) over 105.'"
Given the bureaucracy, incompetence, fraud and dishonesty associated with state and federal government's handling of elections, do we really want this same organization to run our health care? I can picture it now--thousands of dead corpses lying for weeks on hospital beds, just as their names remain on voter rolls and ACORN registers homeless people in their names.
Donald M. Wyrick Protests Obama Candidacy
Hat-tip Jim Crum:
TO ALL:
The following is an E - Mail that I just now sent to the Hillsborough County Supervisor of Elections. Personally, I do not know where Obama was born and he may very well be a natural born citizen, but let him prove it -- it is part of the required credentials for the job he seeks. You and I have to prove that we are U. S. citizens when we apply for a U. S. Passport, Medicare, Social Security, etc., and in view of that he is no different than you and me. If you agree with this approach then forward this E - Mail to each and every contact on your E - Mail address list and request that they send this or a similar letter to their respective Secretary of State and/or their individual county Supervisor of Elections which for Hillsborough is voter@hillsboroughcounty.org. If not then you can simply delete. If it serves nothing more than to further obfuscate the issue then it may have some desired effect. Our time is short -- it is time for action! Maybe we can still save America! Dumpy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Board of Elections Chairman:
In light of the controversy surrounding Sen. Barack Obama's failure to provide first-source proof in the presentation of his vaulted original birth certificate it becomes clear that those who have empowered the creation of the United States Government -- the citizens of the United States of America -- must now take it upon themselves to direct our elected and appointed officials to do their Constitutional duty.
We the People, demand and direct you and your commission and/or board to verify and authenticate -- by physically seeing, touching and acknowledging -- the vaulted, original and first-source birth certificate of Senator Barack Obama thus verifying his qualifications to hold the office of President of the United States of America, pursuant to Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution.
Your refusal to do so will violate your oath of office to uphold and defend the United States Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic and constitute your willing participation in the creation of a Constitutional Crisis.
Until such time as Senator Obama provides the vaulted, first-source, authentic birth certificate proving his natural born citizenship, it is demanded and directed by the power vested in the people via the US Constitution that you remove and/or disallow any balloting for or in favor of Senator Obama.
Sincerely,
Donald M. Wyrick
TO ALL:
The following is an E - Mail that I just now sent to the Hillsborough County Supervisor of Elections. Personally, I do not know where Obama was born and he may very well be a natural born citizen, but let him prove it -- it is part of the required credentials for the job he seeks. You and I have to prove that we are U. S. citizens when we apply for a U. S. Passport, Medicare, Social Security, etc., and in view of that he is no different than you and me. If you agree with this approach then forward this E - Mail to each and every contact on your E - Mail address list and request that they send this or a similar letter to their respective Secretary of State and/or their individual county Supervisor of Elections which for Hillsborough is voter@hillsboroughcounty.org. If not then you can simply delete. If it serves nothing more than to further obfuscate the issue then it may have some desired effect. Our time is short -- it is time for action! Maybe we can still save America! Dumpy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Board of Elections Chairman:
In light of the controversy surrounding Sen. Barack Obama's failure to provide first-source proof in the presentation of his vaulted original birth certificate it becomes clear that those who have empowered the creation of the United States Government -- the citizens of the United States of America -- must now take it upon themselves to direct our elected and appointed officials to do their Constitutional duty.
We the People, demand and direct you and your commission and/or board to verify and authenticate -- by physically seeing, touching and acknowledging -- the vaulted, original and first-source birth certificate of Senator Barack Obama thus verifying his qualifications to hold the office of President of the United States of America, pursuant to Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution.
Your refusal to do so will violate your oath of office to uphold and defend the United States Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic and constitute your willing participation in the creation of a Constitutional Crisis.
Until such time as Senator Obama provides the vaulted, first-source, authentic birth certificate proving his natural born citizenship, it is demanded and directed by the power vested in the people via the US Constitution that you remove and/or disallow any balloting for or in favor of Senator Obama.
Sincerely,
Donald M. Wyrick
Contrairimairi Calls for New Party
Dear Mitchell,
You are ABSOLUTELY right!
When I spoke to my sister last, I had told her that I have made a promise. If the GOOD LORD smiles just one more time on this Country, and does NOT allow BO to be elected, I intend to do my best to become extremely active in trying to sort this mess out. She told me,......"I have made the same promise........"she added, "I don't think we're alone......."
If anything is going to change, the time to start is now, and regardless of the outcome of this election, I will keep my promise, which is why the whole court thing came up in the first place.
Mitchell, I cannot at this point tell you what is going on with my family, but when I do.......suffice to say, that if you think you are angry now.......Just Wait! You ain't seen nothin' yet!
My hope is to begin a new party called...."The Conservative Party". And it would be JUST THAT! I had an e-mail on my old p/c which I wish I could retrieve. It was all about Judeo/Christian principles, and the founding of this Country. It talked about the "minor" percentage of people who are attempting to destroy those founding principles with such nonsense as removing Manger Scenes from public places. It also spoke of all the "Most Important Places" where we evidence the Founding Father's dedication to "One Nation Under GOD". There were pictures of the Ten Commandments at the Supreme Court, etc.
I am so tired of being railroaded by no accounts! My brother, the one who REALLY wants me to file the law suit despite the fact they could run my bill into the millions, says we need to rededicate the Constitution as it was initially, and then remove the parts the Founding Fathers didn't like, but were compelled to enter to guarantee passage. He thinks it's time to start again, and take out ALL the garbage. I think the original Constitution would be a great basis for the underpinnings of a new party dedicated to conservative Americans.
I do think we need to consider insuring that not a single lawyer is allowed to be elected as it should be maintained it is a SEVERE "conflict of interest"! (Just a personal thought on my part.) Have you ever seen the ad where the firemen are running Congress? More like the vision I have of ordinary people passing straightforward laws, and NO.....I repeat NO multiple bills passed together to insure that protecting "arrow manufactureres" NEVER again becomes part of the necessary baggage to pass critical legislation. What an OUTRAGE!
The Party would also mandate TWO terms in office, with a guarantee that once served, that person could NOT hold another office for a minimum of ten years, and all would be bound by the same "benefits" as regular Americans, i.e. no pension till retirement age, and mandatory paying into SS just like everyone else......same tax situation. etc.
We actually have been discussing some of this as you can see.....
We MUST begin organizing, and it MUST be now. There is no other way to get out the word if we procrastinate. I don't know who will be elected, but I do know that the promise needs to be kept regardless.
I appreciate any thoughts you may have on any of this, but one other promise that I feel I MUST keep. It has been one of my goals as an adult in my private life, but it MUST move to a larger arena.......that is protection of our most vulnerable aspects of society, our elders, and our children. I think if their protection and safety remain a strong vision, whatever happens will be much more right, ( in BOTH senses of the term!) than what we have going today.
Sincerely,
Mairi
You are ABSOLUTELY right!
When I spoke to my sister last, I had told her that I have made a promise. If the GOOD LORD smiles just one more time on this Country, and does NOT allow BO to be elected, I intend to do my best to become extremely active in trying to sort this mess out. She told me,......"I have made the same promise........"she added, "I don't think we're alone......."
If anything is going to change, the time to start is now, and regardless of the outcome of this election, I will keep my promise, which is why the whole court thing came up in the first place.
Mitchell, I cannot at this point tell you what is going on with my family, but when I do.......suffice to say, that if you think you are angry now.......Just Wait! You ain't seen nothin' yet!
My hope is to begin a new party called...."The Conservative Party". And it would be JUST THAT! I had an e-mail on my old p/c which I wish I could retrieve. It was all about Judeo/Christian principles, and the founding of this Country. It talked about the "minor" percentage of people who are attempting to destroy those founding principles with such nonsense as removing Manger Scenes from public places. It also spoke of all the "Most Important Places" where we evidence the Founding Father's dedication to "One Nation Under GOD". There were pictures of the Ten Commandments at the Supreme Court, etc.
I am so tired of being railroaded by no accounts! My brother, the one who REALLY wants me to file the law suit despite the fact they could run my bill into the millions, says we need to rededicate the Constitution as it was initially, and then remove the parts the Founding Fathers didn't like, but were compelled to enter to guarantee passage. He thinks it's time to start again, and take out ALL the garbage. I think the original Constitution would be a great basis for the underpinnings of a new party dedicated to conservative Americans.
I do think we need to consider insuring that not a single lawyer is allowed to be elected as it should be maintained it is a SEVERE "conflict of interest"! (Just a personal thought on my part.) Have you ever seen the ad where the firemen are running Congress? More like the vision I have of ordinary people passing straightforward laws, and NO.....I repeat NO multiple bills passed together to insure that protecting "arrow manufactureres" NEVER again becomes part of the necessary baggage to pass critical legislation. What an OUTRAGE!
The Party would also mandate TWO terms in office, with a guarantee that once served, that person could NOT hold another office for a minimum of ten years, and all would be bound by the same "benefits" as regular Americans, i.e. no pension till retirement age, and mandatory paying into SS just like everyone else......same tax situation. etc.
We actually have been discussing some of this as you can see.....
We MUST begin organizing, and it MUST be now. There is no other way to get out the word if we procrastinate. I don't know who will be elected, but I do know that the promise needs to be kept regardless.
I appreciate any thoughts you may have on any of this, but one other promise that I feel I MUST keep. It has been one of my goals as an adult in my private life, but it MUST move to a larger arena.......that is protection of our most vulnerable aspects of society, our elders, and our children. I think if their protection and safety remain a strong vision, whatever happens will be much more right, ( in BOTH senses of the term!) than what we have going today.
Sincerely,
Mairi
Letter from New Reader
Mitchell,
You have a great citizen blog, which I plan to read regularly from now on.
Thank you for posting the petition to support Larry Berg’s lawsuit...
Thank you,
Ann
You have a great citizen blog, which I plan to read regularly from now on.
Thank you for posting the petition to support Larry Berg’s lawsuit...
Thank you,
Ann
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
