UPDATE
Andy Martin sent two e-mails concerning the original blog that follows the dashed line:
1.Well, actually, "response due December 1" is only a citation of the SC Rules which call for a reply in 30 days. There is no time limit on action by the court.
2. The injunction was denied. The SC online docket is not the best, but a subsequent entry using the search under docket number confirms denial.
The original blog follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A poster to this blog has noted that the calendar of the Supreme Court is readily available here. The calendar clearly states this concerning Berg v. Obama here:
>Oct 30 2008 Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due December 1, 2008)
Oct 31 2008 Application (08A391) for an injunction pending disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
I am not an attorney but I looked up the term certiorari on Wikipedia:
"A writ of certiorari currently means an order by a higher court directing a lower court to send the record in a given case for review."
So that means that the Supreme Court will decide on whether to review the Berg case on December 1. As well, an application for an injunction was filed pending disposition of the petitition for the writ of certiorari.
It does not seem to mean that there has been a court order requiring that Obama provide the vault copy birth certificate. Kick me if I'm wrong, but the Supreme Court calendar seems pretty clear. The decision on certiorari is required by December 1, the request for an injunction is pending a positive decision on the writ, which is also due December 1. That means that at this point nothing is due from Obama, and unless the Supreme Court grants the writ of certiorari, the case dies.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Terminate Your Newspaper Subscription, Turn Off TV News, Reform Republican Party, Press Talk Radio To Focus
Dear Friends: The recent election cycle has convinced me that the post-modern press, to include television and radio news, magazines, newspapers and weeklies do not provide informed analysis or factual evidence. Consuming them is worse than ignoring them. I have sworn off all paid information sources save one. I no longer watch television news.
As well, the Republican Party needs to be put on notice that its recent emphasis on special interests and big government is not acceptable and that there are enough advocates of limited government, sound money and responsible administration to prevent the Republican Party's further progress unless these views become fundamental to it. Under the Bush administration, the Republican Party reinvented Progressivism, and its culmination has been the socialization of banking, the opposite of anything small government advocates believe. It is good that the inflationary, big government policies of the Republican Party have been punished.
The question now is how to reinvent America. The talk radio gurus who have been emphasizing partisanship and criticizing the Democrats' tactical steps are focusing on hate instead of vision. Republicans, including talk radio, should be working on the creation of a new vision that will reassert Jacksonian Democracy, laissez faire, limited government and terminate the corrupt, poverty-inducing, thuggish Progressivism that guides the Bush Republicans and the Democrats.
Attacking the Obama administation now is a waste of time. The Bush administration destroyed the "conservative" vision of Ronald Reagan. Without a new game plan, the Republicans will remain permanently on the sidelines. The new game plan has to revolve around freedom. And it must address the conservatives' failures: their refusal to staunch insipid programs like the Department of Energy and the Department of Education; their inability to cut government; their dancing to Wall Street's flute at every chance; their inability to stick to the principles of honest government and laissez faire; and their reliance on monetary expansion to stimulate stock market and real estate bubbles at the expense of healthy, competitive industry.
Republicans need to create a vision and explain why their recent past has been an utter failure. Only then can they become electable again. And if they can't appeal to small business, ambitious young people, hard workers and believers in the American dream, then they deserve to fail.
As well, the Republican Party needs to be put on notice that its recent emphasis on special interests and big government is not acceptable and that there are enough advocates of limited government, sound money and responsible administration to prevent the Republican Party's further progress unless these views become fundamental to it. Under the Bush administration, the Republican Party reinvented Progressivism, and its culmination has been the socialization of banking, the opposite of anything small government advocates believe. It is good that the inflationary, big government policies of the Republican Party have been punished.
The question now is how to reinvent America. The talk radio gurus who have been emphasizing partisanship and criticizing the Democrats' tactical steps are focusing on hate instead of vision. Republicans, including talk radio, should be working on the creation of a new vision that will reassert Jacksonian Democracy, laissez faire, limited government and terminate the corrupt, poverty-inducing, thuggish Progressivism that guides the Bush Republicans and the Democrats.
Attacking the Obama administation now is a waste of time. The Bush administration destroyed the "conservative" vision of Ronald Reagan. Without a new game plan, the Republicans will remain permanently on the sidelines. The new game plan has to revolve around freedom. And it must address the conservatives' failures: their refusal to staunch insipid programs like the Department of Energy and the Department of Education; their inability to cut government; their dancing to Wall Street's flute at every chance; their inability to stick to the principles of honest government and laissez faire; and their reliance on monetary expansion to stimulate stock market and real estate bubbles at the expense of healthy, competitive industry.
Republicans need to create a vision and explain why their recent past has been an utter failure. Only then can they become electable again. And if they can't appeal to small business, ambitious young people, hard workers and believers in the American dream, then they deserve to fail.
Is Phil Berg's Souter Writ of Certiorari Real?
I had previously blogged about an Atlas Shrugs report that Supreme Court Justice Souter has issued a Writ of Certiorai requiring President-elect Obama to produce the vault copy of his birth certificate. In an e-mail, Andy Martin questions Phil Berg's claim that there is a court order:
>I would be very chary of repeating Mr. Berg's claims that there is a Supreme Court order to produce a BC. Berg has repeatedly been caught lying and encouraging the dissemination or false and/or inaccurate information. I don't know if he is in fact a scam artist, but he has undoubtedly tried to scam a lot of people with false claims. I doubt the Souter order exists; I asked for a copy and got nothing. Forewarned is forearmed. There is a massive gap between aggressive advocacy and nonsense or plain lying. Berg is on the wrong side of the divide.
Andy Martin
>I would be very chary of repeating Mr. Berg's claims that there is a Supreme Court order to produce a BC. Berg has repeatedly been caught lying and encouraging the dissemination or false and/or inaccurate information. I don't know if he is in fact a scam artist, but he has undoubtedly tried to scam a lot of people with false claims. I doubt the Souter order exists; I asked for a copy and got nothing. Forewarned is forearmed. There is a massive gap between aggressive advocacy and nonsense or plain lying. Berg is on the wrong side of the divide.
Andy Martin
SMR Strauss on the Birth Certificate Question
Andy Martin comments on the following:
I, of course, have never questioned that he was born in Hawai'i. Until I see evidence to the contrary I will keep my mouth shut (unlike Mr. Berg).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A poster to an earlier blog below, SMRStrauss, indicates that a Virginia Court, basing its decision on the 1952 Immigration & Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3, Sections 349 and 355, has held that Obama's Indonesian and Kenyan citizenship do not invalidate his status of natural born citizen. Presumably, President-elect Obama continues to fight revealing his birth certificate for another reason, possibly Andy Martin's explanation that there is an issue involving the identity of President-elect Obama's father. Martin has heard rumor or obtained evidence that Obama's true father is Franklin Marshall Davis. It would seem easier to reveal the birth certificate than to fight revealing in court, and some explanation along these lines seems probable to me. Also, there is the matter of Obama's sealed medical records. I'm not enough of an attorney to comment on the citizenship issue. I think a bigger problem is the unwillingness of the pissant media to probe these questions, but anyone who reads my blog knows this well.
>First, the certification of live birth is a valid document showing that the birth certificate exists in the files. It has now been accepted by at least one court.
Then, on the absurd claim that Obama was born in Kenya:
If Obama had been born in Kenya, there would be a record of his mother arriving in Kenya in the archives of the Kenya government.
The critics of Obama, who allege that he was born in Kenya, have not shown anything like this. All they would have to do is to go to those files in Kenya and show that Obama’s mother had been in Kenya in 1961. But they have nothing.
I listened to the tape, and it is not clear that Obama's grandmother understood the question. The translator (who is also apparently a relative) says repeatedly that Obama was born in Hawaii. In any case, it is not evidence. She could be referring to Barak Obama senior, Obama’s father, who certainly was born in Kenya.
The officials in Hawaii say he was born in Hawaii. They have seen his birth certificate in his file. Thus they are confirming the certification. And, they have no reason to lie.
The certificate (or certification, whatever) of live birth has been accepted as legal proof of Obama's birth in Hawaii by a court in Virginia. (Monday. See: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2123806/posts)
After Berg, several other cases against Obama on the natural born citizen issue were brought in other states.
While most of them just did what the Berg case did, which was to rule that Berg had no standing to sue, some of the others looked at the “evidence” - and concluded that the stuff was absurd. This is important. It is no longer possible to claim that the courts have refused to look at the evidence and merely dismissed the cases on technical grounds. They did look at the evidence, and found it wanting.
In Ohio, for example the judge (magistrate) said:
“(Neal) presented no witnesses but himself. From that testimony, it is abundantly clear that the allegations in [Neal]’s complaint concerning “questions” about Senator Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen” are derived from Internet sources, the accuracy of which has not been demonstrated to either Defendant Brunner or this Magistrate … Given the paucity of evidence… this Magistrate cannot conclude that Defendant Brunner has abused her discretion in failing to launch an investigation into Senator Obama’s qualifications to hold the office of President of the United States. ” See:
http://www.oxfordpress.com/hp/content/oh/story/news/local/2008/10/31/ws103108obamasuit.html
In Virginia, which was just ruled on Monday, the judge went further and said that the certificate of live birth was good proof that Obama was born in Hawaii, and there was NO proof presented that he was born anywhere else.
Here is a report from a web posting that is not official, of course, but it seems accurate mainly because the fellow who posted it was AGAINST Obama. He is disappointed, but accepts the ruling. You can find this post at : (
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2123806/posts)
(Note that sometimes the author correctly puts COLB correctly and sometimes he types it as CLOB, but he means certificate of live birth throughout.)
Quotes:
The Court made the following findings:
1. The Certification of Live Birth presented to the court is unquestionably authentic.
The court noted that the certification had a raised seal from the state of Hawaii, had a stamp bearing the signature of the registrar of vital statistics. The court found “wholly unpersuasive” any of the internet claims that the birth certificate was altered in any way. Furthermore, the document itself was accompanied by an affidavit from the State Health Director (of Hawaii) verifying that the document is an authentic certification of live birth. The court held that there could be no doubt that the document was authentic unless one believed that the state of Hawaii’s health department were in on an elaborate and complex conspiracy – and that there is not a shred of evidence that this is the case.
2. The Certification of Live Birth establishes that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen.
The affidavit of the State Health Director states that the information on the CLOB is identical to the information on the “vault” copy of the birth certificate, and that both documents establish that Mr. Obama was born in Honolulu. The Court noted that the CLOB is valid for all citizenship purposes. The court noted our argument that the COLB is not valid for determining citizenship, but referred us to Hawaiian law that states otherwise. “There is no difference between a certificate and a certification of live birth in the eyes of the state. For instance, either can be used to confirm U.S. citizenship to obtain a passport or state ID.” The court found that Hawaiian law makes the COLB valid for all purposes with the exception of determining native Hawaiian heritage for certain state and federal benefits. The court held that if Mr. Obama were born elsewhere and the birth registered in Hawaii, the “place of birth” line on the COLB would reflect that fact. The court stated that there could be no doubt that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii and that any argument to the contrary was fanciful and relied on completely unsubstantiated internet rumors.
3. For that reason, 8 U.S.C. §1401(g), which at the relevant time provided as follows:
“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: ***(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:…..
is irrelevant to this matter, as Mr. Obama was conclusively born in Hawaii.
4. Mr. Obama did hold dual citizenship in the U.S. and Kenya until he became an adult. When Barack Obama Jr. was born Kenya was a British colony. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children: “British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.” In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UK. Obama’s UK citizenship became an Kenyan citizenship on Dec. 12, 1963, when Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom. The court noted that Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:
1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963…
2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.
Thus the court held that as a citizen of the UK who was born in Kenya, Obama’s father automatically received Kenyan citizenship via subsection (1). So given that Obama qualified for citizen of the UK status at birth and given that Obama’s father became a Kenyan citizen via subsection (1), thus Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship in 1963.
However, the court further held that the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults. Kenya recognizes dual citizenship for children, but Kenya’s Constitution specifies that at age 21, Kenyan citizens who possesses citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya. The court held that there was no evidence that Mr. Obama has ever renounced his U.S. citizenship or sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.
The court held that there was no legal requirement that Mr. Obama renounce his Kenyan citizenship or affirm his U.S. citizenship in order to maintain his status as a natural born citizen.
5. Mr. Obama did not lose his U.S. Citizenship based on the acts of his parents, including adoption by an Indonesian citizen. The Court held that no action taken by the parents of an American child can strip that child of his citizenship. The court cited to the 1952 Immigration & Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3, Sections 349 and 355, which was in effect in the late 1960s when Obama went to Indonesia, and which stated that a minor does not lose his US citizenship upon the naturalization of his parents or any other actions of his parents, so long as the minor returns to the US and establishes permanent US residency before the age of 21. Thus the adoption of Obama did not serve to strip him of his U.S. citizenship. The fact that Indonesian law does not allow dual citizenship is irrelevant, as U.S. law controls. Furthermore, the Court held that traveling on a foreign passport does not strip an American of his citizenship. The Court noted first that there was no evidence that Mr. Obama traveled on an Indonesian passport (Mr. Berg and others we reached out to for evidence never provided any evidence of this claim or any other of the claims we could have used some proof of.) Nonetheless, the court held that such travel does not divest an American of his citizenship.
The Court makes other holdings and findings that I won’t bother you with here. Needless to say, the decision is wholly against us. The court finds the claims against Mr. Obama’s citizenship “wholly unpersuasive and bordering on the frivolous, especially in light of the complete absence of any first-hand evidence on any critical issue” and further classifies it as “conspiracy theory of the lowest sort, fueled by nothing than internet rumor and those who truly want to believe egging each other on.”
I like the part about “conspiracy theory of the lowest sort.”
Repeat: “The court held that if Mr. Obama were born elsewhere and the birth registered in Hawaii, the “place of birth” line on the COLB would reflect that fact. The court stated that there could be no doubt that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii and that any argument to the contrary was fanciful and relied on completely unsubstantiated internet rumors.”
I, of course, have never questioned that he was born in Hawai'i. Until I see evidence to the contrary I will keep my mouth shut (unlike Mr. Berg).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A poster to an earlier blog below, SMRStrauss, indicates that a Virginia Court, basing its decision on the 1952 Immigration & Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3, Sections 349 and 355, has held that Obama's Indonesian and Kenyan citizenship do not invalidate his status of natural born citizen. Presumably, President-elect Obama continues to fight revealing his birth certificate for another reason, possibly Andy Martin's explanation that there is an issue involving the identity of President-elect Obama's father. Martin has heard rumor or obtained evidence that Obama's true father is Franklin Marshall Davis. It would seem easier to reveal the birth certificate than to fight revealing in court, and some explanation along these lines seems probable to me. Also, there is the matter of Obama's sealed medical records. I'm not enough of an attorney to comment on the citizenship issue. I think a bigger problem is the unwillingness of the pissant media to probe these questions, but anyone who reads my blog knows this well.
>First, the certification of live birth is a valid document showing that the birth certificate exists in the files. It has now been accepted by at least one court.
Then, on the absurd claim that Obama was born in Kenya:
If Obama had been born in Kenya, there would be a record of his mother arriving in Kenya in the archives of the Kenya government.
The critics of Obama, who allege that he was born in Kenya, have not shown anything like this. All they would have to do is to go to those files in Kenya and show that Obama’s mother had been in Kenya in 1961. But they have nothing.
I listened to the tape, and it is not clear that Obama's grandmother understood the question. The translator (who is also apparently a relative) says repeatedly that Obama was born in Hawaii. In any case, it is not evidence. She could be referring to Barak Obama senior, Obama’s father, who certainly was born in Kenya.
The officials in Hawaii say he was born in Hawaii. They have seen his birth certificate in his file. Thus they are confirming the certification. And, they have no reason to lie.
The certificate (or certification, whatever) of live birth has been accepted as legal proof of Obama's birth in Hawaii by a court in Virginia. (Monday. See: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2123806/posts)
After Berg, several other cases against Obama on the natural born citizen issue were brought in other states.
While most of them just did what the Berg case did, which was to rule that Berg had no standing to sue, some of the others looked at the “evidence” - and concluded that the stuff was absurd. This is important. It is no longer possible to claim that the courts have refused to look at the evidence and merely dismissed the cases on technical grounds. They did look at the evidence, and found it wanting.
In Ohio, for example the judge (magistrate) said:
“(Neal) presented no witnesses but himself. From that testimony, it is abundantly clear that the allegations in [Neal]’s complaint concerning “questions” about Senator Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen” are derived from Internet sources, the accuracy of which has not been demonstrated to either Defendant Brunner or this Magistrate … Given the paucity of evidence… this Magistrate cannot conclude that Defendant Brunner has abused her discretion in failing to launch an investigation into Senator Obama’s qualifications to hold the office of President of the United States. ” See:
http://www.oxfordpress.com/hp/content/oh/story/news/local/2008/10/31/ws103108obamasuit.html
In Virginia, which was just ruled on Monday, the judge went further and said that the certificate of live birth was good proof that Obama was born in Hawaii, and there was NO proof presented that he was born anywhere else.
Here is a report from a web posting that is not official, of course, but it seems accurate mainly because the fellow who posted it was AGAINST Obama. He is disappointed, but accepts the ruling. You can find this post at : (
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2123806/posts)
(Note that sometimes the author correctly puts COLB correctly and sometimes he types it as CLOB, but he means certificate of live birth throughout.)
Quotes:
The Court made the following findings:
1. The Certification of Live Birth presented to the court is unquestionably authentic.
The court noted that the certification had a raised seal from the state of Hawaii, had a stamp bearing the signature of the registrar of vital statistics. The court found “wholly unpersuasive” any of the internet claims that the birth certificate was altered in any way. Furthermore, the document itself was accompanied by an affidavit from the State Health Director (of Hawaii) verifying that the document is an authentic certification of live birth. The court held that there could be no doubt that the document was authentic unless one believed that the state of Hawaii’s health department were in on an elaborate and complex conspiracy – and that there is not a shred of evidence that this is the case.
2. The Certification of Live Birth establishes that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen.
The affidavit of the State Health Director states that the information on the CLOB is identical to the information on the “vault” copy of the birth certificate, and that both documents establish that Mr. Obama was born in Honolulu. The Court noted that the CLOB is valid for all citizenship purposes. The court noted our argument that the COLB is not valid for determining citizenship, but referred us to Hawaiian law that states otherwise. “There is no difference between a certificate and a certification of live birth in the eyes of the state. For instance, either can be used to confirm U.S. citizenship to obtain a passport or state ID.” The court found that Hawaiian law makes the COLB valid for all purposes with the exception of determining native Hawaiian heritage for certain state and federal benefits. The court held that if Mr. Obama were born elsewhere and the birth registered in Hawaii, the “place of birth” line on the COLB would reflect that fact. The court stated that there could be no doubt that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii and that any argument to the contrary was fanciful and relied on completely unsubstantiated internet rumors.
3. For that reason, 8 U.S.C. §1401(g), which at the relevant time provided as follows:
“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: ***(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:…..
is irrelevant to this matter, as Mr. Obama was conclusively born in Hawaii.
4. Mr. Obama did hold dual citizenship in the U.S. and Kenya until he became an adult. When Barack Obama Jr. was born Kenya was a British colony. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children: “British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.” In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UK. Obama’s UK citizenship became an Kenyan citizenship on Dec. 12, 1963, when Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom. The court noted that Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:
1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963…
2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.
Thus the court held that as a citizen of the UK who was born in Kenya, Obama’s father automatically received Kenyan citizenship via subsection (1). So given that Obama qualified for citizen of the UK status at birth and given that Obama’s father became a Kenyan citizen via subsection (1), thus Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship in 1963.
However, the court further held that the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults. Kenya recognizes dual citizenship for children, but Kenya’s Constitution specifies that at age 21, Kenyan citizens who possesses citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya. The court held that there was no evidence that Mr. Obama has ever renounced his U.S. citizenship or sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.
The court held that there was no legal requirement that Mr. Obama renounce his Kenyan citizenship or affirm his U.S. citizenship in order to maintain his status as a natural born citizen.
5. Mr. Obama did not lose his U.S. Citizenship based on the acts of his parents, including adoption by an Indonesian citizen. The Court held that no action taken by the parents of an American child can strip that child of his citizenship. The court cited to the 1952 Immigration & Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3, Sections 349 and 355, which was in effect in the late 1960s when Obama went to Indonesia, and which stated that a minor does not lose his US citizenship upon the naturalization of his parents or any other actions of his parents, so long as the minor returns to the US and establishes permanent US residency before the age of 21. Thus the adoption of Obama did not serve to strip him of his U.S. citizenship. The fact that Indonesian law does not allow dual citizenship is irrelevant, as U.S. law controls. Furthermore, the Court held that traveling on a foreign passport does not strip an American of his citizenship. The Court noted first that there was no evidence that Mr. Obama traveled on an Indonesian passport (Mr. Berg and others we reached out to for evidence never provided any evidence of this claim or any other of the claims we could have used some proof of.) Nonetheless, the court held that such travel does not divest an American of his citizenship.
The Court makes other holdings and findings that I won’t bother you with here. Needless to say, the decision is wholly against us. The court finds the claims against Mr. Obama’s citizenship “wholly unpersuasive and bordering on the frivolous, especially in light of the complete absence of any first-hand evidence on any critical issue” and further classifies it as “conspiracy theory of the lowest sort, fueled by nothing than internet rumor and those who truly want to believe egging each other on.”
I like the part about “conspiracy theory of the lowest sort.”
Repeat: “The court held that if Mr. Obama were born elsewhere and the birth registered in Hawaii, the “place of birth” line on the COLB would reflect that fact. The court stated that there could be no doubt that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii and that any argument to the contrary was fanciful and relied on completely unsubstantiated internet rumors.”
Supreme Court Requires Obama To Produce Birth Certificate
Andy Martin comments on the following:
I would be very chary of repeating Mr. Berg's claims that there is a Supreme Court order to produce a BC. Berg has repeatedly been caught lying and encouraging the dissemination or false and/or inaccurate information. I don't know if he is in fact a scam artist, but he has undoubtedly tried to scam a lot of people with false claims. I doubt the Souter order exists; I asked for a copy and got nothing. Forewarned is forearmed. There is a massive gap between aggressive advocacy and nonsense or plain lying. Berg is on the wrong side of the divide.
Andy Martin
________________________________________________
Atlas Shrugs reports that Supreme Court Justice David Souter has required Barack Obama to produce the vault copy of the birth certificate (h/t Larwyn). Hopefully, Justice Souter will make it public information. Andy Martin has speculated that Senator Obama has been lying about who his father is. As well, this will quell rumors about Senator Obama's place of birth, but leaves open questions about his natural citizenship based on his Indonesian upbringing.
Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs writes:
"Souter tells Obama to produce the vault copy by December 1, 2008. I believe the messiah will defy the Justices.
Who will force the issue? Who wants to open up that pandora's box? Imagine if there is something on that birth certificate that disqualifies Obama from the office of the President. What are you going to do?
"...the Clerk also required the defendants to respond to the Writ of Certiorari (which requires the concurrence of four Justices) by December 1. At that time, Mr. Obama must present to the Court an authentic birth certificate, after which Mr. Berg will respond."
"...Also remember that on December 13, the Electoral College meets to casts its votes. If it has been determined that Mr. Obama is an illegal alien and therefore ineligible to become President of the United States, the Electors will be duty-bound to honor the Constitution."
I would be very chary of repeating Mr. Berg's claims that there is a Supreme Court order to produce a BC. Berg has repeatedly been caught lying and encouraging the dissemination or false and/or inaccurate information. I don't know if he is in fact a scam artist, but he has undoubtedly tried to scam a lot of people with false claims. I doubt the Souter order exists; I asked for a copy and got nothing. Forewarned is forearmed. There is a massive gap between aggressive advocacy and nonsense or plain lying. Berg is on the wrong side of the divide.
Andy Martin
________________________________________________
Atlas Shrugs reports that Supreme Court Justice David Souter has required Barack Obama to produce the vault copy of the birth certificate (h/t Larwyn). Hopefully, Justice Souter will make it public information. Andy Martin has speculated that Senator Obama has been lying about who his father is. As well, this will quell rumors about Senator Obama's place of birth, but leaves open questions about his natural citizenship based on his Indonesian upbringing.
Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs writes:
"Souter tells Obama to produce the vault copy by December 1, 2008. I believe the messiah will defy the Justices.
Who will force the issue? Who wants to open up that pandora's box? Imagine if there is something on that birth certificate that disqualifies Obama from the office of the President. What are you going to do?
"...the Clerk also required the defendants to respond to the Writ of Certiorari (which requires the concurrence of four Justices) by December 1. At that time, Mr. Obama must present to the Court an authentic birth certificate, after which Mr. Berg will respond."
"...Also remember that on December 13, the Electoral College meets to casts its votes. If it has been determined that Mr. Obama is an illegal alien and therefore ineligible to become President of the United States, the Electors will be duty-bound to honor the Constitution."
Friday, November 7, 2008
Andrew Jackson Turns in His Grave
Howard S. Katz has posted two blogs on the growth of monetary reserves and Federal Reserve bank credit. Most economists now agree that the unemployment of the Great Depression was caused by a contraction of monetary reserves followed by popular insistence on maintenance of pre-existing wages. The "recovery" that stimulative monetary policy began to create in 1936 was stopped by further contraction of the money supply, resulting in new stock market lows and unemployment in the late 1930s. These problems were caused initially by monetary expansion in the 1920s by Benjamin Strong's Fed. The stock market bubble that led to the 1929 stock market crash was a monetary phenomenon. Likewise, the housing bubble of the past six years and the tech bubble of seven and eight years ago were all due to Federal Reserve manipulation. It seems that politicians can't keep their fingers out of the cookie jar. What irritates me is that the pissant media, from Fox to MSNBC, blames these problems on the "free market". If government control and manipulation of interest rates to stimulate bubbles is "free", then they are right. But unfortunately, our pissant media friends are ignorant of the meaning of the word "freedom" in America and American history.
Katz produces these charts:
I. Federal Reserve Bank Credit growth 130% since August(which apparently leads monetary base growth):
II. Monetary base growth: 20% since August:
Andrew Jackson turns in his grave at the sight of self-indulgent America, once the home of dynamic industrial growth, now the home of Wall Street beggars looting the public treasury while an ignorant public looks on.
Katz produces these charts:
I. Federal Reserve Bank Credit growth 130% since August(which apparently leads monetary base growth):
II. Monetary base growth: 20% since August:
Andrew Jackson turns in his grave at the sight of self-indulgent America, once the home of dynamic industrial growth, now the home of Wall Street beggars looting the public treasury while an ignorant public looks on.
Andy Martin Proposes Jam Up of Electoral College
Based on discussions with Dr. Edwin Vieira, Contrairimairi has suggested that those concerned with media failures surrounding Barack Obama and his unwillingness to disclose vital information (birth certificate, educational and medical history) ought to pursue the question with the Electoral College. I just received the following e-mail from Andy Martin, who builds on Dr. Vieira's and Contrairimairi's original idea:
ANDY MARTIN
Executive Editor
ContrarianCommentary.com
"Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct"
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
INTERNET POWERHOUSE ANDY MARTIN TRIGGERS ANOTHER ANTI-OBAMA FIRESTORM WITH "MAGIC MOMENT ON THE INTERNET"
MARTIN ASKS INTERNET AUDIENCE TO CONTACT MCCAIN ELECTORS FOR A UNIFIED CHALLENGE TO OBAMA IN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
"THE ORIGINAL INTENT" OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS WAS THAT THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE WOULD HAVE INDEPENDENT SIGNIFICANCE," SAYS MARTIN; THEY SHOULD NOT BE RUBBER-STAMPING SOMEONE WHO REFUSES TO RELEASE HIS ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE
WILL CONSERVATIVES RESPOND? OR MEEKLY SURRENDER?
(CHICAGO)(November 7, 2008) Thursday night/Friday morning Internet Powerhouse Andy Martin demonstrated the power of the Internet when he unleashed new demands for information from Barack Obama. Martin was a guest on a talk show hosted by Lan Lamphere. The show can be heard in archive form.http://www.talkstreamlive.com/listen.aspx?showid=3481
"It was a moment that has to be heard be understood," says the Internet's most influential political voice, Andy Martin. "I was asked to do a brief guest shot on Lan's show. But something 'magic' happened. In a 'Network'-style moment, Lan asked his audience to shower us with e-mails; it started pouring. What was supposed to last a few minutes lasted almost four and a half hours of live radio. It wouldn't stop. The audience kept growing until they finally started collapsing from exhaustion at 1:20 A.M. CST.
"Out of this extraordinary spontaneous combustion I produced the constitutional strategy that McCain electors should 'jam up' the electoral college with parliamentary procedures and demands for production of Barack Obama's original, typewritten 1961 birth certificate (certificate of live birth). The response of the audience was electric.
"Friday morning we are going to start organizing a 'Goal Line Stand' in the Electoral College to force Barack Obama to produce his original 1961 birth certificate for review by the American people," Martin said. "Republicans, conservatives and independents have a new rallying point. Don't let Obama pass through the Electoral College until he has produced his original
birth certificate and ended the mystery shrouding his origins."
Hawai'i officials on October 31st confirmed Martin's claim that that they do hold Obama's original 1961 document in their vault.
No one outside two Department of Health officials has seen the original document.
Martin has a court hearing Tuesday, November 18th in the Circuit Court for Honolulu, Hawai'i at 10:30 A.M. to force release of Obama's original birth files.
ANDY MARTIN
Executive Editor
ContrarianCommentary.com
"Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct"
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
INTERNET POWERHOUSE ANDY MARTIN TRIGGERS ANOTHER ANTI-OBAMA FIRESTORM WITH "MAGIC MOMENT ON THE INTERNET"
MARTIN ASKS INTERNET AUDIENCE TO CONTACT MCCAIN ELECTORS FOR A UNIFIED CHALLENGE TO OBAMA IN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
"THE ORIGINAL INTENT" OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS WAS THAT THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE WOULD HAVE INDEPENDENT SIGNIFICANCE," SAYS MARTIN; THEY SHOULD NOT BE RUBBER-STAMPING SOMEONE WHO REFUSES TO RELEASE HIS ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE
WILL CONSERVATIVES RESPOND? OR MEEKLY SURRENDER?
(CHICAGO)(November 7, 2008) Thursday night/Friday morning Internet Powerhouse Andy Martin demonstrated the power of the Internet when he unleashed new demands for information from Barack Obama. Martin was a guest on a talk show hosted by Lan Lamphere. The show can be heard in archive form.http://www.talkstreamlive.com/listen.aspx?showid=3481
"It was a moment that has to be heard be understood," says the Internet's most influential political voice, Andy Martin. "I was asked to do a brief guest shot on Lan's show. But something 'magic' happened. In a 'Network'-style moment, Lan asked his audience to shower us with e-mails; it started pouring. What was supposed to last a few minutes lasted almost four and a half hours of live radio. It wouldn't stop. The audience kept growing until they finally started collapsing from exhaustion at 1:20 A.M. CST.
"Out of this extraordinary spontaneous combustion I produced the constitutional strategy that McCain electors should 'jam up' the electoral college with parliamentary procedures and demands for production of Barack Obama's original, typewritten 1961 birth certificate (certificate of live birth). The response of the audience was electric.
"Friday morning we are going to start organizing a 'Goal Line Stand' in the Electoral College to force Barack Obama to produce his original 1961 birth certificate for review by the American people," Martin said. "Republicans, conservatives and independents have a new rallying point. Don't let Obama pass through the Electoral College until he has produced his original
birth certificate and ended the mystery shrouding his origins."
Hawai'i officials on October 31st confirmed Martin's claim that that they do hold Obama's original 1961 document in their vault.
No one outside two Department of Health officials has seen the original document.
Martin has a court hearing Tuesday, November 18th in the Circuit Court for Honolulu, Hawai'i at 10:30 A.M. to force release of Obama's original birth files.
Hudson Valley Republican Liberty Caucus to Meet on 11-18
I just received this from Carl Svensson:
I've updated this Meetup. For more details, see the full listing:
http://rlc.meetup.com/120/calendar/9103419/
When: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 7:00 PM
Where: College Diner
500 Main St
New Paltz, NY 12561
845-255-5040
If the changes affect your plans to attend, please take a moment to update your RSVP. (You can RSVP "No" or "Maybe" as well as "Yes".)
You can always get in touch with me through the "Contact Organizer" link on Meetup: http://rlc.meetup.com/120/suggestion/
I've updated this Meetup. For more details, see the full listing:
http://rlc.meetup.com/120/calendar/9103419/
When: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 7:00 PM
Where: College Diner
500 Main St
New Paltz, NY 12561
845-255-5040
If the changes affect your plans to attend, please take a moment to update your RSVP. (You can RSVP "No" or "Maybe" as well as "Yes".)
You can always get in touch with me through the "Contact Organizer" link on Meetup: http://rlc.meetup.com/120/suggestion/
We The People Writes to Barack Obama--Questions Persist
Bob Robbins has forwarded this link to "We the People". They have posted the following letter to Barack Obama:
An Open Letter to Barack Obama:
Are you a Natural Born Citizen of the U.S.?
Are you legally qualified to hold the Office of President?
Dear Mr. Obama:
On October 24, 2008, a federal judge granted your request to dismiss a lawsuit by Citizen Philip Berg, who challenged your qualifications under the “Natural Born Citizen” clause of the U.S. Constitution to legally hold the office of President of the United States of America.
Mr. Berg presented factual evidence to the Court in support of his claim that you are either a citizen of your father’s native Kenya by birth, or that you became a citizen of Indonesia, relinquishing your prior citizenship when you moved there with your mother in 1967.
In your response to the lawsuit, you neither denied Mr. Berg’s claims nor submitted any evidence which would refute his assertions. Instead, you argued that the Court lacked the jurisdiction to determine the question of your legal eligibility because Mr. Berg lacked “standing.”
Astonishingly, the judge agreed, simply saying, “[Mr. Berg] would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary [sic] in living memory.”
Unfortunately, your response to the legal claim was clearly evasive and strikingly out of character, suggesting you may, in fact, lack a critical Constitutional qualification necessary to assume the Office of President: i.e., that you are not a “natural born” citizen of the United States or one who has relinquished his American citizenship.
Before you can exercise any of the powers of the United States, you must prove that you have fully satisfied each and every eligibility requirement that the Constitution mandates for any individual’s exercise of those powers.
Regardless of the tactics chosen in defending yourself against the Berg lawsuit, significant questions regarding your legal capacity to hold this nation’s highest office have been put forth publicly, and you have failed to directly refute them with documentary evidence that is routinely available to any bona fide, natural born U.S. Citizen.
As one who has ventured into the fray of public service of his own volition, seeking to possess the vast powers of the Office of President, it is not unreasonable to demand that you produce evidence of your citizenship to answer the questions and allay the concerns of the People. Indeed, as the one seeking the office, you are under a moral, legal, and fiduciary duty to proffer such evidence to establish your qualifications as explicitly mandated by Article II of the Constitution.
Should you proceed to assume the office of the President of the United States as anything but a bona fide natural born citizen of the United States that has not relinquished that citizenship, you would be inviting a national disaster, placing our Republic at great risk from untold consequences. For example:
· Neither the Electoral College on December 15, nor the House of Representatives on January 6 would be able to elect you, except as a poseur - a usurper;
· As a usurper, you would be unable to take the required “Oath or Affirmation” of office on January 20 without committing the crime of perjury or false swearing, for being ineligible for the Office of the President you cannot faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States;
· Your every act in the usurped Office of the President would be a criminal offense as an act under color of law that would subject the People to the deprivation of their constitutional rights, and entitling you to no obedience whatsoever from the People;
· as a usurper acting in the guise of the President you could not function as the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy and of the militia of the several states, as such forces would be under no legal obligation to remain obedient to you;
· No one in any civilian agency in the Executive Branch would be required to obey any of your proclamations, executive orders or directives, as such orders would be legally VOID;
· Your appointment of Ambassadors and Judges to the Supreme Court would be VOID ab initio (i.e., from the beginning), no matter what subsequent actions the Senate might take as well as rendering any such acts by such appointed officials void as well;
· Congress would not be able to pass any new laws because they would not be able to acquire the signature of a bona fide President, rendering all such legislation legally VOID;
· As a usurper, Congress would be unable to remove you from the Office of the President on Impeachment, inviting certain political chaos including a potential for armed conflicts within the General Government or among the States and the People to effect the removal of such a usurper.
As an attorney and sitting U.S. Senator, I’m sure you agree that our Constitution is the cornerstone of our system of governance. It is the very foundation of our system of Law and Order – indeed, it is the supreme law of the land. I’m sure you also agree that its precise language was no accident and cannot be ignored if Individual, unalienable, natural Rights, Freedoms and Liberties are to be protected and preserved.
As our next potential President, you have a high-order obligation to the Constitution (and to those who have fought and died for our Freedom) that extends far beyond that of securing a majority of the votes of the Electoral College. No matter your promises of change and prosperity, your heartfelt intent or the widespread support you have garnered in seeking the highest Office of the Land, the integrity of the Republic and Rule of Law cannot, -- must not -- be put at risk, by allowing a constitutionally unqualified person to sit, as a usurper, in the Office of the President.
No matter the level of practical difficulty, embarrassment or disruption of the nation’s business, we must -- above all -- honor and protect the Constitution and the divine, unalienable, Individual Rights it guarantees, including the Right to a President who is a natural born citizen of the United States of America that has not relinquished his American citizenship. Our nation has endured similar disruptions in the past, and will weather this crisis as well. Indeed, it is both yours and the People’s mutual respect for, and commitment to, the Constitution and Rule of Law that insures the perpetuation of Liberty.
As a long time defender of my state and federal Constitutions, and in consideration of the lack of sufficient evidence needed to establish your credentials as President, I am compelled to lodge this Petition for Redress of Grievances and public challenge to you.
Make no mistake: This issue IS a Constitutional crisis. Although it will not be easy for you, your family or our Republic, you have it within your ability to halt this escalating crisis by either producing the certified documents establishing beyond question your qualifications to hold the Office of President, or by immediately withdrawing yourself from the Electoral College process.
With due respect, I hereby request that you deliver the following documents to Mr. Berg and myself at the National Press Club in Washington, DC at noon on Monday, November 17, 2008:
(a) a certified copy of your “vault” (original long version) birth certificate;
(b) certified copies of all reissued and sealed birth certificates in the names
Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Soetoro, Barry Obama, Barack Dunham
and Barry Dunham;
(c) a certified copy of your Certification of Citizenship;
(d) a certified copy of your Oath of Allegiance taken upon age of maturity;
(e) certified copies of your admission forms for Occidental College, Columbia
University and Harvard Law School; and
(f) certified copies of any court orders or legal documents changing your name
from Barry Soetoro.
In the alternative, in defense of the Constitution, and in honor of the Republic and that for which it stands, please announce before such time your withdrawal from the 2008 Presidential election process.
“In a government of laws, the existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.”
Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 469-471.
Thank you for your understanding and cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Robert L. Schulz,
Founder and Chairman, We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc.
An Open Letter to Barack Obama:
Are you a Natural Born Citizen of the U.S.?
Are you legally qualified to hold the Office of President?
Dear Mr. Obama:
On October 24, 2008, a federal judge granted your request to dismiss a lawsuit by Citizen Philip Berg, who challenged your qualifications under the “Natural Born Citizen” clause of the U.S. Constitution to legally hold the office of President of the United States of America.
Mr. Berg presented factual evidence to the Court in support of his claim that you are either a citizen of your father’s native Kenya by birth, or that you became a citizen of Indonesia, relinquishing your prior citizenship when you moved there with your mother in 1967.
In your response to the lawsuit, you neither denied Mr. Berg’s claims nor submitted any evidence which would refute his assertions. Instead, you argued that the Court lacked the jurisdiction to determine the question of your legal eligibility because Mr. Berg lacked “standing.”
Astonishingly, the judge agreed, simply saying, “[Mr. Berg] would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary [sic] in living memory.”
Unfortunately, your response to the legal claim was clearly evasive and strikingly out of character, suggesting you may, in fact, lack a critical Constitutional qualification necessary to assume the Office of President: i.e., that you are not a “natural born” citizen of the United States or one who has relinquished his American citizenship.
Before you can exercise any of the powers of the United States, you must prove that you have fully satisfied each and every eligibility requirement that the Constitution mandates for any individual’s exercise of those powers.
Regardless of the tactics chosen in defending yourself against the Berg lawsuit, significant questions regarding your legal capacity to hold this nation’s highest office have been put forth publicly, and you have failed to directly refute them with documentary evidence that is routinely available to any bona fide, natural born U.S. Citizen.
As one who has ventured into the fray of public service of his own volition, seeking to possess the vast powers of the Office of President, it is not unreasonable to demand that you produce evidence of your citizenship to answer the questions and allay the concerns of the People. Indeed, as the one seeking the office, you are under a moral, legal, and fiduciary duty to proffer such evidence to establish your qualifications as explicitly mandated by Article II of the Constitution.
Should you proceed to assume the office of the President of the United States as anything but a bona fide natural born citizen of the United States that has not relinquished that citizenship, you would be inviting a national disaster, placing our Republic at great risk from untold consequences. For example:
· Neither the Electoral College on December 15, nor the House of Representatives on January 6 would be able to elect you, except as a poseur - a usurper;
· As a usurper, you would be unable to take the required “Oath or Affirmation” of office on January 20 without committing the crime of perjury or false swearing, for being ineligible for the Office of the President you cannot faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States;
· Your every act in the usurped Office of the President would be a criminal offense as an act under color of law that would subject the People to the deprivation of their constitutional rights, and entitling you to no obedience whatsoever from the People;
· as a usurper acting in the guise of the President you could not function as the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy and of the militia of the several states, as such forces would be under no legal obligation to remain obedient to you;
· No one in any civilian agency in the Executive Branch would be required to obey any of your proclamations, executive orders or directives, as such orders would be legally VOID;
· Your appointment of Ambassadors and Judges to the Supreme Court would be VOID ab initio (i.e., from the beginning), no matter what subsequent actions the Senate might take as well as rendering any such acts by such appointed officials void as well;
· Congress would not be able to pass any new laws because they would not be able to acquire the signature of a bona fide President, rendering all such legislation legally VOID;
· As a usurper, Congress would be unable to remove you from the Office of the President on Impeachment, inviting certain political chaos including a potential for armed conflicts within the General Government or among the States and the People to effect the removal of such a usurper.
As an attorney and sitting U.S. Senator, I’m sure you agree that our Constitution is the cornerstone of our system of governance. It is the very foundation of our system of Law and Order – indeed, it is the supreme law of the land. I’m sure you also agree that its precise language was no accident and cannot be ignored if Individual, unalienable, natural Rights, Freedoms and Liberties are to be protected and preserved.
As our next potential President, you have a high-order obligation to the Constitution (and to those who have fought and died for our Freedom) that extends far beyond that of securing a majority of the votes of the Electoral College. No matter your promises of change and prosperity, your heartfelt intent or the widespread support you have garnered in seeking the highest Office of the Land, the integrity of the Republic and Rule of Law cannot, -- must not -- be put at risk, by allowing a constitutionally unqualified person to sit, as a usurper, in the Office of the President.
No matter the level of practical difficulty, embarrassment or disruption of the nation’s business, we must -- above all -- honor and protect the Constitution and the divine, unalienable, Individual Rights it guarantees, including the Right to a President who is a natural born citizen of the United States of America that has not relinquished his American citizenship. Our nation has endured similar disruptions in the past, and will weather this crisis as well. Indeed, it is both yours and the People’s mutual respect for, and commitment to, the Constitution and Rule of Law that insures the perpetuation of Liberty.
As a long time defender of my state and federal Constitutions, and in consideration of the lack of sufficient evidence needed to establish your credentials as President, I am compelled to lodge this Petition for Redress of Grievances and public challenge to you.
Make no mistake: This issue IS a Constitutional crisis. Although it will not be easy for you, your family or our Republic, you have it within your ability to halt this escalating crisis by either producing the certified documents establishing beyond question your qualifications to hold the Office of President, or by immediately withdrawing yourself from the Electoral College process.
With due respect, I hereby request that you deliver the following documents to Mr. Berg and myself at the National Press Club in Washington, DC at noon on Monday, November 17, 2008:
(a) a certified copy of your “vault” (original long version) birth certificate;
(b) certified copies of all reissued and sealed birth certificates in the names
Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Soetoro, Barry Obama, Barack Dunham
and Barry Dunham;
(c) a certified copy of your Certification of Citizenship;
(d) a certified copy of your Oath of Allegiance taken upon age of maturity;
(e) certified copies of your admission forms for Occidental College, Columbia
University and Harvard Law School; and
(f) certified copies of any court orders or legal documents changing your name
from Barry Soetoro.
In the alternative, in defense of the Constitution, and in honor of the Republic and that for which it stands, please announce before such time your withdrawal from the 2008 Presidential election process.
“In a government of laws, the existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.”
Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 469-471.
Thank you for your understanding and cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Robert L. Schulz,
Founder and Chairman, We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc.
Senator McCain Goes 'Round and Around
Laura Meckler of the Wall Street Journal Online (paid access) argues that John McCain followed a traditional Republican course of emphasizing tax cuts. She argues that if only McCain had "transcended the Republican brand" then McCain's fortunes would have improved, but in "the areas where Sen. McCain had staked out his independence, he and his Democratic rival, Barack Obama, agreed".
I disagree.
There was little conservative about the McCain campaign, nor more generally about post Y2K Republicans, at least in the Jacksonian sense.
There are two economic and political strands of Republicanism: the Progressive and the small government. The small government Republicans are the ones who descend from Andrew Jackson and the late nineteenth century hard money advocates. The Progressives descend from Henry Clay, Abraham Lincoln and the socialist Theodore Roosevelt. Progressive Republicans have mostly dominated 20th century national Republican politics. Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge were not small government men, nor was Ronald Reagan, really, although he borrowed the small government rhetoric. As for the Democrats, the Jackson Democrats had become a small minority by 1932. In the late nineteenth century they had become the Bourbon Democrats led by Grover Cleveland. After William Jennings Bryan identified the Democrats with inflation, the Republicans became the Jacksonian, laissez-faire party.
About 25% of the American electorate favors less government. If the Republicans capture this vote they can win. Small government people are in both parties, but they are mostly in the Republican Party. These voters stayed away from Senator McCain.
By 2005, the Bush administration had jettisoned any pretense of small government rhetoric in favor of special interest pandering. This has included the recent, disgraceful Wall Street bailout. The bailouts are Progressivism at a socialist level not seen since Theodore Roosevelt ran under the Progressive banner in 1912.
Big government Progressives dominate the Republican Party because they reflect corporate interests and have the most resources. They speak the language of efficiency and low taxes, but ultimately they are interested in policies that benefit themselves, which means subsidies, coddling and special breaks. Although they have the most resources, they don't have that many votes outside New York. They are comfortable with government bloat because budget deficits facilitate borrowing, which in turn facilitates monetary expansion. Monetary expansion boosts the stock market, and the music goes 'round and 'round. Indeed, I did not hear any evidence that John McCain would have been but another President Bloat, in the same tradition as Roosevelt, Hoover, Harding, Nixon and Bush. I leave out Taft, Coolidge and Reagan, although they should probably be included in the "Progressive" category as well, although they put a lid on it. Bush didn't know how to put a lid on it, and McCain didn't know it was an issue.
Thus, the Republican Party is inherently in conflict. If the Party can resolve the conflict it can win. This includes the specious resolution at which Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich succeeded. However, in the end, it is difficult to reconcile two fundamental antagonists: people who believe in fairness, laissez faire, limited government and low taxes; and people who believe in subsidies to big business at the expense of high taxes, and inflation in the name of growth.
By 2005 the Republicans had jettisoned their small government wing. The aim seems to have been to strike an alliance between big government Progressives and social conservatives. But enough social conservatives were disloyal to the Progressives because they were disgusted at the income inequality that Federal Reserve bank policy generates (most did not know this was the reason), the pandering to special interests, and Republican corruption.
The Republicans have failed the true conservative base, the remnant of the Jacksonian and late nineteenth century advocates of limited government, hard money and fiscal discipline. If Barack Obama reduces government and sheds his radical affiliations, the Progressive-social conservative alliance will never work again in my lifetime.
PS--this version isn't as good musically, but it is funny:
I disagree.
There was little conservative about the McCain campaign, nor more generally about post Y2K Republicans, at least in the Jacksonian sense.
There are two economic and political strands of Republicanism: the Progressive and the small government. The small government Republicans are the ones who descend from Andrew Jackson and the late nineteenth century hard money advocates. The Progressives descend from Henry Clay, Abraham Lincoln and the socialist Theodore Roosevelt. Progressive Republicans have mostly dominated 20th century national Republican politics. Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge were not small government men, nor was Ronald Reagan, really, although he borrowed the small government rhetoric. As for the Democrats, the Jackson Democrats had become a small minority by 1932. In the late nineteenth century they had become the Bourbon Democrats led by Grover Cleveland. After William Jennings Bryan identified the Democrats with inflation, the Republicans became the Jacksonian, laissez-faire party.
About 25% of the American electorate favors less government. If the Republicans capture this vote they can win. Small government people are in both parties, but they are mostly in the Republican Party. These voters stayed away from Senator McCain.
By 2005, the Bush administration had jettisoned any pretense of small government rhetoric in favor of special interest pandering. This has included the recent, disgraceful Wall Street bailout. The bailouts are Progressivism at a socialist level not seen since Theodore Roosevelt ran under the Progressive banner in 1912.
Big government Progressives dominate the Republican Party because they reflect corporate interests and have the most resources. They speak the language of efficiency and low taxes, but ultimately they are interested in policies that benefit themselves, which means subsidies, coddling and special breaks. Although they have the most resources, they don't have that many votes outside New York. They are comfortable with government bloat because budget deficits facilitate borrowing, which in turn facilitates monetary expansion. Monetary expansion boosts the stock market, and the music goes 'round and 'round. Indeed, I did not hear any evidence that John McCain would have been but another President Bloat, in the same tradition as Roosevelt, Hoover, Harding, Nixon and Bush. I leave out Taft, Coolidge and Reagan, although they should probably be included in the "Progressive" category as well, although they put a lid on it. Bush didn't know how to put a lid on it, and McCain didn't know it was an issue.
Thus, the Republican Party is inherently in conflict. If the Party can resolve the conflict it can win. This includes the specious resolution at which Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich succeeded. However, in the end, it is difficult to reconcile two fundamental antagonists: people who believe in fairness, laissez faire, limited government and low taxes; and people who believe in subsidies to big business at the expense of high taxes, and inflation in the name of growth.
By 2005 the Republicans had jettisoned their small government wing. The aim seems to have been to strike an alliance between big government Progressives and social conservatives. But enough social conservatives were disloyal to the Progressives because they were disgusted at the income inequality that Federal Reserve bank policy generates (most did not know this was the reason), the pandering to special interests, and Republican corruption.
The Republicans have failed the true conservative base, the remnant of the Jacksonian and late nineteenth century advocates of limited government, hard money and fiscal discipline. If Barack Obama reduces government and sheds his radical affiliations, the Progressive-social conservative alliance will never work again in my lifetime.
PS--this version isn't as good musically, but it is funny:
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Crashing Online Polls--Sometimes You Just Gotta Say: "What the Heck?"
Simon Owens has published an interesting article on PBS.org. A week or so ago PBS published an online poll asking whether Sarah Palin was qualified. I had been alerted about the poll via e-mail and posted the e-mail on this blog. I also voted. Simon points out that FreeRepublic had posted a message that "conservatives" (I consider myself a Jacksonian radical, but "conservative" will do) should crash the poll, and that's probably how I heard of it (i.e., indirectly from one of the many Freepers whom I respect, admire and turn to for advice). Learning that conservatives were crashing the poll, Professor PZ Myers of Pharyngula mounted a counter-offensive. Myers is a scientist who correctly points out the many biases and threats to the validity of online polls.
Myers says:
"If you look at the major networks' coverage of the election, for instance, what you find is that they turn it into a horse race...All they report is who's ahead, who's behind and by how much. It is distracting and detracts from the coverage of the actual issues."
Issues? What issues? When was the last time you heard discussion of monetary policy on PBS? Probably in 1836, when Jackson was still president.
However, Joel Schwartzbert of the website that ran the poll does not claim that online polls are representative. Article author Owens points out about the Palin poll I crashed:
"To date, more than 50 million votes have been registered on the poll, both from constant freeping and from bots running rampant and falsely inflating the numbers. Eventually, NOW changed the poll to track a user's cookie so they could only vote one time per computer."
Maybe the guys over at PBS haven't heard of Webroot's Window Washer. Sorry to break the news to you, Simon, but no cookie is going to be able to stop the Freepers!
Given the extreme biases in the American news media I would not make much of an issue out of an online poll. In fact, I would claim that if Fox, CBS, NBC, PBS, etc. permitted online voting as to whether the viewers think that the announcers are full of baloney, the instant feedback would improve things.
Myers says:
"If you look at the major networks' coverage of the election, for instance, what you find is that they turn it into a horse race...All they report is who's ahead, who's behind and by how much. It is distracting and detracts from the coverage of the actual issues."
Issues? What issues? When was the last time you heard discussion of monetary policy on PBS? Probably in 1836, when Jackson was still president.
However, Joel Schwartzbert of the website that ran the poll does not claim that online polls are representative. Article author Owens points out about the Palin poll I crashed:
"To date, more than 50 million votes have been registered on the poll, both from constant freeping and from bots running rampant and falsely inflating the numbers. Eventually, NOW changed the poll to track a user's cookie so they could only vote one time per computer."
Maybe the guys over at PBS haven't heard of Webroot's Window Washer. Sorry to break the news to you, Simon, but no cookie is going to be able to stop the Freepers!
Given the extreme biases in the American news media I would not make much of an issue out of an online poll. In fact, I would claim that if Fox, CBS, NBC, PBS, etc. permitted online voting as to whether the viewers think that the announcers are full of baloney, the instant feedback would improve things.
Social Conservatism Not a Decisive Issue in This Election
The Wall Street Journal and CBS News report that Proposition 8, mandating that marriage between a man and a woman, won 52-48%. In contrast, President-elect Obama won in the Golden State by 61% to 37%. A bill restricting abortion rights for minors (requiring parental notification) lost by 52-48%. It is true that, as Paul Rogers points out in a Mercury News blog:
"Two of the main anti-abortion ballot measures in the nation failed. Voters in South Dakota rejected by a margin of 55-45 percent Initiative 11, which would have banned abortion except in cases of rape, incest or serious health risk to the mother. And in Colorado, they trounced Amendment 48, which would have defined life at the moment of conception. It failed by 73-27 percent."
Despite the failure of anti-abortion proposals, it would seem that the economy and the Iraqi War rather than social issues received voters' attention. Although restrictions on abortion failed, elimination of gay marriage succeeded in California, which someone once called "the land of fruit and nuts". It would also seem that advocates of abortion rights might begin to feel more comfortable with state-by-state determination of the extent to which abortion will be permitted rather than a sweeping Supreme Court decision.
"Two of the main anti-abortion ballot measures in the nation failed. Voters in South Dakota rejected by a margin of 55-45 percent Initiative 11, which would have banned abortion except in cases of rape, incest or serious health risk to the mother. And in Colorado, they trounced Amendment 48, which would have defined life at the moment of conception. It failed by 73-27 percent."
Despite the failure of anti-abortion proposals, it would seem that the economy and the Iraqi War rather than social issues received voters' attention. Although restrictions on abortion failed, elimination of gay marriage succeeded in California, which someone once called "the land of fruit and nuts". It would also seem that advocates of abortion rights might begin to feel more comfortable with state-by-state determination of the extent to which abortion will be permitted rather than a sweeping Supreme Court decision.
George Phillips's Loss Is Ulster County's Loss
Joe Bubel has an excellent post on his blog. Joe notes:
"Our media-driven society accepted Obama by word only, and that is enough for them. And, there just aren't enough people left, who expect more than just words, to counter the droves of 10 second sound byte Obama followers at the polls. Time will only tell, if Obama can deliver the Christmas he promised.
"There will be those who will gloat. There are those who say to me, and others like me on the blog world, we are a blue county in a blue state, time for your 'kind' to move...So I say, I have the FREEDOM to live where I Like. You, however, are tied to where the government can take care of you, or you need to bring the government to you, which you have been doing quite successfully in Ulster County."
Sadly, Ulster County and the rest of New York's 22nd Congressional District has overwhelmingly voted another term for Comrade Maurice Hinchey, Congressman Price Control, who advocated price controls on gasoline earlier this year and never saw a socialist system he didn't wish to emulate. The 22nd district is gerrymandered to include Binghamton, Ithaca, New Paltz, Woodstock, Kingston and Poughkeepsie. They managed to slice in more than a half dozen colleges, Vassar, Marist, two SUNYs (New Paltz and Binghamton)and Cornell, plus Woodstock, home to trust left wing trust fund babies and rock stars. George Phillips mounted a noble campaign but lacked support from Ulster County's Democratic media and 2001 invasion of New York City liberals. The Obama-McCain debacle contributed as well.
Let us hope that George continues his noble efforts in pursuit of this Congressional seat.
"Our media-driven society accepted Obama by word only, and that is enough for them. And, there just aren't enough people left, who expect more than just words, to counter the droves of 10 second sound byte Obama followers at the polls. Time will only tell, if Obama can deliver the Christmas he promised.
"There will be those who will gloat. There are those who say to me, and others like me on the blog world, we are a blue county in a blue state, time for your 'kind' to move...So I say, I have the FREEDOM to live where I Like. You, however, are tied to where the government can take care of you, or you need to bring the government to you, which you have been doing quite successfully in Ulster County."
Sadly, Ulster County and the rest of New York's 22nd Congressional District has overwhelmingly voted another term for Comrade Maurice Hinchey, Congressman Price Control, who advocated price controls on gasoline earlier this year and never saw a socialist system he didn't wish to emulate. The 22nd district is gerrymandered to include Binghamton, Ithaca, New Paltz, Woodstock, Kingston and Poughkeepsie. They managed to slice in more than a half dozen colleges, Vassar, Marist, two SUNYs (New Paltz and Binghamton)and Cornell, plus Woodstock, home to trust left wing trust fund babies and rock stars. George Phillips mounted a noble campaign but lacked support from Ulster County's Democratic media and 2001 invasion of New York City liberals. The Obama-McCain debacle contributed as well.
Let us hope that George continues his noble efforts in pursuit of this Congressional seat.
Meshugina Kopf--Jewish Vote To Obama
Gateway Pundit (h/t Larwyn) blogs that 77% of the Jewish vote went to Obama. In contrast, the majority of the white vote went to McCain. American Jews have a history of following "progressive" fashion even where it means danger or death to their fellow Jews. In the 1930s and 40s the Jewish-owned New York Times did report on the Holocaust, but it buried the story and America's "progressive" Jews did little to demand to Roosevelt that the train lines to the death camps be bombed. In 2008, few Jews have asked whether Obama's links to Price Prince Al-Waleed or to various radical causes might in turn raise questions about his attitudes toward Israel or how he would respond to an attack on Israel. This is a tragedy. I hope the circumstances that I fear will not occur.
Rumors Surface About Obama's Mental Health
Jim Crum has forwarded a post from Ghost of a Flea that makes the following allegation:
"The October Surprise is Here: Obama is Hiding Mental History in His Medical Records...
"Information is leaking that Barack Obama was treated for mental related illnesses in the 70's and early 80's and may have been prescribed anti-psychotic medications. Schizophrenia is the main reported diagnosis with possible case severe depression...
"Yesterday the big talk in political chat rooms was Obama's yet to be released medical record. Obama may still need prescribed medications for mental related issues. It is suspected that he has not been taking his medications consistently because of several episode at recently campaign rallies...
"Barack Obama stands alone in the last three elections as the only candidate to not release medical records to the public.
"Senator Barack Obama released, in May, a one-page letter from his primary care doctor, who had not even seen him in 18 months. The Obama campaign has stated that no medical records will be released, the letter from the stating that he his currently in good heath will have to suffice..."
I have several times suspected that Barack Obama is a sociopath, and recently read a blog that asserted a noted psychiatrist has contemplated whether Senator Obama suffers from narcissistic personality disorder, which overlaps with sociopathy. This latest rumor will be dismissed, but none of those who dismiss will have seen Senator Obama's medical records. This has been a year of ex post rationalization, and wide-eyed willingness to be conned. It is still possible for the Electoral College to demand a review of Obama's records.
I think the Electoral College ought to demand a review of both Obama's birth information and his medical history. This election has made me appreciate the founding fathers' wisdom as well as the incompetence of popular discourse. It is unfortunate that the Electoral College has become a figurehead process.
Barring some Electoral College steps, I see 4 possibilities for the coming 4 years:
1. Obama's not as bad as we fear, and his election will be for the good. He could be the next Reagan. If the Fed raises interest rates in year one and shakes out the economy, then he may not be so bad.
2. He's a corrupt Chicago hack, protege of Mayor Daly, a crook, and so the country stagnates but not irremediably. We've had crooked presidents before.
3. He's a true believer, a follower of either his socialist Bill Ayers background or radical Islam or both, in which case we're in trouble
4. 3 + a mental case as Ghost of a Flea and others, including myself, have contemplated and rumored. In that case things will be worse than 3.
"The October Surprise is Here: Obama is Hiding Mental History in His Medical Records...
"Information is leaking that Barack Obama was treated for mental related illnesses in the 70's and early 80's and may have been prescribed anti-psychotic medications. Schizophrenia is the main reported diagnosis with possible case severe depression...
"Yesterday the big talk in political chat rooms was Obama's yet to be released medical record. Obama may still need prescribed medications for mental related issues. It is suspected that he has not been taking his medications consistently because of several episode at recently campaign rallies...
"Barack Obama stands alone in the last three elections as the only candidate to not release medical records to the public.
"Senator Barack Obama released, in May, a one-page letter from his primary care doctor, who had not even seen him in 18 months. The Obama campaign has stated that no medical records will be released, the letter from the stating that he his currently in good heath will have to suffice..."
I have several times suspected that Barack Obama is a sociopath, and recently read a blog that asserted a noted psychiatrist has contemplated whether Senator Obama suffers from narcissistic personality disorder, which overlaps with sociopathy. This latest rumor will be dismissed, but none of those who dismiss will have seen Senator Obama's medical records. This has been a year of ex post rationalization, and wide-eyed willingness to be conned. It is still possible for the Electoral College to demand a review of Obama's records.
I think the Electoral College ought to demand a review of both Obama's birth information and his medical history. This election has made me appreciate the founding fathers' wisdom as well as the incompetence of popular discourse. It is unfortunate that the Electoral College has become a figurehead process.
Barring some Electoral College steps, I see 4 possibilities for the coming 4 years:
1. Obama's not as bad as we fear, and his election will be for the good. He could be the next Reagan. If the Fed raises interest rates in year one and shakes out the economy, then he may not be so bad.
2. He's a corrupt Chicago hack, protege of Mayor Daly, a crook, and so the country stagnates but not irremediably. We've had crooked presidents before.
3. He's a true believer, a follower of either his socialist Bill Ayers background or radical Islam or both, in which case we're in trouble
4. 3 + a mental case as Ghost of a Flea and others, including myself, have contemplated and rumored. In that case things will be worse than 3.
Dr. Vieira's Electoral College Strategy
I just received the following e-mail from Contrairimairi. Dr. Vieiras has proposed an electoral college strategy. Does anyone know how to get the names and addresses of the electoral college delegates? We can send them letters proposing a demand for an investigation:
Dear Mitchell,
I spoke with Dr. Vieira just a while ago. I am very impressed with his knowledge about BO's citizenship standing. He has offered some GREAT insight into handling the problem.
His first idea is to have a member or members of the electoral college demand proof of the citizenship to verify that they are able to legally vote for him. Most of us already knew that one.
His second idea is to file the suit after he signs a piece of legislation that directly affects us as individuals, challenging his authority to do so. He says in that case, the Judge cannot deny standing.
He says Berg's suit will be thrown out, and if people continue to file the suits, the Court will label them "frivolous" and begin fining anyone who brings a suit.
I asked him about Sarah Palin bringing suit, and he claims she does not even have enough standing, that it would have to be filed now by a presidential candidate, (we can BANK JMC won't bring it!), or by a major contributor to BO's campaign, who may not be able to get what they were promised if BO is challenged and loses the challenge.
He told me he is "very certain" that BO will be challenged when he signs a piece of legislation, if he is not challenged by either the electoral college, or one of the other presidential candidates first.
I believe him. We spoke for a very long time, and he is very firm in his convictions. He told me not to pursue filing in Illinois at this time. I think he is hoping that the suits that may be labeled "frivolous" will end, and that we will wait and be patient until the timing is absolutely correct for a "WIN" on a challenge.
Thank you for convincing me to contact him. I feel very confident now that we will not suffer too much longer. It is just a shame that BO is going to allow this to be much more damaging and divisive than it should ever have been, but Americans will need to remember that it was BO's choice to be hurtful, not that of his opposition.
His own arrogance is likely to put a world of hurt on this Country, but once again, I have to say that I believe it is our generation's turn to defend America, only this time, in a way our predecessors could barely have imagined!
It is going to be difficult to be patient. Have you heard from Steve Marquis if the electors have filed suit?
Hope this is good news for you.
Mairi
Dear Mitchell,
I spoke with Dr. Vieira just a while ago. I am very impressed with his knowledge about BO's citizenship standing. He has offered some GREAT insight into handling the problem.
His first idea is to have a member or members of the electoral college demand proof of the citizenship to verify that they are able to legally vote for him. Most of us already knew that one.
His second idea is to file the suit after he signs a piece of legislation that directly affects us as individuals, challenging his authority to do so. He says in that case, the Judge cannot deny standing.
He says Berg's suit will be thrown out, and if people continue to file the suits, the Court will label them "frivolous" and begin fining anyone who brings a suit.
I asked him about Sarah Palin bringing suit, and he claims she does not even have enough standing, that it would have to be filed now by a presidential candidate, (we can BANK JMC won't bring it!), or by a major contributor to BO's campaign, who may not be able to get what they were promised if BO is challenged and loses the challenge.
He told me he is "very certain" that BO will be challenged when he signs a piece of legislation, if he is not challenged by either the electoral college, or one of the other presidential candidates first.
I believe him. We spoke for a very long time, and he is very firm in his convictions. He told me not to pursue filing in Illinois at this time. I think he is hoping that the suits that may be labeled "frivolous" will end, and that we will wait and be patient until the timing is absolutely correct for a "WIN" on a challenge.
Thank you for convincing me to contact him. I feel very confident now that we will not suffer too much longer. It is just a shame that BO is going to allow this to be much more damaging and divisive than it should ever have been, but Americans will need to remember that it was BO's choice to be hurtful, not that of his opposition.
His own arrogance is likely to put a world of hurt on this Country, but once again, I have to say that I believe it is our generation's turn to defend America, only this time, in a way our predecessors could barely have imagined!
It is going to be difficult to be patient. Have you heard from Steve Marquis if the electors have filed suit?
Hope this is good news for you.
Mairi
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Inflation and the New President
The Wall Street Journal Online (paid access) has an editorial about the racial and economic implications of the presidential race. WSJ notes:
>"While Mr. Obama lost among white voters, as most modern Democrats do, his success is due in part to the fact that he also muted any politics of racial grievance... The Democratic temptation will be to interpret this victory as a mandate for renewed liberal government. Republicans hope they do. The last three times the Democrats won this kind of victory -- in 1964, 1976 and 1992 -- they overreached and suffered big losses two years later...
>"We'd note in particular that Mr. Obama ran as a tax-cutter for '95% of workers,' promising tax rates 'less than they were under Ronald Reagan.' This is only one of the ways that the skillful candidate was able to disguise the details of what was the most left-of-center Democratic agenda since the early 1970s. The exit polls showed that among the 70% of voters who believe their taxes will go up under Mr. Obama, 55% voted for Mr. McCain. Democrats raise taxes in a recession at their peril..."
The cause of the economic decline that led to the Democratic victory, in WSJ's view, goes:
>"back to the causes of the housing bubble. Republicans -- specifically, Mr. Bush's Federal Reserve nominees and Treasury Secretaries -- forgot about the value of money. They failed as stewards of the dollar, unleashing a credit mania and panic that collided in colossal bad timing with a Presidential campaign."
The response of Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke has been more spending and more monetary expansion. Barack Obama was elected not by the lower income strata, who were less friendly to him than anticipated, but by those earning over $75,000 who are concerned about their 401ks.
The Democratic response will be to increase the money supply even further. This will enable them to boost the stock market, reduce financial pressure and possibly make possible their policy goals. The result will be inflation. If the Democrats choose to act like conservatives, which the Journal proposes, then the stock market will fall and there will be somewhat less inflation, although the fundamentals for a large inflation are already in place. Moreover, the real estate market may have a lot more to fall, resulting in "stagflation".
I am not a fan of either Republicans or Democrats but view the Republicans as the lesser of two evils. The public remains committed to the current Progressive regime, which subsumes both parties, and can expect poor economic performance, increasing income inequality and reductions in freedom regardless of who is in power.
>"While Mr. Obama lost among white voters, as most modern Democrats do, his success is due in part to the fact that he also muted any politics of racial grievance... The Democratic temptation will be to interpret this victory as a mandate for renewed liberal government. Republicans hope they do. The last three times the Democrats won this kind of victory -- in 1964, 1976 and 1992 -- they overreached and suffered big losses two years later...
>"We'd note in particular that Mr. Obama ran as a tax-cutter for '95% of workers,' promising tax rates 'less than they were under Ronald Reagan.' This is only one of the ways that the skillful candidate was able to disguise the details of what was the most left-of-center Democratic agenda since the early 1970s. The exit polls showed that among the 70% of voters who believe their taxes will go up under Mr. Obama, 55% voted for Mr. McCain. Democrats raise taxes in a recession at their peril..."
The cause of the economic decline that led to the Democratic victory, in WSJ's view, goes:
>"back to the causes of the housing bubble. Republicans -- specifically, Mr. Bush's Federal Reserve nominees and Treasury Secretaries -- forgot about the value of money. They failed as stewards of the dollar, unleashing a credit mania and panic that collided in colossal bad timing with a Presidential campaign."
The response of Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke has been more spending and more monetary expansion. Barack Obama was elected not by the lower income strata, who were less friendly to him than anticipated, but by those earning over $75,000 who are concerned about their 401ks.
The Democratic response will be to increase the money supply even further. This will enable them to boost the stock market, reduce financial pressure and possibly make possible their policy goals. The result will be inflation. If the Democrats choose to act like conservatives, which the Journal proposes, then the stock market will fall and there will be somewhat less inflation, although the fundamentals for a large inflation are already in place. Moreover, the real estate market may have a lot more to fall, resulting in "stagflation".
I am not a fan of either Republicans or Democrats but view the Republicans as the lesser of two evils. The public remains committed to the current Progressive regime, which subsumes both parties, and can expect poor economic performance, increasing income inequality and reductions in freedom regardless of who is in power.
Obamanomics
Dymphna of Gates of Vienna (h/t Larwyn) offers this lesson on "spreading it around":
Obama’s leaky plumbing
Barack Obama discovers a leak under his sink, so he calls Joe the Plumber to come and fix it.
Joe drives to Obama’s house, which is located in a very nice neighborhood and where it’s clear that all the residents make more than $250,000 per year.
Joe arrives and takes his tools into the house. Joe is led to the room that contains the leaky pipe under a sink. Joe assesses the problem and tells Obama, who is standing near the door, that it’s an easy repair that will take less than 10 minutes.
Obama asks Joe how much it will cost.
Joe immediately says, "$9,500."
$9,500?" Obama asks, stunned. "But you said it’s an easy repair!"
"Yes, but what I do is charge a lot more to my clients who make more than $250,000 per year so I can fix the plumbing of everybody who makes less than that for free," explains Joe. "It’s always been my philosophy. As a matter of fact, I lobbied government to pass this philosophy as law, and it did pass earlier this year, so now all plumbers have to do business this way. It’s known as ‘Joe’s Fair Plumbing Act of 2008.’ Surprised you haven’t heard of it, senator."
In spite of that, Obama tells Joe there’s no way he’s paying that much for a small plumbing repair, so Joe leaves.
Obama spends the next hour flipping through the phone book looking for another plumber, but he finds that all other plumbing businesses listed have gone out of business. Not wanting to pay Joe’s price, Obama does nothing.
The leak under Obama’s sink goes unrepaired for the next several days.
A week later the leak is so bad that Obama has had to put a bucket under the sink. The bucket fills up quickly and has to be emptied every hour, and there’s a risk that the room will flood, so Obama calls Joe and pleads with him to return.
Joe goes back to Obama’s house, looks at the leaky pipe, and says "Let’s see - this will cost you about $21,000."
"A few days ago you told me it would cost $9,500!" Obama quickly fires back.
Joe explains the reason for the dramatic increase. "Well, because of the ‘Joe’s Fair Plumbing Act,’ a lot of rich people are learning how to fix their own plumbing, so there are fewer of you paying for all the free plumbing I’m doing for the people who make less than $250,000. As a result, the rate I have to charge my wealthy paying customers rises every day.
"Not only that, but for some reason the demand for plumbing work from the group of people who get it for free has skyrocketed, and there’s a long waiting list of those who need repairs. This has put a lot of my fellow plumbers out of business, and they’re not being replaced - nobody is going into the plumbing business because they know they won’t make any money. I’m hurting now too - all thanks to greedy rich people like you who won’t pay their fair share."
Obama tries to straighten out the plumber: "Of course you’re hurting, Joe! Don’t you get it? If all the rich people learn how to fix their own plumbing and you refuse to charge the poorer people for your services, you’ll be broke, and then what will you do?"
Joe immediately replies, "Run for president, apparently."
Obama’s leaky plumbing
Barack Obama discovers a leak under his sink, so he calls Joe the Plumber to come and fix it.
Joe drives to Obama’s house, which is located in a very nice neighborhood and where it’s clear that all the residents make more than $250,000 per year.
Joe arrives and takes his tools into the house. Joe is led to the room that contains the leaky pipe under a sink. Joe assesses the problem and tells Obama, who is standing near the door, that it’s an easy repair that will take less than 10 minutes.
Obama asks Joe how much it will cost.
Joe immediately says, "$9,500."
$9,500?" Obama asks, stunned. "But you said it’s an easy repair!"
"Yes, but what I do is charge a lot more to my clients who make more than $250,000 per year so I can fix the plumbing of everybody who makes less than that for free," explains Joe. "It’s always been my philosophy. As a matter of fact, I lobbied government to pass this philosophy as law, and it did pass earlier this year, so now all plumbers have to do business this way. It’s known as ‘Joe’s Fair Plumbing Act of 2008.’ Surprised you haven’t heard of it, senator."
In spite of that, Obama tells Joe there’s no way he’s paying that much for a small plumbing repair, so Joe leaves.
Obama spends the next hour flipping through the phone book looking for another plumber, but he finds that all other plumbing businesses listed have gone out of business. Not wanting to pay Joe’s price, Obama does nothing.
The leak under Obama’s sink goes unrepaired for the next several days.
A week later the leak is so bad that Obama has had to put a bucket under the sink. The bucket fills up quickly and has to be emptied every hour, and there’s a risk that the room will flood, so Obama calls Joe and pleads with him to return.
Joe goes back to Obama’s house, looks at the leaky pipe, and says "Let’s see - this will cost you about $21,000."
"A few days ago you told me it would cost $9,500!" Obama quickly fires back.
Joe explains the reason for the dramatic increase. "Well, because of the ‘Joe’s Fair Plumbing Act,’ a lot of rich people are learning how to fix their own plumbing, so there are fewer of you paying for all the free plumbing I’m doing for the people who make less than $250,000. As a result, the rate I have to charge my wealthy paying customers rises every day.
"Not only that, but for some reason the demand for plumbing work from the group of people who get it for free has skyrocketed, and there’s a long waiting list of those who need repairs. This has put a lot of my fellow plumbers out of business, and they’re not being replaced - nobody is going into the plumbing business because they know they won’t make any money. I’m hurting now too - all thanks to greedy rich people like you who won’t pay their fair share."
Obama tries to straighten out the plumber: "Of course you’re hurting, Joe! Don’t you get it? If all the rich people learn how to fix their own plumbing and you refuse to charge the poorer people for your services, you’ll be broke, and then what will you do?"
Joe immediately replies, "Run for president, apparently."
Dan Friedman's Morning Laugh
Dan Friedman writes:
>"Barack Obama won the election because he saw what is wrong with this country: the utter failure of government to protect its citizens."
--New York Times, The Next President
It's good to start the morning off with a laugh. This has nothing to do with why he won this election, but it will be the reason he loses the next one.
Dan Friedman
NYC
But I'm confused. What's the New York Times?
>"Barack Obama won the election because he saw what is wrong with this country: the utter failure of government to protect its citizens."
--New York Times, The Next President
It's good to start the morning off with a laugh. This has nothing to do with why he won this election, but it will be the reason he loses the next one.
Dan Friedman
NYC
But I'm confused. What's the New York Times?
Getting Rich from an Obama Presidency
The Democrats have inherited an inflationary mess from their sister party, the Republicans. A testimony to the Democrats' incompetence is that their leading economists are talking about the likelihood of "deflation" when the Republicans just doubled the monetary base on top of 2 1/2 decades of Republican monetary depreciation. Rather than make inflation into an issue, the Democrats complain that there isn't enough inflation. The reason is, of course, that their programmatic suggestions, to include Post Office- and New York City-Subway-style government health insurance and "spreading it around", require that our impecunious government spend ever more. As well, George Soros, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Warren Buffett must be paid.
Here are a few pointers about inflation:
1. Buy without holding prisoners. It is time to buy the Lexus, Lincoln or Mercedes you have been thinking about. If you've been saving for a Lexus consider borrowing to buy one instead. Use the cash as a down payment on a leveraged investment.
2. If you are planning to retire, have some gold. My friend wants to keep gold under the mattress. He's holed up with a rifle, bars of gold and dry food. If you're not quite so paranoid, take a look at SPDR Gold TR (GLD) or Ishares Comex Gold Trust (IAU).
3. Consider a commmodity investment such as Powershares DBC Commodity Index Tracking Fund (DBC). This exchange traded fund tracks the Deutsche Bank Commodity Index, which is composed of light sweet crude oil, heating oil, aluminimum, gold, corn and wheat. Commodities have taken a beating this year with oil falling by more than 50% and gold falling about 34% (it is currently about 25% below its high).
4. Consider gold stocks. These have underperformed gold this year and so can catch up to the gold price as well as travel up along with the gold price during the Democrats' inflation. Some examples are Agnico (AEM), Eldorado (EG0), Kinross (KGC) and Randgold (GOLD).
5. Take a slice of Jim Rogers's thinking and buy his commodity index ETF, Market Vectors Hard Assets Producers ETF (HAP). Jim Rogers designed the index to take advantage of the global commodities boom. HAP began this past September (2008) and sold as high as 38 or so before falling to its current $23.93.
With an Obama presidency, it's going to be rock 'n roll time for commodities. Let's make some money!
Here are a few pointers about inflation:
1. Buy without holding prisoners. It is time to buy the Lexus, Lincoln or Mercedes you have been thinking about. If you've been saving for a Lexus consider borrowing to buy one instead. Use the cash as a down payment on a leveraged investment.
2. If you are planning to retire, have some gold. My friend wants to keep gold under the mattress. He's holed up with a rifle, bars of gold and dry food. If you're not quite so paranoid, take a look at SPDR Gold TR (GLD) or Ishares Comex Gold Trust (IAU).
3. Consider a commmodity investment such as Powershares DBC Commodity Index Tracking Fund (DBC). This exchange traded fund tracks the Deutsche Bank Commodity Index, which is composed of light sweet crude oil, heating oil, aluminimum, gold, corn and wheat. Commodities have taken a beating this year with oil falling by more than 50% and gold falling about 34% (it is currently about 25% below its high).
4. Consider gold stocks. These have underperformed gold this year and so can catch up to the gold price as well as travel up along with the gold price during the Democrats' inflation. Some examples are Agnico (AEM), Eldorado (EG0), Kinross (KGC) and Randgold (GOLD).
5. Take a slice of Jim Rogers's thinking and buy his commodity index ETF, Market Vectors Hard Assets Producers ETF (HAP). Jim Rogers designed the index to take advantage of the global commodities boom. HAP began this past September (2008) and sold as high as 38 or so before falling to its current $23.93.
With an Obama presidency, it's going to be rock 'n roll time for commodities. Let's make some money!
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Antiquity and American Decline
Ancient Egypt is best remembered for its massive pyramids, but few people realize that the pyramids were built during the first, most ancient 1,000 years of the 3,000-year long Egyptian civilization. The most famous Pharaoh, Ramses II or Ramses the Great, who lived in the 13th century BC and was likely the Pharaoh of Exodus, was followed by a 500 year political decline. The Nubians of what is now the Sudan conquered Egypt in the eighth century BC, about 500 years after Ramses II's death, and ruled for about 100 years before the Assyrians and then the Greeks led by Alexander the Great conquered Egypt. The decline of Egypt was due to political rather than economic causes. Egypt had become wealthy because of natural resources. The overflowing of the Nile provided rich topsoil and an abundant crop, making construction, a priesthood, royalty and development of mathematics and some sciences possible. Without the good fortune of the fertile soil due to the overflowing of the Nile, the Egyptian civilization could not have been so influential.
The United States has existed for 220 years compared to the 1,800 years that Egypt had existed by the time of Ramses the Great. Egypt's decline took 500 years, that is, 500/1800 = 27% of the time it took Egyptian civilization to reach its culmination in Ramses the Great. Arguably, American civilization is past its prime, so a comparison is difficult to make. However, let us say that the election of Barack Obama reflects the beginning of American decline. Then, if we follow the pattern of Egypt, the decline will take 27% x 232 years = 62 years.
The decline of Egypt, like the decline of Rome, did not occur at once. Arguably, America began to decline with the establishment of the Federal Reserve Bank and the Progressive era. If so, it would seem that America's decline has taken much longer than Egypt's in proportion to its brief time of glory in the nineteenth century. Unlike Egypt, America's success is largely due to its laissez-faire economic system, not to its luck of natural resources.
Perhaps America is closer to the Periclean democracy of Athens. That democracy lasted for less than a century before the Spartans defeated Athens in the Peloponnesian War and much of Athens was wiped out by a plague. The Athenian culture continued for centuries more and continued to make important cultural contributions. But after the fifth century BC Athens was no longer able to influence the world directly. Plato and Aristotle were post-Periclean, and arguably Alexander the Great (of Macedon), Aristotle's student, carried much of Athenian culture to the rest of the word, including Egypt when he was crowned Pharaoh. The Greeks saw themselves as carrying ancient Egyptian culture forward. Perhaps a younger, more vibrant society that has adopted at least some of American values, such as Estonia or Singapore, will become the leading nation of the next age.
Right at the time the Assyrians were conquering Egypt, Rome was founded. The fall of Rome took at least several centuries, and many would argue that Rome did not totally fall until Constantinople fell in the 15th century. In the third century Rome had shifted to more autocratic government (the process had begun in the time of Julius Caesar). In response to inflationary debasement of the Roman currency, Emperor Diocletian imposed wage and price controls. As well, the manorial system that led to serfdom began in late antiquity. To quote Wikipedia:
"Diocletian separated and enlarged the empire's civil and military services and re-organized the empire's provincial divisions, establishing the largest and most bureaucratic government in the history of the empire...Building on third-century trends towards absolutism, Diocletian styled himself an autocrat, elevating himself above the empire's masses with imposing forms of court ceremonial and architecture. Bureaucratic and military growth, constant campaigning, and construction projects increased the state's expenditures, and necessitated a comprehensive tax reform...
"Not all Diocletian's plans were successful; the Edict on Maximum Prices (301), Diocletian's attempt to curb inflation via price controls, was unsuccessful, counterproductive, and quickly ignored...The Diocletian Persecution (303–311), the empire's last, largest, and bloodiest official persecution of Christianity, did not destroy the empire's Christian community; indeed, after 324 Christianity became the empire's preferred religion under its first Christian emperor, Constantine..."
According to Kevin Greene in "The Archeology of the Roman Empire":
"Crawford believes that (inflation) really gathered momentum from the 260s, and that bronze coins continued to suffer rapid inflation in terms of gold, which rose from 48,000 denarii to 99,000 denarii per pound between the late third century and Diocletian's Edict of AD 301. The marked increase which seems to have occurred in the third century coincided with dramatic changes in coinage...
"In a series of complex graphic presentations, Reece has shown that in northern Italy between Augustus (27 BC - AD 14) and AD 275 the ratio of silver denarii to brass sestertii remained roughly in balance...Inflation seems to have gathered momentum during the third century AD, which provides some good examples of financial desperation, probably brought on by political and military difficulties.* The debasement of denarius is particularly dramatic; whereas under Augustus it was made of virtually pure silver, the gradual decline in purity and weight of the second century accelerated in the third, until it became a little more than a bronze coin with a small percentage of silver..."
The author provides a graph that shows that the percentage of silver in Roman coins fell from 3 1/2 in 318-320 to 1 1/2 in 337-340.
The Roman civilization was closer than Egypt to the US in that it was more outward looking and for at least part of its history was a republic. The decline of Rome took between three and eleven centuries. Arguably, today's western Europe is just an extension of Rome. French, Spanish and Italian are modernized Latin and much of European culture derives from Roman influence. However, if you mark the end of the Roman era with the two sackings of Rome in the fifth century, then the decline of Rome took about 200 years relative to its twelve hundred year history. If so, then if America follows the Roman pattern its decline will take 200/1200 x 220 = 37 years. Thus, the decline of the United States may well be finished within the brief course of the rest of my life.
*Bearus Stearnus, Diocletian's imperial bank, required subsidies.
Voter Fraud May Be Elevating Turnout Stats
Wall Street Journal Online (paid access) reports:
"Michael McDonald, a politics professor at Virginia's George Mason University, predicted nearly 65% of the electorate would have voted by the time all polls closed -- matching or eclipsing the turnout in the presidential election of 1960 featuring candidates John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. Not since 1908, when the U.S. was convulsing through a shift from the machine party politics of the 19th century to the free-for-all of modern campaigns, has so large a proportion of Americans participated in a presidential election."
The year 1908 is meaningful. In the nineteenth century voter turnout was high because the urban political machines routinely falsified votes. In the Progressive era around 1908 states began requiring voter registration, and voting rates fell below 50% from then on. Historians of the Progressive era often note this. This is the first year since 1908 that voting rates reached 65%. I wonder what portion of the exess 15% is due to enthusiasm about Barack Obama and John McCain, and what portion is due to fraud, notably by ACORN and other pro-Obama thugs.
"Michael McDonald, a politics professor at Virginia's George Mason University, predicted nearly 65% of the electorate would have voted by the time all polls closed -- matching or eclipsing the turnout in the presidential election of 1960 featuring candidates John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. Not since 1908, when the U.S. was convulsing through a shift from the machine party politics of the 19th century to the free-for-all of modern campaigns, has so large a proportion of Americans participated in a presidential election."
The year 1908 is meaningful. In the nineteenth century voter turnout was high because the urban political machines routinely falsified votes. In the Progressive era around 1908 states began requiring voter registration, and voting rates fell below 50% from then on. Historians of the Progressive era often note this. This is the first year since 1908 that voting rates reached 65%. I wonder what portion of the exess 15% is due to enthusiasm about Barack Obama and John McCain, and what portion is due to fraud, notably by ACORN and other pro-Obama thugs.
Andy Martin Alleges Assault, Voter Fraud By Pro-Obama Goons
I just received the following e-mail from Andy Martin:
ANDY MARTIN,J.D.
Professor of Law (Adj.)
"He Works for the People of Illinois"
Suite 4406, 30 E. Huron Street
Chicago, IL60611-4723
Toll-free tel. (866) 706-ANDY
Toll-free fax (866) 707-ANDY
Web site: http://www.AndyMartin.com
E-mail: AndyMart20@aol.com
November 4, 2008
Sheriff Tom Dart
Executive offices
50 W. Washington Street
Chicago, IL60602
via fax (312) 603-4420
Langdon D. Neal, Chairman
Chicago Board of
Election Commissioners
69 W. Washington Street
Chicago, IL 60602
via fax (312) 269-1600
with copy to:
United States Attorney's Office
219 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
Via fax (312) 353-2067, 353-4324
Cook County State's Attorney
5th Floor
Daley Center
Chicago, IL 60602
Via fax (312) 603-5735
Dear Sheriff Dart and
Chairman Neal:
A few minutes ago, around 3:00 P.M., I was assaulted by someone who claimed to be a Sheriff's deputy. I was attempting to vote in the 19th precinct, 42nd Ward, 115 W. Chicago Avenue. Your alleged deputy was dressed like a crackhead, out of uniform, and hit me while wildly waving his arms, using profanity and threatening to arrest me because I wanted to write down his name (he had no visible identification). It was one of the most disgusting examples of Daley Machine goon squad tactics I have witnessed in my forty years fighting Daley Machine corruption.
A Chicago police officer (Donovan, 18th District) witnessed the melee. Officer Donovan conducted himself in a highly professional and peaceful manner.
I went to vote. Having wandered into the wrong precinct (which was closer to my home) where I saw multiple voting machines, I was surprised to see my precinct had only one machine. My precinct, which is more Republican, had only the single voting machine. I spoke with people that said other precincts had 6-10 voting machines. Obviously the Daley Machine is preventing people in white precincts from voting, and encouraging voting in black precincts. This is a serious federal civil rights law violation.
Since there was only one machine, I was offered the option of a paper ballot. I marked my choices carefully with the pen I was provided. I was then told I had "over voted." One of the officials then began examining my "secret" ballot in the open. I became very irritated and said "I thought this was supposed to be a secret election? Why is my ballot being displayed and examined in the open."
At that point the man who identified himself as Mr. Dart's Daley Machine goon ran over and started threatening me. He was yelling, acting abusively, using profanity and trying to intimidate me from continuing to vote.
An Obama supporter who appeared to be under the influence also attempted to threaten and menace me for protesting the public display of my vote.
The Dart goon then "ordered" me into the hall and attested to negate my ballot (one of the judges said that when the goon threatened me into the hall my vote was negated) and refused to show me any ID although he was dressed as a crackhead. He eventually pushed something in my face that I was unable to read or examine. During thus period, the goon was angry, abusive, menacing and manifested a desire to prevent me from voting.
The controversy then moved back into the voting area, where the goon assaulted me while waving his arms uncontrollably. I checked my ballot with the machine reader, and the machine reader was not working properly. I had not over voted (I learned how to make a line between two points when I was two years old).
Chicago has one of the worse reputations, if not the worse, for vote fraud and crooked politics. Today we saw it all: a goon, claiming to be a deputy sheriff but dressed as vagabond, who refused to identify himself and yet threaten to make arrests, and so forth. How can such a goon be on the public payroll? Oh, I forgot, he works for Tom Dart and the Daley Machine.
I ask that you immediately and personally go to the 42nd ward, 19th precinct and remove this goon from harassing and intimidating any further voters. This man has no basis carrying a badge; he is an explosion waiting to happen.
The idea that peoples' ballots are being held up and examined in public, thereby negating the secret vote, and that you are once again using inoperable machines to count votes, and putting fewer voting machines in white precincts than black ones, all constitute serious and immediate threats to the integrity of the election process.
I ask that you carefully and fully document your investigation because a lawsuit over this incident and the denial of equal protection to white voters is very likely.
Sincerely yours,
ANDY MARTIN
ANDY MARTIN,J.D.
Professor of Law (Adj.)
"He Works for the People of Illinois"
Suite 4406, 30 E. Huron Street
Chicago, IL60611-4723
Toll-free tel. (866) 706-ANDY
Toll-free fax (866) 707-ANDY
Web site: http://www.AndyMartin.com
E-mail: AndyMart20@aol.com
November 4, 2008
Sheriff Tom Dart
Executive offices
50 W. Washington Street
Chicago, IL60602
via fax (312) 603-4420
Langdon D. Neal, Chairman
Chicago Board of
Election Commissioners
69 W. Washington Street
Chicago, IL 60602
via fax (312) 269-1600
with copy to:
United States Attorney's Office
219 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
Via fax (312) 353-2067, 353-4324
Cook County State's Attorney
5th Floor
Daley Center
Chicago, IL 60602
Via fax (312) 603-5735
Dear Sheriff Dart and
Chairman Neal:
A few minutes ago, around 3:00 P.M., I was assaulted by someone who claimed to be a Sheriff's deputy. I was attempting to vote in the 19th precinct, 42nd Ward, 115 W. Chicago Avenue. Your alleged deputy was dressed like a crackhead, out of uniform, and hit me while wildly waving his arms, using profanity and threatening to arrest me because I wanted to write down his name (he had no visible identification). It was one of the most disgusting examples of Daley Machine goon squad tactics I have witnessed in my forty years fighting Daley Machine corruption.
A Chicago police officer (Donovan, 18th District) witnessed the melee. Officer Donovan conducted himself in a highly professional and peaceful manner.
I went to vote. Having wandered into the wrong precinct (which was closer to my home) where I saw multiple voting machines, I was surprised to see my precinct had only one machine. My precinct, which is more Republican, had only the single voting machine. I spoke with people that said other precincts had 6-10 voting machines. Obviously the Daley Machine is preventing people in white precincts from voting, and encouraging voting in black precincts. This is a serious federal civil rights law violation.
Since there was only one machine, I was offered the option of a paper ballot. I marked my choices carefully with the pen I was provided. I was then told I had "over voted." One of the officials then began examining my "secret" ballot in the open. I became very irritated and said "I thought this was supposed to be a secret election? Why is my ballot being displayed and examined in the open."
At that point the man who identified himself as Mr. Dart's Daley Machine goon ran over and started threatening me. He was yelling, acting abusively, using profanity and trying to intimidate me from continuing to vote.
An Obama supporter who appeared to be under the influence also attempted to threaten and menace me for protesting the public display of my vote.
The Dart goon then "ordered" me into the hall and attested to negate my ballot (one of the judges said that when the goon threatened me into the hall my vote was negated) and refused to show me any ID although he was dressed as a crackhead. He eventually pushed something in my face that I was unable to read or examine. During thus period, the goon was angry, abusive, menacing and manifested a desire to prevent me from voting.
The controversy then moved back into the voting area, where the goon assaulted me while waving his arms uncontrollably. I checked my ballot with the machine reader, and the machine reader was not working properly. I had not over voted (I learned how to make a line between two points when I was two years old).
Chicago has one of the worse reputations, if not the worse, for vote fraud and crooked politics. Today we saw it all: a goon, claiming to be a deputy sheriff but dressed as vagabond, who refused to identify himself and yet threaten to make arrests, and so forth. How can such a goon be on the public payroll? Oh, I forgot, he works for Tom Dart and the Daley Machine.
I ask that you immediately and personally go to the 42nd ward, 19th precinct and remove this goon from harassing and intimidating any further voters. This man has no basis carrying a badge; he is an explosion waiting to happen.
The idea that peoples' ballots are being held up and examined in public, thereby negating the secret vote, and that you are once again using inoperable machines to count votes, and putting fewer voting machines in white precincts than black ones, all constitute serious and immediate threats to the integrity of the election process.
I ask that you carefully and fully document your investigation because a lawsuit over this incident and the denial of equal protection to white voters is very likely.
Sincerely yours,
ANDY MARTIN
Jim Crum on the Liberal Self-Deprecation
Winning does not support the liberal narrative.
Keep this simple axiom in mind:
THE ONLY TIME A LIBERAL WILL ENGAGE US MILITARY FORCES IS WHEN OUR NATIONAL INTEREST IS NOT AT STAKE.
This is because it makes our motives "pure" and not imperialistic.
For instance: Iraq vs Somalia
With all due respect to Somalia, it could vanish form the earth and it would effect our nation in what way? NONE.
Iraq, sit in the middle of our fuel supplies, and rightly or wrongly, we have a vested interest there.
--JJC
Keep this simple axiom in mind:
THE ONLY TIME A LIBERAL WILL ENGAGE US MILITARY FORCES IS WHEN OUR NATIONAL INTEREST IS NOT AT STAKE.
This is because it makes our motives "pure" and not imperialistic.
For instance: Iraq vs Somalia
With all due respect to Somalia, it could vanish form the earth and it would effect our nation in what way? NONE.
Iraq, sit in the middle of our fuel supplies, and rightly or wrongly, we have a vested interest there.
--JJC
Jim Crum on the Obama Campaign
For several minutes just now our air raid sirens went off.
For a while, myself and all the neighbors thought it was the standard Tuesday drill. But then we realized it was to mark the 1,000,000th illegl vote for Obama here in Chicago.
I am watching TV and it is amazing... buses are pulling up to polling stations with folks getting off with box lunches and bottled water. You almost have to admire the bastards, really. The machine is on full afterburners right now...
I'm just waiting for some Disney character to come out for an exit interview...
JJC.
For a while, myself and all the neighbors thought it was the standard Tuesday drill. But then we realized it was to mark the 1,000,000th illegl vote for Obama here in Chicago.
I am watching TV and it is amazing... buses are pulling up to polling stations with folks getting off with box lunches and bottled water. You almost have to admire the bastards, really. The machine is on full afterburners right now...
I'm just waiting for some Disney character to come out for an exit interview...
JJC.
Need for Electoral College Reform
I have to get this off my chest. Many "progressives" argue for elimination of the Electoral College. This step would be in the long "democratic" tradition of "Progressivism" whereby direct popular vote replaces institutional safeguards against excessive crowd zeal. The Progressives established direct primaries, direct election of US Senators (previously they had been elected by state legislatures), and the referendum and recall in some states. The effect of these steps has been a reduction in freedom and a reduction in democracy. The reason is that the elite media finds it easier to manipulate mass opinion than it would find it to manipulate elected partisans. Direct democracy threatens freedom because the public can be easily bamboozled to support steps that further the aims of economic and social elites (Wall Street, college professors). Since the establishment of the Federal Reserve Bank, the public has naively accepted inflationary policies that harm it; have quietly acquiesced in declining real wages because the media tells them it is the inevitable result of free markets (as opposed to inflation and wealth transfer imposed by the Federal Reserve Bank through monetary subsidies to Wall Street and commercial bankers).
The true roots of America are in the rural states. America was an agricultural country and the founders, especially Jefferson, believed in the physiocrat philosophy that farming is the most noble way of life and that the best society is one composed of free landholders. Moreover, the Red States are closest to the culture of the founders in terms of intuitive understanding of the American ideal and in terms of the love of freedom on which this country is based. Elitists and opportunists who know a lot of false economic theory but don't produce much and are alienated from the American dream dominate the urban "Blue" states.
I do believe the Electoral College needs to be reformed. The number of votes given to rural states needs to be doubled, and the number of votes given to urban states needs to be halved. Only with a redistributed electoral college can America enjoy freedom and liberty.
The true roots of America are in the rural states. America was an agricultural country and the founders, especially Jefferson, believed in the physiocrat philosophy that farming is the most noble way of life and that the best society is one composed of free landholders. Moreover, the Red States are closest to the culture of the founders in terms of intuitive understanding of the American ideal and in terms of the love of freedom on which this country is based. Elitists and opportunists who know a lot of false economic theory but don't produce much and are alienated from the American dream dominate the urban "Blue" states.
I do believe the Electoral College needs to be reformed. The number of votes given to rural states needs to be doubled, and the number of votes given to urban states needs to be halved. Only with a redistributed electoral college can America enjoy freedom and liberty.
Obama Wins Popular Vote, McCain Wins Electoral College?
Jules Crittenden (h/t Larwyn) quotes an AP/Yahoo article with a tasty suggestion: John McCain wins the Electoral College while Obama wins the popular vote. Doug Ross says he's taking out his Y2K bunker.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Contrairimairi on the Election
Dear Mitchell,
In about 48 hours, people in this Country will be on the verge of a major civil war. I wish, and HOPE that I am wrong, but I don't know how I could be.
If BO wins, Those on the right will KNOW the election was stolen. Stolen by vote fraud, stolen by foreigners who intend to take this Country down from the inside. Stolen by anyone with enough money......
If JMc wins........whole 'nother story. I believe we will see rioting, the likes of which this Country has NEVER seen. I do not believe for a moment, that riots won't happen if BO wins, in fact, if past history proves anything, it is that there will be riots, no matter what the outcome, but they will be far more devastating if BO loses.
So, where does that leave us?
We have seen an election process that will not soon be forgotten. I cannot believe the stupidity and maniacal fervor with which BO's minions have supported him. I truly believe that much of this could have been avoided, had the media done it's job.........even 1/2 it's job. Instead, they have nearly guaranteed that this Country will in a few hours time, become a war zone!
I hate pessimism, but I also believe in truth. The end of this election will see both! The truth will be the reality of pessimism felt by the supporters of whichever candidate loses.
I truly believe that the next four years will seem intolerable to those whose candidate loses, and may also be intolerable to those who supported BO if he wins.
One has to wonder if the damage will be irreparable. Few members of the electorate will oppose their own incumbent candidates, while wildly supporting "imposed" term limits on others by the votes of constituents. This should nearly guarantee the re-election of democrats already holding office, and thanks to George, the installation of new democrats to replace the republicans being tossed out.
Many others have seen and called this scenario, but in just a few short hours, it is looking much more likely to soon be reality. A bit ironic, if you ask me. Americans have "wrapped" themselves in "reality". Television is permeated with some ridiculous idea that "reality" is what viewers really want. Ahhhhh....the old......"Be careful what you wish for!"
Despite the fact that most "reality" in viewers mind has little or nothing to do with "actual" realities, I think America is about to get a hefty dose of, "Wake up and smell the coffee!" If JMc wins, I think there will be bitter hatred along race lines for a VERY long time, but hopefully the nation will survive the economic onslaught. On the other hand, if BO wins, I fear very little will survive. I believe this Country may evaporate before our eyes in a "reality" that cannot be stopped after an hour of "air time".
48 hours, and America as we have known her will be altered.....maybe just for a while......maybe permanently, but for many of us, it will be a very sad passing.
Mairi
In about 48 hours, people in this Country will be on the verge of a major civil war. I wish, and HOPE that I am wrong, but I don't know how I could be.
If BO wins, Those on the right will KNOW the election was stolen. Stolen by vote fraud, stolen by foreigners who intend to take this Country down from the inside. Stolen by anyone with enough money......
If JMc wins........whole 'nother story. I believe we will see rioting, the likes of which this Country has NEVER seen. I do not believe for a moment, that riots won't happen if BO wins, in fact, if past history proves anything, it is that there will be riots, no matter what the outcome, but they will be far more devastating if BO loses.
So, where does that leave us?
We have seen an election process that will not soon be forgotten. I cannot believe the stupidity and maniacal fervor with which BO's minions have supported him. I truly believe that much of this could have been avoided, had the media done it's job.........even 1/2 it's job. Instead, they have nearly guaranteed that this Country will in a few hours time, become a war zone!
I hate pessimism, but I also believe in truth. The end of this election will see both! The truth will be the reality of pessimism felt by the supporters of whichever candidate loses.
I truly believe that the next four years will seem intolerable to those whose candidate loses, and may also be intolerable to those who supported BO if he wins.
One has to wonder if the damage will be irreparable. Few members of the electorate will oppose their own incumbent candidates, while wildly supporting "imposed" term limits on others by the votes of constituents. This should nearly guarantee the re-election of democrats already holding office, and thanks to George, the installation of new democrats to replace the republicans being tossed out.
Many others have seen and called this scenario, but in just a few short hours, it is looking much more likely to soon be reality. A bit ironic, if you ask me. Americans have "wrapped" themselves in "reality". Television is permeated with some ridiculous idea that "reality" is what viewers really want. Ahhhhh....the old......"Be careful what you wish for!"
Despite the fact that most "reality" in viewers mind has little or nothing to do with "actual" realities, I think America is about to get a hefty dose of, "Wake up and smell the coffee!" If JMc wins, I think there will be bitter hatred along race lines for a VERY long time, but hopefully the nation will survive the economic onslaught. On the other hand, if BO wins, I fear very little will survive. I believe this Country may evaporate before our eyes in a "reality" that cannot be stopped after an hour of "air time".
48 hours, and America as we have known her will be altered.....maybe just for a while......maybe permanently, but for many of us, it will be a very sad passing.
Mairi
Read My Lips: Obama Aims to Tax Middle Class
The specter of inflation coupled with Senator Barack Obama's intent to tax all who earn over $125,000 (which has been reduced recently from $250,000) is ultimately an open intent to tax the middle class. Within a decade the equivalent of a $50,000 or $60,000 income will be in excess of $125,000. The rhythm of the recent pissant media blitz becomes clearer.
To fund massive bailouts of Wall Street, higher taxes will be necessary to pay interest on the loans. The Federal Reserve Bank has monetized the bailout, doubling the size of the its bank credits within a month, an unheard of monetary expansion. This will be inflationary. Barack Obama's support comes from the media and from Wall Street, which also supported George W. Bush. Bush causes the inflation, Obama raises the taxes to cover the loans. The tempo is obvious. The media did not attack Bush in '04 the way it is attacking Palin in '08. There were nowhere near the stakes at play in '04. Bush was Wall Street's guy in '04. Obama is their guy in '08. Obama raises taxes on the middle class to subsidize Wall Street. Bush provides the subsidies and creates the inflation to prepare the way.
What is ironic in this is how the naive left believes the pissant media hype--"change", etc. This is the change Obama is talking about: bigger distributions to Wall Street; crippling inflation; and higher taxes on the Middle Class to pay for it. He will throw a few dollars to the poor, and enrage conservatives, satisfying the left that he is a man of the people.
As PT Barnum put it, a sucker is born every minute. In this election, there are about 100 million suckers.
To fund massive bailouts of Wall Street, higher taxes will be necessary to pay interest on the loans. The Federal Reserve Bank has monetized the bailout, doubling the size of the its bank credits within a month, an unheard of monetary expansion. This will be inflationary. Barack Obama's support comes from the media and from Wall Street, which also supported George W. Bush. Bush causes the inflation, Obama raises the taxes to cover the loans. The tempo is obvious. The media did not attack Bush in '04 the way it is attacking Palin in '08. There were nowhere near the stakes at play in '04. Bush was Wall Street's guy in '04. Obama is their guy in '08. Obama raises taxes on the middle class to subsidize Wall Street. Bush provides the subsidies and creates the inflation to prepare the way.
What is ironic in this is how the naive left believes the pissant media hype--"change", etc. This is the change Obama is talking about: bigger distributions to Wall Street; crippling inflation; and higher taxes on the Middle Class to pay for it. He will throw a few dollars to the poor, and enrage conservatives, satisfying the left that he is a man of the people.
As PT Barnum put it, a sucker is born every minute. In this election, there are about 100 million suckers.
Pro Obama Thugs Attack Elderly McCain Supporter
I have repeatedly blogged about the sociopathic nature of Barack Obama and his supporters. The pissant media has tended to gloss over their proto-totalitarian behavior, which has permeated every facet of the Obama campaign. Contrairimairi has sent me the following video, located here:
Mairi writes:
To Obots, the admonition to "Get in their Faces!" from the "O", includes beating up senior citizens. How patriotic!
Mairi writes:
To Obots, the admonition to "Get in their Faces!" from the "O", includes beating up senior citizens. How patriotic!
Andy Martin Lawyer's Letter On Fukino's Public Statements Re BOCOLB
I just received the following copy of Andy Martin's letter:
Hon. Mark Bennett
Department of the
Attorney General
425 Queen Street
Honolulu, HI96813
via fax (808) 586-1239
Chiyome Fukino, M.D.
Director of Health
1250 Punchbowl St.
Honolulu, HI96813
via fax (808) 586-4444
Re: Barack Obama Certificate of Live Birth (birth certificate) Circuit Court litigation
and
Uniform Information Practices Act demand for inter-office correspondence by your offices with each other and contacts with persons/media outside state government
Dear Governor Lingle, General Bennett, and Dr. Fukino:
As you are no doubt aware, I have filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court for the First District in Honolulu seeking access to the original 1961 files concerning Barack Obama's Certificate of Live Birth ("COLB")(birth certificate).
This letter is meant to address three matters:
1. I am formally renewing my request for access to the original, typewritten 1961 COLB/birth certificate, so that there is no question that a formal request has been made and received by your offices. If that document as amended in any way, I demand access to the complete file. Michelle Obama has been quoted (I don't know how accurately) as saying her husband was "adopted" at some point.
2. This letter is meant to place you on notice that I believe Dr. Fukino's statements to the media on Friday, October 31st concerning the original, typewritten 1961 COLB waived any secrecy concerning the original COLB because she specifically invited or solicited news coverage and invited commentary and attention on the document.
3. I am also submitting a request pursuant to the Hawai'i Uniform Information Practices Act ("UIPA"), HRS § 92F-1 et seq. for communications to and from your offices concerning the COLB with persons outside your offices and media, as well as your inter-office communications concerning the matter of the COLB.
I.
FORMAL REQUEST FOR ACCESS TO THE FULL AND COMPLETE AND ORIGINAL 1961 OBAMA COLB AS WELL AS ANY AMENDMENTS
I sent a request for this file several months ago. My request and my check were returned with a form reply that I was not entitled to access. This letter formally and legally renews my request. (The $10 will be submitted by overnight mail as soon as you notify me the document(s) is available.)
I seek access for the reasons set forth in greater detail in my pending lawsuit: namely as an author, scholar and writer concerning Mr. Obama. I am writing a second book on him.
I believe that Hawai'i officials have misconstrued the terms of the relevant statute, asserting that some sort of blood relationship is required before disclosure is permitted, when the statutory language clearly does not pretermit that interpretation. In fairness, the Attorney General has not yet made public such an unfounded assertion. (The AG, however, appears to have issued "guidance" to the Department of Health, which would be discoverable under Part III, infra, see Chicago Tribune, October 30, 2008 [attached] that is palpably in conflict with the statutory language.)
II. DR. FUKINO'S STATEMENTS ON OCTOBER 31ST
October 31st Dr. Fukino made a number of public statements concerning the COLB documents I am seeking to access. I use the plural because the original COLB may have been amended; we don't know, which is why access is essential: to end the speculation and establish the facts.
In my opinion, Dr. Fukino's public statements about a secret document (the original 1961 COLB) may have waived the confidentiality provisions of the statute. I don't think a public official can play gotcha with secret information and make public references to a document while denying access to the same document so the public can make an independent determination and comparison, see e.g. "The scope of a statutory privilege, however, is tempered by the principle that " 'privileges preventing disclosure of relevant evidence are not favored and may often give way to a strong public interest.' " State v. L.J.P., 270 N.J.Super. 429, 637 A.2d 532, 537 (1994) State v. Peseti, 101 Hawai'i 172, 65 P.3rd 119, 127 (Hawai'i 2003).
Therefore, I would ask that you reconsider your original refusal to release my requested information in light of Dr. Fukino's public statements and de facto waiver on Friday.
III.
ADDITIONAL REQUEST PURSUANT TO HAWAI'I UNIFORM INFORMATION PRACTICES ACT FOR INTER-OFFICE AND EXTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING THE COLB/BIRTH CERTIFICATE ISSUE
On Friday, when Dr. Fukino issued a statement, did she coordinate with the Attorney General before she made her claims?
I would like all correspondence or e-mails or other forms of communication between the Attorney General and the Governor's office, Dr. Fukino's office or any other Executive Department office.
I would also like copies of all records of contacts between your offices and persons or media organizations outside Hawai'i state government. For example, and not by way of limitation, Governor Lingle apparently received a request from Jerome Corsi and denied it; I would like all correspondence to or from Jerome Corsi and any other media or individuals and either the Governor, Health Department or any other Executive Department.
Janice Okubo has apparently disseminated great deal of information in her capacity as a media relations contact. All of these contacts must be produced under the UIPA.
Dr. Fukino communicated with the media, and possibly the Governor and Attorney general, about these issues. I am asking for the records of any and all such contacts. I am requesting all such correspondence in any form. This request should be deemed to be all-inclusive: as to contacts or communication between Corsi or any and all other persons or media, and the Executive Departments.
Dr. Fukino issued a statement on Friday. I would like a copy of her formal statement, as well as an indication to whom it was issued. I would like any correspondence between Dr. Fukino's office and the Governor's office or Attorney General's office concerning any aspect of the COLB or the pending birth certificate lawsuit.
There also appears to have been some media manipulation going on. Janice Okubo stated that "it looks exactly the same as my own birth certificate," Chicago Tribune, October 30, 2008 [attached]. That is a misleading statement. Does Obama's 1961 original look exactly like Okubo's? Or does her facsimile look like his?
I am just digging for the facts and the truth about Mr. Obama. I hope you will join me in this enterprise. Mr. Obama has a unique way of discrediting himself, and Dr. Fukino may have inadvertently helped Obama create new suspicious about his behavior involving the COLB. When I was in Honolulu last month with my investigative team, and Obama suddenly appeared, many people thought he was reacting to my investigation of his past and parentage. Others scoffed at that interpretation. Today, after the miraculous recovery of his grandmother, almost everyone believes Obama used his grandmother as a beard to engage in manipulation concerning his COLB and related issues involving potential embarrassment. Your own integrity and behavior has now been clouded by Obama's apparent manipulation and your subsequent conduct in seeking to assist him in orchestrating vital information about his birth.
Thus, I hope the forgoing are a comprehensive series of requests for everything that exists concerning Hawai'i state government and the Obama COLB. Let's stop manipulating the facts and truth, and put all of them in the public arena where they belong.
Because we are dealing with public offices, and public trusts, I do not believe any correspondence may be exempted on the grounds that it leads to an invasion of privacy or that any common law privilege applies to the requested communications. Mr. Obama has publicized a form of his COLB, so he himself has also waived any privacy concerns concerning comparisons with the original material. Obama can't manipulate the facts any more than Dr. Fukino can make partial, self-serving and incomplete statements concerning vital documents [see attached "Fox News"].
Dr. Fukino has openly discussed the document and invited widespread interest in the 1961 material. She solicited attention for Hawai'i government materials on the eve of the national election. A clearer case for waiver of privacy/secrecy would be hard to conceive.
In other words, in this letter, in addition to access to the original 1961 document itself (Part I) I am also seeking access to records of contacts which each of you has had with (i) the outside world (news media, citizens, etc.) and (ii) among yourselves concerning either my lawsuit or the issue of the Obama birth certificate itself (this Part III).
Respectfully submitted,
ANDY MARTIN
Attachments:
1. Chicago Tribune, October 30, 2008 (James Janega)
2. Fox News leads the disinformation parade (ContrarianCommentary.com)
Hon. Mark Bennett
Department of the
Attorney General
425 Queen Street
Honolulu, HI96813
via fax (808) 586-1239
Chiyome Fukino, M.D.
Director of Health
1250 Punchbowl St.
Honolulu, HI96813
via fax (808) 586-4444
Re: Barack Obama Certificate of Live Birth (birth certificate) Circuit Court litigation
and
Uniform Information Practices Act demand for inter-office correspondence by your offices with each other and contacts with persons/media outside state government
Dear Governor Lingle, General Bennett, and Dr. Fukino:
As you are no doubt aware, I have filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court for the First District in Honolulu seeking access to the original 1961 files concerning Barack Obama's Certificate of Live Birth ("COLB")(birth certificate).
This letter is meant to address three matters:
1. I am formally renewing my request for access to the original, typewritten 1961 COLB/birth certificate, so that there is no question that a formal request has been made and received by your offices. If that document as amended in any way, I demand access to the complete file. Michelle Obama has been quoted (I don't know how accurately) as saying her husband was "adopted" at some point.
2. This letter is meant to place you on notice that I believe Dr. Fukino's statements to the media on Friday, October 31st concerning the original, typewritten 1961 COLB waived any secrecy concerning the original COLB because she specifically invited or solicited news coverage and invited commentary and attention on the document.
3. I am also submitting a request pursuant to the Hawai'i Uniform Information Practices Act ("UIPA"), HRS § 92F-1 et seq. for communications to and from your offices concerning the COLB with persons outside your offices and media, as well as your inter-office communications concerning the matter of the COLB.
I.
FORMAL REQUEST FOR ACCESS TO THE FULL AND COMPLETE AND ORIGINAL 1961 OBAMA COLB AS WELL AS ANY AMENDMENTS
I sent a request for this file several months ago. My request and my check were returned with a form reply that I was not entitled to access. This letter formally and legally renews my request. (The $10 will be submitted by overnight mail as soon as you notify me the document(s) is available.)
I seek access for the reasons set forth in greater detail in my pending lawsuit: namely as an author, scholar and writer concerning Mr. Obama. I am writing a second book on him.
I believe that Hawai'i officials have misconstrued the terms of the relevant statute, asserting that some sort of blood relationship is required before disclosure is permitted, when the statutory language clearly does not pretermit that interpretation. In fairness, the Attorney General has not yet made public such an unfounded assertion. (The AG, however, appears to have issued "guidance" to the Department of Health, which would be discoverable under Part III, infra, see Chicago Tribune, October 30, 2008 [attached] that is palpably in conflict with the statutory language.)
II. DR. FUKINO'S STATEMENTS ON OCTOBER 31ST
October 31st Dr. Fukino made a number of public statements concerning the COLB documents I am seeking to access. I use the plural because the original COLB may have been amended; we don't know, which is why access is essential: to end the speculation and establish the facts.
In my opinion, Dr. Fukino's public statements about a secret document (the original 1961 COLB) may have waived the confidentiality provisions of the statute. I don't think a public official can play gotcha with secret information and make public references to a document while denying access to the same document so the public can make an independent determination and comparison, see e.g. "The scope of a statutory privilege, however, is tempered by the principle that " 'privileges preventing disclosure of relevant evidence are not favored and may often give way to a strong public interest.' " State v. L.J.P., 270 N.J.Super. 429, 637 A.2d 532, 537 (1994) State v. Peseti, 101 Hawai'i 172, 65 P.3rd 119, 127 (Hawai'i 2003).
Therefore, I would ask that you reconsider your original refusal to release my requested information in light of Dr. Fukino's public statements and de facto waiver on Friday.
III.
ADDITIONAL REQUEST PURSUANT TO HAWAI'I UNIFORM INFORMATION PRACTICES ACT FOR INTER-OFFICE AND EXTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING THE COLB/BIRTH CERTIFICATE ISSUE
On Friday, when Dr. Fukino issued a statement, did she coordinate with the Attorney General before she made her claims?
I would like all correspondence or e-mails or other forms of communication between the Attorney General and the Governor's office, Dr. Fukino's office or any other Executive Department office.
I would also like copies of all records of contacts between your offices and persons or media organizations outside Hawai'i state government. For example, and not by way of limitation, Governor Lingle apparently received a request from Jerome Corsi and denied it; I would like all correspondence to or from Jerome Corsi and any other media or individuals and either the Governor, Health Department or any other Executive Department.
Janice Okubo has apparently disseminated great deal of information in her capacity as a media relations contact. All of these contacts must be produced under the UIPA.
Dr. Fukino communicated with the media, and possibly the Governor and Attorney general, about these issues. I am asking for the records of any and all such contacts. I am requesting all such correspondence in any form. This request should be deemed to be all-inclusive: as to contacts or communication between Corsi or any and all other persons or media, and the Executive Departments.
Dr. Fukino issued a statement on Friday. I would like a copy of her formal statement, as well as an indication to whom it was issued. I would like any correspondence between Dr. Fukino's office and the Governor's office or Attorney General's office concerning any aspect of the COLB or the pending birth certificate lawsuit.
There also appears to have been some media manipulation going on. Janice Okubo stated that "it looks exactly the same as my own birth certificate," Chicago Tribune, October 30, 2008 [attached]. That is a misleading statement. Does Obama's 1961 original look exactly like Okubo's? Or does her facsimile look like his?
I am just digging for the facts and the truth about Mr. Obama. I hope you will join me in this enterprise. Mr. Obama has a unique way of discrediting himself, and Dr. Fukino may have inadvertently helped Obama create new suspicious about his behavior involving the COLB. When I was in Honolulu last month with my investigative team, and Obama suddenly appeared, many people thought he was reacting to my investigation of his past and parentage. Others scoffed at that interpretation. Today, after the miraculous recovery of his grandmother, almost everyone believes Obama used his grandmother as a beard to engage in manipulation concerning his COLB and related issues involving potential embarrassment. Your own integrity and behavior has now been clouded by Obama's apparent manipulation and your subsequent conduct in seeking to assist him in orchestrating vital information about his birth.
Thus, I hope the forgoing are a comprehensive series of requests for everything that exists concerning Hawai'i state government and the Obama COLB. Let's stop manipulating the facts and truth, and put all of them in the public arena where they belong.
Because we are dealing with public offices, and public trusts, I do not believe any correspondence may be exempted on the grounds that it leads to an invasion of privacy or that any common law privilege applies to the requested communications. Mr. Obama has publicized a form of his COLB, so he himself has also waived any privacy concerns concerning comparisons with the original material. Obama can't manipulate the facts any more than Dr. Fukino can make partial, self-serving and incomplete statements concerning vital documents [see attached "Fox News"].
Dr. Fukino has openly discussed the document and invited widespread interest in the 1961 material. She solicited attention for Hawai'i government materials on the eve of the national election. A clearer case for waiver of privacy/secrecy would be hard to conceive.
In other words, in this letter, in addition to access to the original 1961 document itself (Part I) I am also seeking access to records of contacts which each of you has had with (i) the outside world (news media, citizens, etc.) and (ii) among yourselves concerning either my lawsuit or the issue of the Obama birth certificate itself (this Part III).
Respectfully submitted,
ANDY MARTIN
Attachments:
1. Chicago Tribune, October 30, 2008 (James Janega)
2. Fox News leads the disinformation parade (ContrarianCommentary.com)
CNN Subjects Black Republicans to Racist Innuendo
What is amazing about this video is the CNN announcer's harping on race as what he seems to think ought to be the chief consideration. These guys disagree.
Bob Robbins Writes Letter to Congressman Roscoe Bartlett Re BOCOLB
FYI ..... Message sent today to Roscoe Bartlett, Congressman for my district in MD.
Congressman Bartlett -
Please do your part to ensure the electors in Maryland demand to, and verify the accuracy, adequacy, validity and completeness of the actual birth certificate( NOT just a digital image ) of Senator Barack Obama, so as to ensure that he is, indeed, a natural born citizen of The United States, and that he meets the Constitutional requirements.
If this is not possible for any reason, I request that you start taking actions to disqualify him from even possibly serving as President of The United States.
A written reply by E-Mail is requested.
Thank you in advance, ... Robert Robbins
Please see the following recent press release:
http://peoplespassions.org/Press_Release_08_10_31.htm
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Vice presidential Candidate filing lawsuit against Obama
Contact: Steve Marquis
Telephone Number: 425-698-7084
Email Address: peoplesvoice@peoplespassions.org
Web site address: http://peoplespassions.org
Wiley S. Drake, Sr. wileydrake@hotmail.com
Vice presidential Candidate Wiley S. Drake Sr. to file in court asking to de-certify Barack Obama because he has refused to release proof of being a Natural Born Citizen, thereby disqualifying Obama in his bid for the Office of President.
The recent Lawsuit in Washington State demanding their Secretary of State to vet the citizenship credentials of Barack Obama has spawned a slew of similar suits with new lawsuits filed and/or prepared in WA, FL, NC, CO, CA, OH, FL, CT, GA, TX, MI. Related lawsuits HI, US District.
As part of this effort, this group of citizens from states across the union made an outreach to the whole presidential slate asking each candidate for president and vice president to offer up a certified copy of their birth certificates and any related candidate declarations to be placed in a library made available to the public via a non-partisan web site.
At least one VP candidate Wiley S. Drake Sr. went the next step and agreed to file a lawsuit of his own to demand the disqualification of Barack Obama unless he can prove status as a ”Natural Born Citizen” as the constitution and federal statues demand and define.
In another unrelated action, though also aimed at forcing Obama to release proof or step down, 24 potential Electoral College electors are filing action Monday morning in court also demanding proof. A call is herein being issued to any elector in any state, especially democrat electors who would like to join that effort. Electors interested in adding their name to this lawsuit can contact Mr. Marquis who will put you in contact with the attorney handling that case.
Contact: Steve Marquis
Telephone Number: 425-698-7084
Email Address: peoplesvoice@peoplespassions.org
Wiley S. Drake, Sr. wileydrake@hotmail.com
Congressman Bartlett -
Please do your part to ensure the electors in Maryland demand to, and verify the accuracy, adequacy, validity and completeness of the actual birth certificate( NOT just a digital image ) of Senator Barack Obama, so as to ensure that he is, indeed, a natural born citizen of The United States, and that he meets the Constitutional requirements.
If this is not possible for any reason, I request that you start taking actions to disqualify him from even possibly serving as President of The United States.
A written reply by E-Mail is requested.
Thank you in advance, ... Robert Robbins
Please see the following recent press release:
http://peoplespassions.org/Press_Release_08_10_31.htm
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Vice presidential Candidate filing lawsuit against Obama
Contact: Steve Marquis
Telephone Number: 425-698-7084
Email Address: peoplesvoice@peoplespassions.org
Web site address: http://peoplespassions.org
Wiley S. Drake, Sr. wileydrake@hotmail.com
Vice presidential Candidate Wiley S. Drake Sr. to file in court asking to de-certify Barack Obama because he has refused to release proof of being a Natural Born Citizen, thereby disqualifying Obama in his bid for the Office of President.
The recent Lawsuit in Washington State demanding their Secretary of State to vet the citizenship credentials of Barack Obama has spawned a slew of similar suits with new lawsuits filed and/or prepared in WA, FL, NC, CO, CA, OH, FL, CT, GA, TX, MI. Related lawsuits HI, US District.
As part of this effort, this group of citizens from states across the union made an outreach to the whole presidential slate asking each candidate for president and vice president to offer up a certified copy of their birth certificates and any related candidate declarations to be placed in a library made available to the public via a non-partisan web site.
At least one VP candidate Wiley S. Drake Sr. went the next step and agreed to file a lawsuit of his own to demand the disqualification of Barack Obama unless he can prove status as a ”Natural Born Citizen” as the constitution and federal statues demand and define.
In another unrelated action, though also aimed at forcing Obama to release proof or step down, 24 potential Electoral College electors are filing action Monday morning in court also demanding proof. A call is herein being issued to any elector in any state, especially democrat electors who would like to join that effort. Electors interested in adding their name to this lawsuit can contact Mr. Marquis who will put you in contact with the attorney handling that case.
Contact: Steve Marquis
Telephone Number: 425-698-7084
Email Address: peoplesvoice@peoplespassions.org
Wiley S. Drake, Sr. wileydrake@hotmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
