Dave Archbold has sent me a copy of an article by Sarah P. Herlihy that appeared in the Kent Law Review in which Ms. Herlihy argues that the natural born citizenship clause should be repealed.
I disagree for three reasons. First, the Founding Fathers correctly perceived that divided loyalties would threaten the impartiality of the chief executive. Second, although many debate the notion of American exceptionalism that goes back to John Winthrop's "City on a Hill" speech and Michel Guillaume Jean de Crèvecœur's (John Hector St. John's) Letters from an American Farmer, the framers were well aware that few in the world shared their liberal values. That continues to be the case. I do not think many born in Europe, Africa, South America or Asia understand liberalism, and consequently it would be an error to permit them to assume the role of chief executive.
Third, I would go further than Article II does. I think the Constitution needs to be revised, not to globalize America, but to separate the deviant, anti-American viewpoint in which many Americans have been inculcated. In other words, there needs to be a second liberal revolution that would involve either federalizing or completely separating the United States to free the liberal, American portion of the nation from the Progressive and anti-liberal. America is not one nation any more, and Herlihy's article illustrates why.
The American identity is unique because of ideology, not place of birth. Crèvecœur and Winthrop were both born overseas, yet they realized that the Colonies had a unique identity. This identity was in part related to the frontier and in part to the Lockean laisser faire philosophy of the Founders, which cannot be extricated from the Constitution or from the definition of the United States.
No one can be called an American who does not subscribe to the individualism of John Locke. Hence, I do not consider most academics, Progressives, nor most people born abroad to be legitimate Americans. They are to America as I would be to communist Cuba were I to be living there. Because of the sharp separation of ideological identity, America, which is an ideologically rooted nation, cannot continue to survive as a single entity.
I do not believe that Lockean liberalism is imparted to the majority of people in the world, and I do not believe that most Europeans, Asians or South Americans intuitively grasp those principles. Hence, they are not Americans. Nor do I believe that most members of the American "elite", educated in northeastern universities, are Americans. They are Progressive internationalists who do not share in the American vision and are ignorant of liberalism and the Founders' philosophy of freedom. Brainwashed in American progressive education-based schools, they have more likely read Communist Manifesto than Second Treatise on Government.
There needs to be a new federalism that wrenches power from the European-inspired Progressives and separates Americans from Progressives, permitting states to opt out of the declining Progressive anti-America.
In other words, I would prefer to separate this country into two or more confederations, leaving the Progressives to their own declining world and enabling Americans, those who believe in Lockean individualism, to establish a new Lockean society that will be dynamic, free and will dispense with the idiocies of northeastern universities.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
We The People Publishes Full Page Chicago Tribune Ad Re BOCOLB
Bob Robbins has forwarded the following link to Count Us Out:
>Our full-page Open Letter to Mr. Obama will be published in the Chicago Tribune on both Monday, December 1, 2008 and Wednesday, December 3, 2008. It will appear in the main news section. Click here to view a copy of the final ad.
>...The Open Letter to Mr. Obama is a formal Petition for a Redress (Remedy) for the alleged violation of the “natural born citizen” clause of the Constitution of the United States of America.
>Mr. Obama is respectfully requested to direct the Hawaiian officials to provide access to his original birth certificate on December 5-7 by our team of forensic scientists
>...We are now in the process of selecting the forensic scientists who would travel to Hawaii to examine Mr. Obama’s original birth certificate...
In addition, Bob also forwarded Steady John's post on SteadyHabits.com
Steady John writes about the Obama dual citizenship issue. He writes:
"I will be writing here only about the issue of Barack Obama’s dual citizenship, acknowledged as fact on his website, because of his Kenyan Father’s status as a British subject."
Read the whole thing here.
>Our full-page Open Letter to Mr. Obama will be published in the Chicago Tribune on both Monday, December 1, 2008 and Wednesday, December 3, 2008. It will appear in the main news section. Click here to view a copy of the final ad.
>...The Open Letter to Mr. Obama is a formal Petition for a Redress (Remedy) for the alleged violation of the “natural born citizen” clause of the Constitution of the United States of America.
>Mr. Obama is respectfully requested to direct the Hawaiian officials to provide access to his original birth certificate on December 5-7 by our team of forensic scientists
>...We are now in the process of selecting the forensic scientists who would travel to Hawaii to examine Mr. Obama’s original birth certificate...
In addition, Bob also forwarded Steady John's post on SteadyHabits.com
Steady John writes about the Obama dual citizenship issue. He writes:
"I will be writing here only about the issue of Barack Obama’s dual citizenship, acknowledged as fact on his website, because of his Kenyan Father’s status as a British subject."
Read the whole thing here.
Sharad Karkhanis Liberates Gramscian Union
The leadership of the Professional Staff Congress (PSC) has been preoccupied with a Gramscian strategy of occupation of American cultural institutions, specifically the City University of New York, in order to further its progressive end of culturally dominating New York City's college students. Initially funded by international banking interests, namely one of George Soros's foundations, the PSC leadership believes and claims that it is pursuing a radical "New Left" agenda ("new" is hardly the word, being 40 or 50 years old by now). But just as Morgan banker (and executive of International Harvester) George W. Perkins was Theodore Roosevelt's economic adviser and chief backer when TR ran as a socialistic, "Progressive" candidate in 1912, George Soros finances various left wing advocacy groups who are his dupes and marionettes and that serve the reactionary interests of international finance. The leadership of the Professional Staff Congress, the faculty union of the City University of New York, falls into this category.
The courageous Sharad Karkhanis has stood alone against the Professional Staff Congress's aim of cultural hegemony.
In a recent e-mail Karkhanis notes that although New York and the City University face significant budget cuts because of Wall Street's malaise, the leadership of the PSC has done nothing to attempt to manage the coming budget crisis. Might the problem be that, according to Karkhanis, the PSC is raising dues even as it obtained the worst union contract in New York compared to any other public sector union for the past 50 years? If we get 40% of the raise that the New York City teachers get, shouldn't our dues be 40% of what the teachers pay?
Karkhanis notes that, just as George Soros advocates a "closed society", claiming that he is for an "open society", his lackeys at the PSC refuse to make information about union operations public even as they criticize the CUNY administration for lack of disclosure:
"The Chancellor's Report has complete listings of appointments, promotions and other information about you and me. But we never know who makes what at the union office. Neither do we know the exact amount of released time given to their people, including PSC officers. What are Barbara and Steve paying themselves in summer salary, stipends and travel? Do we know their travel budget? Have they reduced expenses on food orders for breakfasts, lunches, dinners, hats, t-shirts, travel for demonstrators, marchers and hangers-on? Does every meeting and gathering have to include elaborate food? Is it not time for them to place this information on the PSC website?"
This skirting of law in the name of the union's being a private institution flies in the face of the union's claim of an exemption from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which they base on their claim that they are a public institution. It seems that the PSC leadership has managed to find a way to be both a public agency to avoid regulation and a private organization, also to avoid regulation, at the same time.
Kharkhanis states that despite the coming budget cuts, the only resolution that the union leadership has published in the past year has concerned striking workers at a Stella D'Oro bakery in the Bronx:
"PSC Executive Council Resolutions are not posted after 2003. Are we to understand that the Executive Council conducted all its business for the past five years without ever passing any resolution? Perhaps, we may as well abolish the Executive Council."
Moreover, like their master, George Soros, the PSC leadership looks out for itself first. According to Karkhanis:
"(President) Bowen screams in the Clarion (the union newsletter) about the fat salaries of the Chancellor and of College Presidents. But have we ever been told how much money Bowen, London, Fabricant and DeSola make? They get CUNY salaries, PSC stipends, summer pay, travel and food money, and have PSC credit cards. What are they paid for sitting on the NYSUT board? What is Barbara's additional salary from AFT? Does she tell you how much (sic) time she spends on PSC related business and how much time she and sidekick London spend on scheming, planning, organizing and demonstrating?"
It seems to me that unfair labor exploitation of CUNY faculty has raised its ugly head.
The courageous Sharad Karkhanis has stood alone against the Professional Staff Congress's aim of cultural hegemony.
In a recent e-mail Karkhanis notes that although New York and the City University face significant budget cuts because of Wall Street's malaise, the leadership of the PSC has done nothing to attempt to manage the coming budget crisis. Might the problem be that, according to Karkhanis, the PSC is raising dues even as it obtained the worst union contract in New York compared to any other public sector union for the past 50 years? If we get 40% of the raise that the New York City teachers get, shouldn't our dues be 40% of what the teachers pay?
Karkhanis notes that, just as George Soros advocates a "closed society", claiming that he is for an "open society", his lackeys at the PSC refuse to make information about union operations public even as they criticize the CUNY administration for lack of disclosure:
"The Chancellor's Report has complete listings of appointments, promotions and other information about you and me. But we never know who makes what at the union office. Neither do we know the exact amount of released time given to their people, including PSC officers. What are Barbara and Steve paying themselves in summer salary, stipends and travel? Do we know their travel budget? Have they reduced expenses on food orders for breakfasts, lunches, dinners, hats, t-shirts, travel for demonstrators, marchers and hangers-on? Does every meeting and gathering have to include elaborate food? Is it not time for them to place this information on the PSC website?"
This skirting of law in the name of the union's being a private institution flies in the face of the union's claim of an exemption from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which they base on their claim that they are a public institution. It seems that the PSC leadership has managed to find a way to be both a public agency to avoid regulation and a private organization, also to avoid regulation, at the same time.
Kharkhanis states that despite the coming budget cuts, the only resolution that the union leadership has published in the past year has concerned striking workers at a Stella D'Oro bakery in the Bronx:
"PSC Executive Council Resolutions are not posted after 2003. Are we to understand that the Executive Council conducted all its business for the past five years without ever passing any resolution? Perhaps, we may as well abolish the Executive Council."
Moreover, like their master, George Soros, the PSC leadership looks out for itself first. According to Karkhanis:
"(President) Bowen screams in the Clarion (the union newsletter) about the fat salaries of the Chancellor and of College Presidents. But have we ever been told how much money Bowen, London, Fabricant and DeSola make? They get CUNY salaries, PSC stipends, summer pay, travel and food money, and have PSC credit cards. What are they paid for sitting on the NYSUT board? What is Barbara's additional salary from AFT? Does she tell you how much (sic) time she spends on PSC related business and how much time she and sidekick London spend on scheming, planning, organizing and demonstrating?"
It seems to me that unfair labor exploitation of CUNY faculty has raised its ugly head.
Ex Post Birth Certificates Available in Hawaii in 1961
An Anonymous Poster to my blog just left the following message:
>People interested in this issue might want to look at this page from the Hawaii Department of Health.
>http://web.archive.org/web/20070924135018/http://www.hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/hawnbirth.html
>It shows that before 1972 when Hawaii was a territory that you could apply for a birth certificate for any child under 1 year of age.*
When I go to the link on the Hawaii website, it says the following:
>Who is Eligible to Apply for the Issuance of a Late Birth Certificate in Lieu of a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth?
>The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program was established in 1911, during the territorial era, to register a person born in Hawaii who was one year old or older and whose birth had not been previously registered in Hawaii. The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth Program was terminated in 1972, during the statehood era.
>Certified copies of a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth may be requested following the procedures for certified copies of standard birth certificates (see Certified Copies). The eligibility requirements for issuance of a certified copy of a standard birth certificate apply to Certificates of Hawaiian Birth. And the same fees charged for standard birth certificates are charged for Certificates of Hawaiian Birth. Copies of the set of testimony used to establish a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth may also be requested, and an additional fee is charged for each copy of the set of testimony.
How does this impact the claims of the Hawaii Health Department, Governor Lingle and the Obama campaign?
*Of course, Hawaii attained statehood in 1957, however, the law was not changed until 1972.
>People interested in this issue might want to look at this page from the Hawaii Department of Health.
>http://web.archive.org/web/20070924135018/http://www.hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/hawnbirth.html
>It shows that before 1972 when Hawaii was a territory that you could apply for a birth certificate for any child under 1 year of age.*
When I go to the link on the Hawaii website, it says the following:
>Who is Eligible to Apply for the Issuance of a Late Birth Certificate in Lieu of a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth?
>The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program was established in 1911, during the territorial era, to register a person born in Hawaii who was one year old or older and whose birth had not been previously registered in Hawaii. The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth Program was terminated in 1972, during the statehood era.
>Certified copies of a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth may be requested following the procedures for certified copies of standard birth certificates (see Certified Copies). The eligibility requirements for issuance of a certified copy of a standard birth certificate apply to Certificates of Hawaiian Birth. And the same fees charged for standard birth certificates are charged for Certificates of Hawaiian Birth. Copies of the set of testimony used to establish a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth may also be requested, and an additional fee is charged for each copy of the set of testimony.
How does this impact the claims of the Hawaii Health Department, Governor Lingle and the Obama campaign?
*Of course, Hawaii attained statehood in 1957, however, the law was not changed until 1972.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Is President-elect Obama Capable of Handling Violence in India?
The Wall Street Journal Online has a useful map of where the violence in Mumbai has occurred. The terrorists' orchestrated attacks involve the killing of more than 100 people and the taking of five Jewish families as hostages, including Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg, at a community center. The Wall Street Journal notes that "it remains unclear who was responsible for Wednesday's terrorist attacks in Mumbai. But by Thursday, Indian officials had voiced suspicions that some of the terrorists were from Pakistan." Pakistani officials condemned the attacks, yet the training involved in an orchestrated assault could not have taken place in India. Also, "one of the attackers reportedly spoke with a Pakistani accent in a phone call to India TV."
It seems more than coincidental that the attack comes weeks after the election of Senator Barack Obama to the presidency. Even during the election, Joe Biden stated that an Obama victory would stimulate terrorist assaults. The question that comes to my mind is whether President-elect Obama will be capable of handling violence in Pakistan and India. Incompetence would not be a first for American presidents--Presidents Carter and Clinton were both inept at handling terrorists. However, there is an additional issue with respect to President-elect Obama.
In 2007 then-Senator Obama claimed that he would take a hard line on Pakistan. This position had the flavor of psychological compensation. Mr. Obama has long had close ties to Pakistan, and there are serious reasons to consider whether he will be morally capable of impartially responding to Islamic terrorism in ways that reflect American interests. Some might argue that the psychological force of cognitive dissonance, the need to resolve conflicting psychological forces, might impel President-elect Obama to be more aggressive than necessary with respect to Pakistan. However, cognitive dissonance is notoriously difficult to predict, and the response could go in the opposite direction as well--or none at all.
According to Amir Mir, of the Pakistani Rupee News, who quotes an article by Umar Chema:
"Chairman (of the Pakistani) Senate Muhammadmian Soomro may be having a friend in White House if Barak Hussain Obama finally succeeds in his presidential bid. Hardly a few people know about Soomro’s link with Obama, which he never discussed it in public. But in private interactions with influential Pakistanis here in the US, Obama disclosed that Soomro’s father was his host when he went on a hunting expedition in Jacobabad during his visit to Pakistan in 1981."
"Many say that Obama visited Pakistan: Didn’t learn anything!
"While in Karachi, Obama had stayed at the residence of his college friend, Hassan Chandio. In Jacobabad, he was the guest of Soomro family. Muhammadmian Soomro confirmed this information and said it was his first meeting with Obama.
“Yes, he had been our guest and spent three days in Jacobabad,” he told The News. Soomro, presently in the US, his second home, said an American friend had told his father, Ahmadmian Soomro, about Obama’s arrival in Pakistan and asked him to look after the American. Soomro’s father was the deputy speaker of West Pakistan Assembly and had also later served in the Senate.
"By the time Soomro’s father had hosted Obama, he was only a college student who went to Pakistan on his way from Indonesia where his mother was working with the Ford Foundation’s micro credit finance project. Also Obama’s mother was a frequent traveller to Pakistan and according to Time Magazine, she had a little bit proficiency in speaking Urdu.
"Although, Obama has not disclosed his link with Soomro, he mentioned it during his canvassing campaign while talking to a Pakistani American, Shahid Ahmad Khan, member of Board of Trustees Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
"Obama’s war mongering should be repudiated not encouraged. During the 2008 elections Senator Barack Obama listened to the hawkish members of the Bush Administration and threatened Pakistan...Pakistani Americans are a powerful lobby in the US. Pakistani-Americans ask Obama to ease rhetoric about bombing targets in Pakistan.
"...According to news reports Mr. Obama visited Pakistan. His mother had visited the country so many times that she had a working knowledge of Urdu-the national language of Pakistan as well as many Muslims in the Subcontinent.
"He had travelled with a college friend whose family used to live in Karachi.” As a matter of fact, Obama had travelled to Pakistan after leaving Occidental College in Los Angeles in 1981 to transfer to the Columbia University in New York.
"The Afghan war was at its peak at that time and the US State Department had already issued a warning for Americans travelling to Pakistan.An August 14, 2008 report by the Associated Press even alleged that Obama had actually travelled to Pakistan under his Muslim name-Barry Soetero-while using an Indonesian passport.
"As a matter of fact, Barack Obama Junior was born to Barack Obama Senior, a black Kenyan, and Ann Dunham, a white American. Barack Obama Senior and Mrs Ann Dunham were divorced when their son Obama was two.
"Obama Senior, who had died in a car accident in 1982, met his son only once after the divorce. Ann Dunham later married Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian Muslim.
"A news report carried by a US-based website www.pakistaniat.com http://www.pakistaniat.com/ in Sept 2008 stated while quoting the US media that Barack Obama had many Pakistani friends during his college days, and it was friendship that brought him to Pakistan. In his memoir, Dreams from My Father, Obama talks of having a Pakistani roommate when he moved to New York, a man he calls Sadik (his 1982 roommate at an apartment at a sixth-floor walkup on East 94th Street). Obama describes Sadik as a short, well-built Pakistani who smoked marijuana, snorted cocaine and liked to party. During his years at the Occidental College, Barack befriended Wahid Hamid, a fellow student and an immigrant from Pakistan. Wahid Hamid is now a vice president at Pepsico in New York. His third Pakistani friend was Imad Husain, a Pakistani, who is now a Boston-based banker.
"According to www.pakistaniat.com , during his Pakistan visit, Obama stayed in Karachi with the family of his college friend Hassan Chandeo. Now a self employed financial consultant living in Armonk in Westchester County of New York, Hassan Chandeo took his African-American college friend on traditional partridge hunting trips to Hyderabad, Larkana, Shikarpur and Jacobabad districts. Partridge hunting is considered a symbol of good hospitality in Sindh. Barack Obama made friends with a Sindhi politician Muhammadmian Soomro as well, who hails from the Shikarpur district of Sindh and is Senate Chairman. The newly elected American president reportedly lived at Muhammad Ali Society residence of Ahmad Mian Soomro, the father of Muhammadmian Soomro.
"Another US-based website www.freerepublic.com quoted Time Magazine on September 1, 2008, stating that Obama may have visited Pakistan again in the second half of 1980 and stayed there for a month with his mother who was an employee of the Ford Foundation and posted in Gujranwala as a microfinance consultant for an Asian Development Bank micro-credit finance project that ran from 1987 to 1992.
"The report said Mrs Dunham, who died in Hawaii-Obama’s birth place-in 1995 from ovarian cancer, used to stay at Hilton International Hotel in Lahore. She travelled daily from Lahore to Gujranwala and Obama stayed with her in the same hotel which has been already renamed as Avari Hotel, the report added."
To what degree does Obama's background color his attitudes about Pakistan? Amir Mir is uncertain. So am I.
It seems more than coincidental that the attack comes weeks after the election of Senator Barack Obama to the presidency. Even during the election, Joe Biden stated that an Obama victory would stimulate terrorist assaults. The question that comes to my mind is whether President-elect Obama will be capable of handling violence in Pakistan and India. Incompetence would not be a first for American presidents--Presidents Carter and Clinton were both inept at handling terrorists. However, there is an additional issue with respect to President-elect Obama.
In 2007 then-Senator Obama claimed that he would take a hard line on Pakistan. This position had the flavor of psychological compensation. Mr. Obama has long had close ties to Pakistan, and there are serious reasons to consider whether he will be morally capable of impartially responding to Islamic terrorism in ways that reflect American interests. Some might argue that the psychological force of cognitive dissonance, the need to resolve conflicting psychological forces, might impel President-elect Obama to be more aggressive than necessary with respect to Pakistan. However, cognitive dissonance is notoriously difficult to predict, and the response could go in the opposite direction as well--or none at all.
According to Amir Mir, of the Pakistani Rupee News, who quotes an article by Umar Chema:
"Chairman (of the Pakistani) Senate Muhammadmian Soomro may be having a friend in White House if Barak Hussain Obama finally succeeds in his presidential bid. Hardly a few people know about Soomro’s link with Obama, which he never discussed it in public. But in private interactions with influential Pakistanis here in the US, Obama disclosed that Soomro’s father was his host when he went on a hunting expedition in Jacobabad during his visit to Pakistan in 1981."
"Many say that Obama visited Pakistan: Didn’t learn anything!
"While in Karachi, Obama had stayed at the residence of his college friend, Hassan Chandio. In Jacobabad, he was the guest of Soomro family. Muhammadmian Soomro confirmed this information and said it was his first meeting with Obama.
“Yes, he had been our guest and spent three days in Jacobabad,” he told The News. Soomro, presently in the US, his second home, said an American friend had told his father, Ahmadmian Soomro, about Obama’s arrival in Pakistan and asked him to look after the American. Soomro’s father was the deputy speaker of West Pakistan Assembly and had also later served in the Senate.
"By the time Soomro’s father had hosted Obama, he was only a college student who went to Pakistan on his way from Indonesia where his mother was working with the Ford Foundation’s micro credit finance project. Also Obama’s mother was a frequent traveller to Pakistan and according to Time Magazine, she had a little bit proficiency in speaking Urdu.
"Although, Obama has not disclosed his link with Soomro, he mentioned it during his canvassing campaign while talking to a Pakistani American, Shahid Ahmad Khan, member of Board of Trustees Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
"Obama’s war mongering should be repudiated not encouraged. During the 2008 elections Senator Barack Obama listened to the hawkish members of the Bush Administration and threatened Pakistan...Pakistani Americans are a powerful lobby in the US. Pakistani-Americans ask Obama to ease rhetoric about bombing targets in Pakistan.
"...According to news reports Mr. Obama visited Pakistan. His mother had visited the country so many times that she had a working knowledge of Urdu-the national language of Pakistan as well as many Muslims in the Subcontinent.
"He had travelled with a college friend whose family used to live in Karachi.” As a matter of fact, Obama had travelled to Pakistan after leaving Occidental College in Los Angeles in 1981 to transfer to the Columbia University in New York.
"The Afghan war was at its peak at that time and the US State Department had already issued a warning for Americans travelling to Pakistan.An August 14, 2008 report by the Associated Press even alleged that Obama had actually travelled to Pakistan under his Muslim name-Barry Soetero-while using an Indonesian passport.
"As a matter of fact, Barack Obama Junior was born to Barack Obama Senior, a black Kenyan, and Ann Dunham, a white American. Barack Obama Senior and Mrs Ann Dunham were divorced when their son Obama was two.
"Obama Senior, who had died in a car accident in 1982, met his son only once after the divorce. Ann Dunham later married Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian Muslim.
"A news report carried by a US-based website www.pakistaniat.com http://www.pakistaniat.com/ in Sept 2008 stated while quoting the US media that Barack Obama had many Pakistani friends during his college days, and it was friendship that brought him to Pakistan. In his memoir, Dreams from My Father, Obama talks of having a Pakistani roommate when he moved to New York, a man he calls Sadik (his 1982 roommate at an apartment at a sixth-floor walkup on East 94th Street). Obama describes Sadik as a short, well-built Pakistani who smoked marijuana, snorted cocaine and liked to party. During his years at the Occidental College, Barack befriended Wahid Hamid, a fellow student and an immigrant from Pakistan. Wahid Hamid is now a vice president at Pepsico in New York. His third Pakistani friend was Imad Husain, a Pakistani, who is now a Boston-based banker.
"According to www.pakistaniat.com , during his Pakistan visit, Obama stayed in Karachi with the family of his college friend Hassan Chandeo. Now a self employed financial consultant living in Armonk in Westchester County of New York, Hassan Chandeo took his African-American college friend on traditional partridge hunting trips to Hyderabad, Larkana, Shikarpur and Jacobabad districts. Partridge hunting is considered a symbol of good hospitality in Sindh. Barack Obama made friends with a Sindhi politician Muhammadmian Soomro as well, who hails from the Shikarpur district of Sindh and is Senate Chairman. The newly elected American president reportedly lived at Muhammad Ali Society residence of Ahmad Mian Soomro, the father of Muhammadmian Soomro.
"Another US-based website www.freerepublic.com quoted Time Magazine on September 1, 2008, stating that Obama may have visited Pakistan again in the second half of 1980 and stayed there for a month with his mother who was an employee of the Ford Foundation and posted in Gujranwala as a microfinance consultant for an Asian Development Bank micro-credit finance project that ran from 1987 to 1992.
"The report said Mrs Dunham, who died in Hawaii-Obama’s birth place-in 1995 from ovarian cancer, used to stay at Hilton International Hotel in Lahore. She travelled daily from Lahore to Gujranwala and Obama stayed with her in the same hotel which has been already renamed as Avari Hotel, the report added."
To what degree does Obama's background color his attitudes about Pakistan? Amir Mir is uncertain. So am I.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Federal Reserve Bank and Wages: Professor Fox Responds
Professor Langbert makes some very good points. Nevertheless, in my view the rigidity in the long run real wages received by workers of moderate skill stems primarily from other factors.
The real wages of workers without high school degrees have stagnated for several decades. During that period real interest rates have fluctuated considerably. This evidence suggests that other forces are at work.
It appears that a few coincidental factors have contributed to this trend. There is some evidence that technological change has shifted labor demand to those with higher skills – which in turn has reduced the demand for relatively uneducated workers. The expansion of free trade (e.g. NAFTA) may have caused U.S. production to shift towards those industries where the American economy is more competitive, i.e. high technology goods and services which employ more educated workers. Moreover, the increase in the pool of unskilled immigrants (legal and illegal) has probably depressed the wages of unskilled native-born workers who are their chief competitors in the labor market.
Marc Fox
Brooklyn College
Professor Fox is associate professor of economics at Brooklyn College and an expert in the subjects of labor, health and education economics.
The real wages of workers without high school degrees have stagnated for several decades. During that period real interest rates have fluctuated considerably. This evidence suggests that other forces are at work.
It appears that a few coincidental factors have contributed to this trend. There is some evidence that technological change has shifted labor demand to those with higher skills – which in turn has reduced the demand for relatively uneducated workers. The expansion of free trade (e.g. NAFTA) may have caused U.S. production to shift towards those industries where the American economy is more competitive, i.e. high technology goods and services which employ more educated workers. Moreover, the increase in the pool of unskilled immigrants (legal and illegal) has probably depressed the wages of unskilled native-born workers who are their chief competitors in the labor market.
Marc Fox
Brooklyn College
Professor Fox is associate professor of economics at Brooklyn College and an expert in the subjects of labor, health and education economics.
Andy Martin asks Hawai'i court to reconsider flawed Obama ruling
I just received this legal paper from philo-Semite Andy Martin.
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT STATE OF HAWAII
CIVIL NUMBER:
08-1-2147-10-BIA
(Declaratory Judgment)
ANDY MARTIN, Plaintiff,
vs.
LINDA LINGLE, in her
Official capacity as Governor
Of the State of Hawai'i,
DR. CHIYOME FUKINO, in her
official capacity as Director
of the Department of Health,
Defendants.
_________________________________
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF COURT'S ORDER OF NOVEMBER 19, 2008
Preliminary Statement
The Court managed to take what is at its core a simple and straightforward case seeking review of denial of access to a Hawai'i record, and to add layers of confusion and complexity that were totally unwarranted by the record made in open court on November 18th. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff moves the Court to reconsider, vacate and rehear the matters decided on November 19th using the correct procedures and standards of law.
Plaintiff initially thought that he would appeal the order to the Intermediate Court of Appeals, but it would be a disservice to that Court to appeal such a mangled and needlessly confused record from the trial forum. Thus, the Rule 59 motion (see below) stays any appeal until a decision on this motion.
1. Procedural basis for reconsideration
Plaintiff is not aware if a judgment has been entered since he has not been served with any such document. Prior to entry of a judgment a Court has plenary power to review and reconsider an order. This motion is also filed under H.R.Civ.P. 59.
2. The Court applied an imaginary standard
to plaintiff's motion
Plaintiff's motion is attached as exhibit A. Plaintiff sought access to a birth certificate after denial by the defendants. In no place did the Plaintiff ever mention the word "injunction" and nothing in Plaintiff's motion constituted a request for a temporary injunction. A temporary injunction is a remedy usually entered to preserve the status quo. Plaintiff was not seeking the preservation of any status quo. He was seeking review of denial of access to a historic public record, and asked the Court to expedite the matter based on both a lack of a factual dispute and intense national interest in the document. Neither of these issues converted a review proceeding into an injunction matter.
Despite the lack of any pleading seeking injunctive relief, the Court mischaracterized plaintiff's motion for review of denial of access as an "injunction" and then applied the heightened standard applicable to injunctive proceedings as a pretext to dismiss the action. This was clear error and a serious abuse of discretion.
For the court to create an imaginary request for an injunction and then deny that imaginary request deprived Plaintiff of due process of law.
Thus, the entirety of the Court's order is void for want of due process and must be reheard under a correct standard of review. The Court's behavior clearly "exceeded the bounds of reason [and] disregard rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party litigant." Amfac v. Waikiki Beachcomber, 74 Haw. 85, 839 P.2d. 10, 26 (Haw. 1992).
3. The Court decided a nonexistent standing issue
Plaintiff sought access to a historic document on two grounds: (i) a Health statute vesting as court with authority to direct release, and (ii) the Hawai'i UIPA. Both the statute, which vests the court with discretion to hear requests for access, and the UIPA, provide for review by this Court. There is thus a statutory grant of standing to seek review of a denial of access.
There is no "standing" issue in this lawsuit. Plaintiff does not need to show "injury" to seek access to a historic Hawai'i record. The AG's claim was complete nonsense. Why the Attorney General sought to garbage-up the record with bogus standing claims is a question that should concern the court. Why the Court threw in standing as an afterthought as a basis for dismissal, when there is no such issue, is bizarre.
4. Service of process was timely made
This lawsuit was filed in mid-October. Plaintiff sought to expedite the proceedings because of the intense national interest. He lives in Chicago. He is based in New York, some 8,000 miles from the forum. The Court entered an order to show cause why the relief sought should not be granted. Defendants claimed they had not been served (which has no bearing on an order to show cause, which they admitted had been served; at hearing they admitted they had also been served with the original pleadings on October 17th). After defendants objected and demanded service a second time, Plaintiff served the defendants and filed his proof of service on November 19th. Thus, there was not the remotest basis for dismissal on the basis of failure to serve the defendants.
The Court's apparent attempt to impose thirty days as a basis for dismissal is an unreasonable period to impose on Plaintiff to serve defendants a second time when he is an out of state litigant. Plaintiff was well within the applicable time limits when he served the defendants and no reasonable person could argue to the contrary.
5. The court ignored the state of the record
Plaintiff was seeking review of a denial of access to a historic public record. As Plaintiff set forth, there was a serious waiver issue, since the parties themselves had discussed the document openly, and the "document" has falsely been portrayed as already being disclosed. The Court ignored the waiver issue. Based on the lack of any response by the defendants, waiver mandated release of the document.
Conclusion
At a certain point, the comulatative errors in this proceeding raise an inference of harassment of an out-of-state litigant. Under the Privileges and Immunities Clause, a non-Hawai'i resident should obtain the same due process that a native or resident receives. Hawai'i is not a private club that is maintained for the benefit of insiders.
Plaintiff came before the Court in good faith seeking access to a historic document. There is not a shred of evidence in the record to defeat his claim. The court's constant mischaracterization of his claims and misapplication of the rules constitute a breach of judicial decorum.
The dismissal should be vacated and the matter should be heard before a judge who will faithfully and fairly apply the law. If this Court honestly disagrees with Plaintiff's arguments, it should simply say so and send a clean record to the ICA, and not try to create cobwebs to conceal legerdemain and prevarication based on an attempt to evade the obviously applicable facts and principles of law.
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT STATE OF HAWAII
CIVIL NUMBER:
08-1-2147-10-BIA
(Declaratory Judgment)
ANDY MARTIN, Plaintiff,
vs.
LINDA LINGLE, in her
Official capacity as Governor
Of the State of Hawai'i,
DR. CHIYOME FUKINO, in her
official capacity as Director
of the Department of Health,
Defendants.
_________________________________
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF COURT'S ORDER OF NOVEMBER 19, 2008
Preliminary Statement
The Court managed to take what is at its core a simple and straightforward case seeking review of denial of access to a Hawai'i record, and to add layers of confusion and complexity that were totally unwarranted by the record made in open court on November 18th. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff moves the Court to reconsider, vacate and rehear the matters decided on November 19th using the correct procedures and standards of law.
Plaintiff initially thought that he would appeal the order to the Intermediate Court of Appeals, but it would be a disservice to that Court to appeal such a mangled and needlessly confused record from the trial forum. Thus, the Rule 59 motion (see below) stays any appeal until a decision on this motion.
1. Procedural basis for reconsideration
Plaintiff is not aware if a judgment has been entered since he has not been served with any such document. Prior to entry of a judgment a Court has plenary power to review and reconsider an order. This motion is also filed under H.R.Civ.P. 59.
2. The Court applied an imaginary standard
to plaintiff's motion
Plaintiff's motion is attached as exhibit A. Plaintiff sought access to a birth certificate after denial by the defendants. In no place did the Plaintiff ever mention the word "injunction" and nothing in Plaintiff's motion constituted a request for a temporary injunction. A temporary injunction is a remedy usually entered to preserve the status quo. Plaintiff was not seeking the preservation of any status quo. He was seeking review of denial of access to a historic public record, and asked the Court to expedite the matter based on both a lack of a factual dispute and intense national interest in the document. Neither of these issues converted a review proceeding into an injunction matter.
Despite the lack of any pleading seeking injunctive relief, the Court mischaracterized plaintiff's motion for review of denial of access as an "injunction" and then applied the heightened standard applicable to injunctive proceedings as a pretext to dismiss the action. This was clear error and a serious abuse of discretion.
For the court to create an imaginary request for an injunction and then deny that imaginary request deprived Plaintiff of due process of law.
Thus, the entirety of the Court's order is void for want of due process and must be reheard under a correct standard of review. The Court's behavior clearly "exceeded the bounds of reason [and] disregard rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party litigant." Amfac v. Waikiki Beachcomber, 74 Haw. 85, 839 P.2d. 10, 26 (Haw. 1992).
3. The Court decided a nonexistent standing issue
Plaintiff sought access to a historic document on two grounds: (i) a Health statute vesting as court with authority to direct release, and (ii) the Hawai'i UIPA. Both the statute, which vests the court with discretion to hear requests for access, and the UIPA, provide for review by this Court. There is thus a statutory grant of standing to seek review of a denial of access.
There is no "standing" issue in this lawsuit. Plaintiff does not need to show "injury" to seek access to a historic Hawai'i record. The AG's claim was complete nonsense. Why the Attorney General sought to garbage-up the record with bogus standing claims is a question that should concern the court. Why the Court threw in standing as an afterthought as a basis for dismissal, when there is no such issue, is bizarre.
4. Service of process was timely made
This lawsuit was filed in mid-October. Plaintiff sought to expedite the proceedings because of the intense national interest. He lives in Chicago. He is based in New York, some 8,000 miles from the forum. The Court entered an order to show cause why the relief sought should not be granted. Defendants claimed they had not been served (which has no bearing on an order to show cause, which they admitted had been served; at hearing they admitted they had also been served with the original pleadings on October 17th). After defendants objected and demanded service a second time, Plaintiff served the defendants and filed his proof of service on November 19th. Thus, there was not the remotest basis for dismissal on the basis of failure to serve the defendants.
The Court's apparent attempt to impose thirty days as a basis for dismissal is an unreasonable period to impose on Plaintiff to serve defendants a second time when he is an out of state litigant. Plaintiff was well within the applicable time limits when he served the defendants and no reasonable person could argue to the contrary.
5. The court ignored the state of the record
Plaintiff was seeking review of a denial of access to a historic public record. As Plaintiff set forth, there was a serious waiver issue, since the parties themselves had discussed the document openly, and the "document" has falsely been portrayed as already being disclosed. The Court ignored the waiver issue. Based on the lack of any response by the defendants, waiver mandated release of the document.
Conclusion
At a certain point, the comulatative errors in this proceeding raise an inference of harassment of an out-of-state litigant. Under the Privileges and Immunities Clause, a non-Hawai'i resident should obtain the same due process that a native or resident receives. Hawai'i is not a private club that is maintained for the benefit of insiders.
Plaintiff came before the Court in good faith seeking access to a historic document. There is not a shred of evidence in the record to defeat his claim. The court's constant mischaracterization of his claims and misapplication of the rules constitute a breach of judicial decorum.
The dismissal should be vacated and the matter should be heard before a judge who will faithfully and fairly apply the law. If this Court honestly disagrees with Plaintiff's arguments, it should simply say so and send a clean record to the ICA, and not try to create cobwebs to conceal legerdemain and prevarication based on an attempt to evade the obviously applicable facts and principles of law.
United Justice Foundation Lawyer Threatens to Sue Obama Every Step of The Way
Bob Robbins forwarded this link to a Worldnet Daily article concerning Gary Kreep, chief of the United Justice Foundation. According to Worldnet Daily, Kreep stated:
"We will file lawsuits on [Obama's] actions, every time. As long as we have money, we will keep filing lawsuits until we get a decision as to his citizenship status,"
Kreep represents Alan Keyes in Keyes's current law suit against the California Secretary of state asking that the state prevent its 55 Electoral College votes from being cast until Obama's citizenship and related eligibility to hold office are resolved.
"We will file lawsuits on [Obama's] actions, every time. As long as we have money, we will keep filing lawsuits until we get a decision as to his citizenship status,"
Kreep represents Alan Keyes in Keyes's current law suit against the California Secretary of state asking that the state prevent its 55 Electoral College votes from being cast until Obama's citizenship and related eligibility to hold office are resolved.
CAIR Implicated in Terrorist Activity
Irene Alter has forwarded a link to Investors' Business Daily. A Texas jury has convicted the Holy Land Foundation of illegally financing Hamas. IBD writes:
"Over the course of the years-long case, prosecutors put more than 300 co-conspirators on notice. They include...the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which lobbies the government from its headquarters in the nation's capital.
"Wiretap evidence heard in the case for the first time put CAIR's executive director, Nihad Awad, at a Philadelphia meeting of Hamas leaders and activists secretly recorded by the FBI. Participants hatched a plot to deceive Americans and disguise payments to Hamas as it launched a campaign of terror attacks. CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad joined Hamas big shots at the summit."
"Over the course of the years-long case, prosecutors put more than 300 co-conspirators on notice. They include...the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which lobbies the government from its headquarters in the nation's capital.
"Wiretap evidence heard in the case for the first time put CAIR's executive director, Nihad Awad, at a Philadelphia meeting of Hamas leaders and activists secretly recorded by the FBI. Participants hatched a plot to deceive Americans and disguise payments to Hamas as it launched a campaign of terror attacks. CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad joined Hamas big shots at the summit."
More Coverage of Obama Birth Certificate
Robert Taylor has called my attention to Bill Warner's blog site. Warner is a private investigator, in other words, a p.i., sherlock, dick, shamus, gumshoe, or flatfoot. I had to mention that.
Warner notes that the Gunny G Blog has been doing some good work regarding the Obama birth certificate. Warner posts a copy of Phil Berg's application to Justice Souter pending resolution of Berg's writ of certiorari:
Philip J. Berg, Esquire,
Petitioner,
vs.
Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., et al,
Respondents.
_____________________
APPLICATION TO JUSTICE DAVID H. SOUTER
FOR AN IMMEDIATE INJUNCTION
TO STAY THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF NOVEMBER 4, 2008
PENDING RESOLUTION OF THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
_____________________
To the Honorable David H. Souter, Justice of the United States and Circuit
Justice for the Third Circuit:
NOW COMES the Petitioner, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, and pursuant to
United States Supreme Court Rule 23 hereby makes this Application for an
Immediate Injunction to Stay the Presidential Election of November 4, 2008
pending resolution of the Petition for Writ of Certiorari.
Warner notes that the Gunny G Blog has been doing some good work regarding the Obama birth certificate. Warner posts a copy of Phil Berg's application to Justice Souter pending resolution of Berg's writ of certiorari:
Philip J. Berg, Esquire,
Petitioner,
vs.
Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., et al,
Respondents.
_____________________
APPLICATION TO JUSTICE DAVID H. SOUTER
FOR AN IMMEDIATE INJUNCTION
TO STAY THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF NOVEMBER 4, 2008
PENDING RESOLUTION OF THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
_____________________
To the Honorable David H. Souter, Justice of the United States and Circuit
Justice for the Third Circuit:
NOW COMES the Petitioner, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, and pursuant to
United States Supreme Court Rule 23 hereby makes this Application for an
Immediate Injunction to Stay the Presidential Election of November 4, 2008
pending resolution of the Petition for Writ of Certiorari.
Nany Razik Supports Free Speech
It is funny that an extremist thug like Dianne Feinstein justifies the use of state power to violently silence alternative speech in the name of "fairness" and moderation. I just received the following e-mail from Nancy Razik:
>I have just taken action to stop the attacks on our Free Speech Rights, and I'm asking that you join with me by clicking here:
http://www.mrcaction.org/517/petition.asp?PID=19027168&NID=1
Will The Fairness Doctrine Silence The Conservative Voice?
Will 2009 usher in a fanatical push to re-instate the so-called Fairness Doctrine? Such a move would effectively silence the conservative voice and remove the last conservative stronghold against a fast-moving liberal agenda.
One need only read the words of Dianne Feinstein to see the true threat to conservative speech that is brewing on the horizon!
"Talk radio tends to be one-sided. It also tends to
be dwelling in hyperbole. It's explosive. It pushes
people to, I think, extreme views without a lot of
information ... I'm looking at the [Fairness Doctrine]...
Unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way."
Recognizing this threat, the Media Research Center has created the Free Speech Alliance which is a coalition of organizations and citizens strongly opposed to any such move to limit or undermine our Free Speech Rights!
Please take a moment right now to join the hundreds of thousands of Americans who oppose the Fairness Doctrine and all that it stands for by clicking here:
http://www.mrcaction.org/517/petition.asp?PID=19027168&NID=1
Thanks for joining with me.
Mrs. Nancy Razik
P.S. If the liberal voice in America has their way, the Fairness
Doctrine will end conservative talk--including Rush, Sean,
Laura, Mark, and a host of others. Take action today by clicking
here:
>I have just taken action to stop the attacks on our Free Speech Rights, and I'm asking that you join with me by clicking here:
http://www.mrcaction.org/517/petition.asp?PID=19027168&NID=1
Will The Fairness Doctrine Silence The Conservative Voice?
Will 2009 usher in a fanatical push to re-instate the so-called Fairness Doctrine? Such a move would effectively silence the conservative voice and remove the last conservative stronghold against a fast-moving liberal agenda.
One need only read the words of Dianne Feinstein to see the true threat to conservative speech that is brewing on the horizon!
"Talk radio tends to be one-sided. It also tends to
be dwelling in hyperbole. It's explosive. It pushes
people to, I think, extreme views without a lot of
information ... I'm looking at the [Fairness Doctrine]...
Unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way."
Recognizing this threat, the Media Research Center has created the Free Speech Alliance which is a coalition of organizations and citizens strongly opposed to any such move to limit or undermine our Free Speech Rights!
Please take a moment right now to join the hundreds of thousands of Americans who oppose the Fairness Doctrine and all that it stands for by clicking here:
http://www.mrcaction.org/517/petition.asp?PID=19027168&NID=1
Thanks for joining with me.
Mrs. Nancy Razik
P.S. If the liberal voice in America has their way, the Fairness
Doctrine will end conservative talk--including Rush, Sean,
Laura, Mark, and a host of others. Take action today by clicking
here:
Mairi's Daily Request to Greta van Sustern
>Dear Greta,
Well, here we go again, the attempt to silence the conservative viewpoint, and GUESS who is going to be hit HARD if Barney and Nancy, and Harry, and yes, even Barack have their way.
We cannot afford to have to keep fighting this fight, it is ugly, divisive, and counter-productive to basic freedoms in America. But all of you know that already.
My question to you is, "WHY don't you stop this nonsense NOW?" It's very easy, you hit them right where it counts! MAKE them PROVE Barack is eligible to be their "fearless leader" in all this anti-American nonsense!
It IS within your power to PROVE to them that Americans will NOT back down. Make them produce Barack's proof of eligibility......if they CAN! That is, without a doubt, the first, and most major hurdle in this whole battle. When they see that true Americans are NOT going to back down on having our Constitution ripped apart by a usurper, they will KNOW we are NOT going to back down on anything else either!
It really is in your hands to put an end to all of this, PLEASE stand up and fight with all means at your disposal for those of us who are also fighting by any and all means at our disposal.
Happy Thanksgiving! Lets make sure next year at this time we are still thankful for our Blessings, and NOT wishing we still had them!
Well, here we go again, the attempt to silence the conservative viewpoint, and GUESS who is going to be hit HARD if Barney and Nancy, and Harry, and yes, even Barack have their way.
We cannot afford to have to keep fighting this fight, it is ugly, divisive, and counter-productive to basic freedoms in America. But all of you know that already.
My question to you is, "WHY don't you stop this nonsense NOW?" It's very easy, you hit them right where it counts! MAKE them PROVE Barack is eligible to be their "fearless leader" in all this anti-American nonsense!
It IS within your power to PROVE to them that Americans will NOT back down. Make them produce Barack's proof of eligibility......if they CAN! That is, without a doubt, the first, and most major hurdle in this whole battle. When they see that true Americans are NOT going to back down on having our Constitution ripped apart by a usurper, they will KNOW we are NOT going to back down on anything else either!
It really is in your hands to put an end to all of this, PLEASE stand up and fight with all means at your disposal for those of us who are also fighting by any and all means at our disposal.
Happy Thanksgiving! Lets make sure next year at this time we are still thankful for our Blessings, and NOT wishing we still had them!
Andy Martin Asks McCain Electors to Challenge BOCOLB
Andy Martin just sent me the following release:
(CHICAGO)(November 26, 2008) On November 7th Internet Powerhouse Andy Martin demonstrated the power of the Internet when he unleashed new demands for information from on Barack Obama. Martin, an adjunct professor of law, lit a fire that has begun to burn all across the United States as Americans respond by contacting Electoral College electors and demanding access to Barack Obama's original birth Certificate.
Fox News host Greta VanSusteren has chimed in by saying that all four national candidates should make their complete birth records available.
"It was a moment that had to be heard be understood," says the Internet's most influential political voice, Andy Martin. "Live on the Internet we created a spontaneous legal theory to justify questioning Obama's legitimacy at the Electoral College, and the American people have roared their approval." /Default.aspx
"There may have been an 'election,'" says Martin, "but the results of that election were clouded by ACORN vote fraud and Obama's steadfast refusal to authorize access to his original, typewritten 1961 birth certificate. What is he hiding? Until he provides access, he has no legitimacy to serve as President of the United States. Obama issued a laser-printed facsimile and falsely represented this was a 'copy' of the 'original' certificate to FactCheck.org. That was a bald-faced lie. Why did he lie to the American people? Why?
"All of Obama's preening and posturing since November 4th is just more of the same. There is no substance to the man. Every elector has a constitutional right to demand access to the original birth certificate before voting on December 15th.
"We will continue our efforts to bring former Senator Obama to justice in the courtroom of American public opinion. We are not going to let this turkey slip us the bird on December 15th."
(CHICAGO)(November 26, 2008) On November 7th Internet Powerhouse Andy Martin demonstrated the power of the Internet when he unleashed new demands for information from on Barack Obama. Martin, an adjunct professor of law, lit a fire that has begun to burn all across the United States as Americans respond by contacting Electoral College electors and demanding access to Barack Obama's original birth Certificate.
Fox News host Greta VanSusteren has chimed in by saying that all four national candidates should make their complete birth records available.
"It was a moment that had to be heard be understood," says the Internet's most influential political voice, Andy Martin. "Live on the Internet we created a spontaneous legal theory to justify questioning Obama's legitimacy at the Electoral College, and the American people have roared their approval." /Default.aspx
"There may have been an 'election,'" says Martin, "but the results of that election were clouded by ACORN vote fraud and Obama's steadfast refusal to authorize access to his original, typewritten 1961 birth certificate. What is he hiding? Until he provides access, he has no legitimacy to serve as President of the United States. Obama issued a laser-printed facsimile and falsely represented this was a 'copy' of the 'original' certificate to FactCheck.org. That was a bald-faced lie. Why did he lie to the American people? Why?
"All of Obama's preening and posturing since November 4th is just more of the same. There is no substance to the man. Every elector has a constitutional right to demand access to the original birth certificate before voting on December 15th.
"We will continue our efforts to bring former Senator Obama to justice in the courtroom of American public opinion. We are not going to let this turkey slip us the bird on December 15th."
Cort Wrotnowski Sues Re Obama Election Fraud
The Citizen Wells blog site (h/t Bob Robbins) has put up a copy of a motion for a writ of mandamus filed by Cort Wrotnowski respecting the case of Cort Wrotnowski v Bysiewicz, alleging election fraud regarding Barack Obama's birth certificate.
Cort Wrotnowski vs Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State:
“Connecticut Supreme Court
Cort Wrotnowski ,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Ms. Bysiewicz et al, ACTING IN THE OFFICE OF CONNECTICUT STATE, SECRETARY OF STATE,
Defendant
Pleedings and Motion for writ of mandamus addressing Election Fraud in the State of Connecticut
Dated this 2nd of November 2008
________________________
“In regards to the candidate Barack Obama for Office of President in the State of Connecticut as Concerns Election Fraud.”
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
FACTS
The facts of this case are best understood as a chronological series of events. During the early part of 2008, there was growing pressure for Sen. Barack Obama to produce proof that he was a natural born citizen of the U.S. In June 2008, an image of a document purported as a “Birth Certificate” actually titled “Certification of Live Birth” from the State of Hawaii bearing Barack Obama’s name was posted on an official campaign web site for Barack Obama. (Exhibit X). Table 1 gives the basic chronology.
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS LEADING UP TO PLAINTIFF’S CASE
August 2008
Phil Berg files suit in Pennsylvania seeking release of Sen. Obama’s actual birth certificate
September 2008
Sen. Obama and DNC refuse to release the birth certificate
October 16, 2008
Plaintiff learns of new efforts to compel disclosure at the state level.
October 24, 2008
Plaintiff’s suit filed in Stamford Superior Court. Denied pursuant to 9-323.
Oct. 27-31, 2008
Plaintiff prepares and files with Connecticut Supreme Court.
Suspicions were immediately aroused when no city, place, witnesses or other personally identifying documentation was shown on this version of the form. Forensic experts weighed in as to whether it was authentic or not but that is a mute point in that it is not the version of the birth certificate useful in answering the question.
See exhibits V,W,X.Y
Note that the “Certification’ version is worthless and stated so by the Hawaii government.
Note that that worthless “Certification” document is principally used for individuals born overseas to a Hawaiian citizen just like Berg had been asserting.
Mr. Obama has not left a paper trail for the public to follow forcing the public to demand proof. Mr. Obama and able bodies supporters purported to the public that his “Certification” document was proof that he was born in Hawaii and therefore, “Natural Born.”
The exhibits V-Y before the court make it plain that that claim of proof is patently false. Subsequent demands for the real Birth certificate fell on deft ears and multiple lawsuits to date have only yielded obfuscation, untold thousands of dollars spent by Mr. Obama on legal teams who used every delay tactic possible to avoid delivering the same document most little league teams require to join their team. The brick wall is preposterous, so undeserved and unnatural as an appropriate response to the people’s request that it leads to only one conclusion; voter fraud of the most audacious magnitude.
That Mr. Obama has steadfastly refused to allow certified access to his birth, adoption passport and repatriation documents has defrauded millions of Americans and Plaintiff.
LEGAL ISSUES
1) Does the Secretary of State, as the Chief of Elections, have the responsibility to protect Connecticut voters from election fraud, including national elections conducted within the state?
The Connecticut Secretary of State asserts in an email to the plaintiff:
“…I do not have the statutory authority to remove a candidate from the ballot unless that candidate officially withdraws by filling a form with my office to that effect.”
She also asserts:
“Likewise, neither the Connecticut General Statutes nor the Constitution of the State of Connecticut authorizes me to investigate a Presidential candidate’s eligibility to run for the office of President of the United States. Because this is a matter prescribed in the Constitution of the United States, and absent any authority and/or procedures in our state constitution, the question of the verification of a Presidential candidate’s status as a “natural born” citizen is a federal matter subject to U.S. Congressional action…”
Plaintiff asserts the Secretary of State has misread the law and is instead the state officer directly responsible for preventing election fraud against Connecticut voters in a national election. In this most important regard the Secretary of State has failed to act to secure the public confidence and avoid the appearance and actuality of fraud. There is no law restricting the secretary of state from investigating fraud as she claimed. Ridiculous!
Silence constitutes an implied representation of the existence of the state of facts in question and will operate as an estoppel.
“Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.” U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d. 297, 299 (5th Cir. 1977), quoting U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032 and Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932 (1906).;
2) Does the Connecticut Supreme Court have the responsibility to direct a state officers to prevent election fraud, if sufficient reason is shown?
Plaintiff asserts that precedent set in Connecticut (In re Election of the U.S. Rep. for the Second Congressional District, 213 Conn. 602, 618, n.18, 653 A.2d 79 (1994)) provides guidance to the court that they may act to resolve disputes involving election to national offices.
From Connecticut Appellate Practice and Procedure, 3rd Edition, chapter titled: Original Proceedings in the Supreme Court Section D Subsection 10.17 Procedure (a) Rules of Practice
“Except for the complaint, the statute and rules are silent as to the matters of procedure in original actions in the Supreme Court (C.G.S. 9-232). Accordingly, in federal election disputes the justices are free to fashion such rules as will expedite a fair and speedy resolution of the dispute”
Clearly the Supreme court of Connecticut may if justified direct the Connecticut Secretary of State or other state officer to take such actions as would be deemed sufficient and necessary to provide necessary remedy.
HOLDING BY THE PLAINTIFF
Holding Regarding the Role of the State Supreme Court
The plaintiff asserts that Connecticut law is not explicit with respect to taking action against potential election fraud at the national level. It neither authorizes nor prohibits. In fact, it is silent on this important issue. The only statutes providing direction are 9-323, and for Federal Election Disputes, sec. 10-13, 10-14, 10-15, and 10-17(a) (as found in Connecticut Appellate Practice and Procedure, 3rd Edition, chapter titled: Original Proceedings in the Supreme Court, pages 385-387.)
We do not have a federal ballot controlled by the federal government, we have Connecticut state election for electors who are pledged for a particular candidate which allows each state to determine how and in what manner they choose to project their power at the National Electoral College.
In the special case of individuals seeking the office of President of the United States, the US constitution prescribes a system of electors where citizens of the respective state have a state controlled election wherein electors representing the interest of the named individual on the state ballot are so elected as to represent the interests of the respective state at the Electoral College.
State law determines how the electors are determined and act. Since this is in actual fact a state election, our Secretary of State has prevue over certification of not just the counts of the ballots so cast for the named candidate for President, but also the veracity of the system which including publishing and promoting the ballot and for certifying or decertifying challenged candidates; in this case the electors who act as proxies for the candidate.
The plaintiff argues that the Connecticut constitution and statutes and enforcement should be consistent with the principles of the U.S. constitution. When Connecticut law provides no guidance, then an electoral duty ascribed at the national level applies at the state level as well. If there are national standards for preventing fraud in an election, then there need to be similar standards at the state level. The state Supreme Court is responsible for ensuring that that Connecticut laws follows the U.S. Constitution. In particular, Sec. 10-17(a) sets forth how the State Supreme Court can provide remedy.
Holding regarding Responsibility of the Secretary of State in National Elections
It is argued that the lack of language in the state law does not preclude the Secretary of State, as the Chief of Elections, from verifying national candidates for whom her constituents will vote especially so when allegations of blatant profound fraud is widely asserted.
She has threaded a path to inaction by her selective choice of words. Hers is a “sin of omission” argument. Estopple argument would say otherwise. Furthermore, without explicate legislative direction, there are still very clear “implied duties” that follow from Connecticut Statutes, Connecticut Constitution and the U.S. Constitution that demand consideration and action from this independent branch of Government charged with action.
There are at least four statutes that set forth the duties of the Secretary of State. Plaintiff bolded passages in Sec. 9-3 for emphasis.
From: Connecticut General Statutes
Sec. 3-77. General duties; salary. Office of Secretary full time.
… provisions of section 11-4c. The Secretary may give certified copies of any entries in such records, files, books or other papers and of the files and records of said Superior Court and of the Supreme Court, remaining in the office, which copies shall be legal evidence. … The Secretary shall receive an annual salary of one hundred ten thousand dollars and shall devote full time to the duties of the office.
Sec. 9-3. Secretary to be Commissioner of Elections. Presumption concerning rulings and opinions.
The Secretary of the State, by virtue of the office, shall be the Commissioner of Elections of the state, with such powers and duties relating to the conduct of elections as are prescribed by law and, unless otherwise provided by state statute, the secretary’s regulations, declaratory rulings, instructions and opinions, if in written form, shall be presumed as correctly interpreting and effectuating the administration of elections and primaries under this title, except for chapter 155, provided nothing in this section shall be construed to alter the right of appeal provided under the provisions of chapter 54.
The bolded language in Sec. 9-3 demonstrates that the legislature fully expected the Secretary of State to act independently and proactively to address situations germane to the task of executing elections consistent with all requirements of the constitutions and statutes.
The implied duty argument is vital for circumstances where questions about candidates remain, even up to Election Day. She claims no such responsibility, yet the “national system” to which Secretary Bysiewicz refers to does not exist and/or has provided no remedy. Despite popular misunderstanding, the FEC provides no verification whatsoever. As the Chief of Elections, the Secretary of State is responsible for protecting Connecticut voters from fraud and unfair elections. Buck stops there.
Eligibility is a fundamental issue that strikes at the heart of fair elections. Where the question of eligibility has become so obvious and clear, as in the case of Sen. Obama’s missing birth certificate, the Secretary of State must move to protect the voters, investigating the allegations of fraud or directing such agency as deemed proper such as the SEEC which would investigate and inform the Secretary of State of their findings.
Analogous Argument
If a crime is being committed and you have the ability to stop it, you don’t wait for the police to show up. That’s why we have Citizen’s Arrest. Similarly, if an electoral crime is being committed, and you have the ability to stop it, you don’t stand by and do nothing. If Secretary Bysiewicz is unclear on this issue, then we ask this court to clearly explain it to her in the form of a Writ of Mandamus since she has clearly ignored prudence and the petitions of citizens.
States do not have the right to promote on the ballot presidential candidates that violate the eligibility standards of the U.S. Constitution, but that is what Secretary Bysiewicz chooses to do. She has failed to provide Connecticut voters with the most basic protections against fraudulent candidates like Calero. She wishes to be consistent in her negligence by also neglecting to demand Sen. Obama produce his authentic birth certificate.
CONCLUSION: PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSED REMEDY
I Move that this court would issue a writ of mandamus requiring that Connecticut, Secretary of State Bysiewicz immediately acquire primary documents or certified copies from primary sources such as the appropriate Health Department and/or appropriate hospital records. If such reasonable documents as would establish place and date of birth are not made available to the Secretary of State by the time expected for certification of the election results, then the Secretary of State is ordered to declared that candidate as ‘not certified’ as a valid candidate for the office of President of the United States under the United States Constitution, Article II, Section I;
This action is the only legal remedy available for Connecticut voters.
Respectfully Submitted,
Cort Wrotnowski
VERIFICATION
I, Cort Wrotnowski, hereby state that I am the Plaintiff in this action and verify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint for Injunctive Relief are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties law relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.”
Cort Wrotnowski vs Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State:
“Connecticut Supreme Court
Cort Wrotnowski ,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Ms. Bysiewicz et al, ACTING IN THE OFFICE OF CONNECTICUT STATE, SECRETARY OF STATE,
Defendant
Pleedings and Motion for writ of mandamus addressing Election Fraud in the State of Connecticut
Dated this 2nd of November 2008
________________________
“In regards to the candidate Barack Obama for Office of President in the State of Connecticut as Concerns Election Fraud.”
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
FACTS
The facts of this case are best understood as a chronological series of events. During the early part of 2008, there was growing pressure for Sen. Barack Obama to produce proof that he was a natural born citizen of the U.S. In June 2008, an image of a document purported as a “Birth Certificate” actually titled “Certification of Live Birth” from the State of Hawaii bearing Barack Obama’s name was posted on an official campaign web site for Barack Obama. (Exhibit X). Table 1 gives the basic chronology.
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS LEADING UP TO PLAINTIFF’S CASE
August 2008
Phil Berg files suit in Pennsylvania seeking release of Sen. Obama’s actual birth certificate
September 2008
Sen. Obama and DNC refuse to release the birth certificate
October 16, 2008
Plaintiff learns of new efforts to compel disclosure at the state level.
October 24, 2008
Plaintiff’s suit filed in Stamford Superior Court. Denied pursuant to 9-323.
Oct. 27-31, 2008
Plaintiff prepares and files with Connecticut Supreme Court.
Suspicions were immediately aroused when no city, place, witnesses or other personally identifying documentation was shown on this version of the form. Forensic experts weighed in as to whether it was authentic or not but that is a mute point in that it is not the version of the birth certificate useful in answering the question.
See exhibits V,W,X.Y
Note that the “Certification’ version is worthless and stated so by the Hawaii government.
Note that that worthless “Certification” document is principally used for individuals born overseas to a Hawaiian citizen just like Berg had been asserting.
Mr. Obama has not left a paper trail for the public to follow forcing the public to demand proof. Mr. Obama and able bodies supporters purported to the public that his “Certification” document was proof that he was born in Hawaii and therefore, “Natural Born.”
The exhibits V-Y before the court make it plain that that claim of proof is patently false. Subsequent demands for the real Birth certificate fell on deft ears and multiple lawsuits to date have only yielded obfuscation, untold thousands of dollars spent by Mr. Obama on legal teams who used every delay tactic possible to avoid delivering the same document most little league teams require to join their team. The brick wall is preposterous, so undeserved and unnatural as an appropriate response to the people’s request that it leads to only one conclusion; voter fraud of the most audacious magnitude.
That Mr. Obama has steadfastly refused to allow certified access to his birth, adoption passport and repatriation documents has defrauded millions of Americans and Plaintiff.
LEGAL ISSUES
1) Does the Secretary of State, as the Chief of Elections, have the responsibility to protect Connecticut voters from election fraud, including national elections conducted within the state?
The Connecticut Secretary of State asserts in an email to the plaintiff:
“…I do not have the statutory authority to remove a candidate from the ballot unless that candidate officially withdraws by filling a form with my office to that effect.”
She also asserts:
“Likewise, neither the Connecticut General Statutes nor the Constitution of the State of Connecticut authorizes me to investigate a Presidential candidate’s eligibility to run for the office of President of the United States. Because this is a matter prescribed in the Constitution of the United States, and absent any authority and/or procedures in our state constitution, the question of the verification of a Presidential candidate’s status as a “natural born” citizen is a federal matter subject to U.S. Congressional action…”
Plaintiff asserts the Secretary of State has misread the law and is instead the state officer directly responsible for preventing election fraud against Connecticut voters in a national election. In this most important regard the Secretary of State has failed to act to secure the public confidence and avoid the appearance and actuality of fraud. There is no law restricting the secretary of state from investigating fraud as she claimed. Ridiculous!
Silence constitutes an implied representation of the existence of the state of facts in question and will operate as an estoppel.
“Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.” U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d. 297, 299 (5th Cir. 1977), quoting U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032 and Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932 (1906).;
2) Does the Connecticut Supreme Court have the responsibility to direct a state officers to prevent election fraud, if sufficient reason is shown?
Plaintiff asserts that precedent set in Connecticut (In re Election of the U.S. Rep. for the Second Congressional District, 213 Conn. 602, 618, n.18, 653 A.2d 79 (1994)) provides guidance to the court that they may act to resolve disputes involving election to national offices.
From Connecticut Appellate Practice and Procedure, 3rd Edition, chapter titled: Original Proceedings in the Supreme Court Section D Subsection 10.17 Procedure (a) Rules of Practice
“Except for the complaint, the statute and rules are silent as to the matters of procedure in original actions in the Supreme Court (C.G.S. 9-232). Accordingly, in federal election disputes the justices are free to fashion such rules as will expedite a fair and speedy resolution of the dispute”
Clearly the Supreme court of Connecticut may if justified direct the Connecticut Secretary of State or other state officer to take such actions as would be deemed sufficient and necessary to provide necessary remedy.
HOLDING BY THE PLAINTIFF
Holding Regarding the Role of the State Supreme Court
The plaintiff asserts that Connecticut law is not explicit with respect to taking action against potential election fraud at the national level. It neither authorizes nor prohibits. In fact, it is silent on this important issue. The only statutes providing direction are 9-323, and for Federal Election Disputes, sec. 10-13, 10-14, 10-15, and 10-17(a) (as found in Connecticut Appellate Practice and Procedure, 3rd Edition, chapter titled: Original Proceedings in the Supreme Court, pages 385-387.)
We do not have a federal ballot controlled by the federal government, we have Connecticut state election for electors who are pledged for a particular candidate which allows each state to determine how and in what manner they choose to project their power at the National Electoral College.
In the special case of individuals seeking the office of President of the United States, the US constitution prescribes a system of electors where citizens of the respective state have a state controlled election wherein electors representing the interest of the named individual on the state ballot are so elected as to represent the interests of the respective state at the Electoral College.
State law determines how the electors are determined and act. Since this is in actual fact a state election, our Secretary of State has prevue over certification of not just the counts of the ballots so cast for the named candidate for President, but also the veracity of the system which including publishing and promoting the ballot and for certifying or decertifying challenged candidates; in this case the electors who act as proxies for the candidate.
The plaintiff argues that the Connecticut constitution and statutes and enforcement should be consistent with the principles of the U.S. constitution. When Connecticut law provides no guidance, then an electoral duty ascribed at the national level applies at the state level as well. If there are national standards for preventing fraud in an election, then there need to be similar standards at the state level. The state Supreme Court is responsible for ensuring that that Connecticut laws follows the U.S. Constitution. In particular, Sec. 10-17(a) sets forth how the State Supreme Court can provide remedy.
Holding regarding Responsibility of the Secretary of State in National Elections
It is argued that the lack of language in the state law does not preclude the Secretary of State, as the Chief of Elections, from verifying national candidates for whom her constituents will vote especially so when allegations of blatant profound fraud is widely asserted.
She has threaded a path to inaction by her selective choice of words. Hers is a “sin of omission” argument. Estopple argument would say otherwise. Furthermore, without explicate legislative direction, there are still very clear “implied duties” that follow from Connecticut Statutes, Connecticut Constitution and the U.S. Constitution that demand consideration and action from this independent branch of Government charged with action.
There are at least four statutes that set forth the duties of the Secretary of State. Plaintiff bolded passages in Sec. 9-3 for emphasis.
From: Connecticut General Statutes
Sec. 3-77. General duties; salary. Office of Secretary full time.
… provisions of section 11-4c. The Secretary may give certified copies of any entries in such records, files, books or other papers and of the files and records of said Superior Court and of the Supreme Court, remaining in the office, which copies shall be legal evidence. … The Secretary shall receive an annual salary of one hundred ten thousand dollars and shall devote full time to the duties of the office.
Sec. 9-3. Secretary to be Commissioner of Elections. Presumption concerning rulings and opinions.
The Secretary of the State, by virtue of the office, shall be the Commissioner of Elections of the state, with such powers and duties relating to the conduct of elections as are prescribed by law and, unless otherwise provided by state statute, the secretary’s regulations, declaratory rulings, instructions and opinions, if in written form, shall be presumed as correctly interpreting and effectuating the administration of elections and primaries under this title, except for chapter 155, provided nothing in this section shall be construed to alter the right of appeal provided under the provisions of chapter 54.
The bolded language in Sec. 9-3 demonstrates that the legislature fully expected the Secretary of State to act independently and proactively to address situations germane to the task of executing elections consistent with all requirements of the constitutions and statutes.
The implied duty argument is vital for circumstances where questions about candidates remain, even up to Election Day. She claims no such responsibility, yet the “national system” to which Secretary Bysiewicz refers to does not exist and/or has provided no remedy. Despite popular misunderstanding, the FEC provides no verification whatsoever. As the Chief of Elections, the Secretary of State is responsible for protecting Connecticut voters from fraud and unfair elections. Buck stops there.
Eligibility is a fundamental issue that strikes at the heart of fair elections. Where the question of eligibility has become so obvious and clear, as in the case of Sen. Obama’s missing birth certificate, the Secretary of State must move to protect the voters, investigating the allegations of fraud or directing such agency as deemed proper such as the SEEC which would investigate and inform the Secretary of State of their findings.
Analogous Argument
If a crime is being committed and you have the ability to stop it, you don’t wait for the police to show up. That’s why we have Citizen’s Arrest. Similarly, if an electoral crime is being committed, and you have the ability to stop it, you don’t stand by and do nothing. If Secretary Bysiewicz is unclear on this issue, then we ask this court to clearly explain it to her in the form of a Writ of Mandamus since she has clearly ignored prudence and the petitions of citizens.
States do not have the right to promote on the ballot presidential candidates that violate the eligibility standards of the U.S. Constitution, but that is what Secretary Bysiewicz chooses to do. She has failed to provide Connecticut voters with the most basic protections against fraudulent candidates like Calero. She wishes to be consistent in her negligence by also neglecting to demand Sen. Obama produce his authentic birth certificate.
CONCLUSION: PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSED REMEDY
I Move that this court would issue a writ of mandamus requiring that Connecticut, Secretary of State Bysiewicz immediately acquire primary documents or certified copies from primary sources such as the appropriate Health Department and/or appropriate hospital records. If such reasonable documents as would establish place and date of birth are not made available to the Secretary of State by the time expected for certification of the election results, then the Secretary of State is ordered to declared that candidate as ‘not certified’ as a valid candidate for the office of President of the United States under the United States Constitution, Article II, Section I;
This action is the only legal remedy available for Connecticut voters.
Respectfully Submitted,
Cort Wrotnowski
VERIFICATION
I, Cort Wrotnowski, hereby state that I am the Plaintiff in this action and verify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint for Injunctive Relief are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties law relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.”
Show Me The Certificate
Pastor James David Manning (h/t Bob Robbins) demands that President-elect Obama show him the birth certificate.
Pastor James David Manning Calls Obama Greatest American Fraud
Pastor James David Manning cooks with steam (h/t Bob Robbins). Besides the questions he raises about President-elect Obama's birth certificate, calling his election the biggest fraud in American history, Manning points out that the whites who voted for Obama are more racist than those who voted against him.
I had thought of this before. The racist, pro-Obama claim that those who opposed Obama did so because of race speaks to a psychological process known as cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance or mental conflict refers to a process whereby our minds attempt to resolve internally conflicting facts. For instance, if we believe intellectually that racism is wrong but work in a company that is 95% white, attended universities that are 95% white, sent our children to elementary schools that are 95% white and live in neighborhoods that are 95% white, we might sense a mental conflict. In order to resolve their cognitive dissonance, racist white liberals supported Obama. Call it liberal guilt, perhaps, but it is more immediate than mere guilt.
Manning is absolutely right. The worst white bigots I know have all supported Obama, and the left-wing propagandists who make sure that their children attend all-white schools, colleges and universities are the most vocal of Obama's backers. I never saw more politically correct, intolerant left wingers than when I worked in all-white towns and in colleges that were all-white. These university-linked students and fauclty, a bunch of closed-minded bigots, are Obama's base of support.
Manning's points are all spot on and worth a careful listen.
I had thought of this before. The racist, pro-Obama claim that those who opposed Obama did so because of race speaks to a psychological process known as cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance or mental conflict refers to a process whereby our minds attempt to resolve internally conflicting facts. For instance, if we believe intellectually that racism is wrong but work in a company that is 95% white, attended universities that are 95% white, sent our children to elementary schools that are 95% white and live in neighborhoods that are 95% white, we might sense a mental conflict. In order to resolve their cognitive dissonance, racist white liberals supported Obama. Call it liberal guilt, perhaps, but it is more immediate than mere guilt.
Manning is absolutely right. The worst white bigots I know have all supported Obama, and the left-wing propagandists who make sure that their children attend all-white schools, colleges and universities are the most vocal of Obama's backers. I never saw more politically correct, intolerant left wingers than when I worked in all-white towns and in colleges that were all-white. These university-linked students and fauclty, a bunch of closed-minded bigots, are Obama's base of support.
Manning's points are all spot on and worth a careful listen.
Has Google Suppressed Atlas?
Bob Robbins has forwarded this blog from Texas Darlin saying that Google has excised the Atlas Shrugs blog and other anti-Obama sites from its search engine:
"Google, the world’s number one search engine, is apparently adjusting its search engines to restrict access to anti-Obama information on the world wide web. I don’t know of a more intelligent, hard-working, ethical anti-Obama blogger than Atlas Shrugs. If Google is disappearing Pamela’s work, it’s flagrant political content-based censorship. Welcome to Obama’s Regime. And they say he’s a 'liberal?'"
Pamela Geller writes:
"A couple of days ago I was wiped off google search pages. Yes, if you google Pamela Geller or Atlas Shrugs, I come up, that is not the issue. My work is not there, it does not come up in google's search results. It is critical to building Atlas that I be searchable.Youtube searches are still intact as are images."
I Googled "Pamela Geller Atlas Shrugs" and came up with 32,200 hits, five times what I get when I Google "Mitchell Langbert". But when I Google "Obama birth certificate" I do not see Atlas Shrugs right away, which I would think I should. When I type in "obama birth certificate +atlas +shrugs" I get back 28,100 hits, including from the Atlas Shrugs site, which seems all right to me. I don't really understand how search engines work, or how Google might be editing or altering access.
But one thing's for sure. Google does a great job in providing search and blogging support. On the other hand, by virtue of its virtuosity does Google get too much information about us? I'm not casting aspersions about Google (nor am I clear about what has happened with Pamela) but the left-liberal ideology is largely the dominant paradigm, and it has been used systematically to secure concentrated corporate power even as leftists claim to favor the "underprivileged", minorities and the like. What has happened to the underprivileged and minorities? Take a walk around some of Brooklyn's worst neighborhoods, which were nothing like this before the left started to become ascendant in the 1930s.
Is big business capable of suppression of conservative bloggers on behalf of the pro-Obama progressive left? Of course. So whatever has gone on with respect to Geller's site, I respect what she says.
"Google, the world’s number one search engine, is apparently adjusting its search engines to restrict access to anti-Obama information on the world wide web. I don’t know of a more intelligent, hard-working, ethical anti-Obama blogger than Atlas Shrugs. If Google is disappearing Pamela’s work, it’s flagrant political content-based censorship. Welcome to Obama’s Regime. And they say he’s a 'liberal?'"
Pamela Geller writes:
"A couple of days ago I was wiped off google search pages. Yes, if you google Pamela Geller or Atlas Shrugs, I come up, that is not the issue. My work is not there, it does not come up in google's search results. It is critical to building Atlas that I be searchable.Youtube searches are still intact as are images."
I Googled "Pamela Geller Atlas Shrugs" and came up with 32,200 hits, five times what I get when I Google "Mitchell Langbert". But when I Google "Obama birth certificate" I do not see Atlas Shrugs right away, which I would think I should. When I type in "obama birth certificate +atlas +shrugs" I get back 28,100 hits, including from the Atlas Shrugs site, which seems all right to me. I don't really understand how search engines work, or how Google might be editing or altering access.
But one thing's for sure. Google does a great job in providing search and blogging support. On the other hand, by virtue of its virtuosity does Google get too much information about us? I'm not casting aspersions about Google (nor am I clear about what has happened with Pamela) but the left-liberal ideology is largely the dominant paradigm, and it has been used systematically to secure concentrated corporate power even as leftists claim to favor the "underprivileged", minorities and the like. What has happened to the underprivileged and minorities? Take a walk around some of Brooklyn's worst neighborhoods, which were nothing like this before the left started to become ascendant in the 1930s.
Is big business capable of suppression of conservative bloggers on behalf of the pro-Obama progressive left? Of course. So whatever has gone on with respect to Geller's site, I respect what she says.
Democrats To Change Name from Thanksgiving to Resentment Day
Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the house, has announced that she has proposed a bill that will change the the name of the late-November American holiday from Thanksgiving to Resentment Day. "The Thanksgiving Day Parade needs to be changed into a protest march," Congressman Rahm Emanuel added. Noting that Thanksgiving's history is male-dominated, Speaker Pelosi said that she "realized in over 200 years of our history, these meetings have taken place and a woman has never ever sat at (the head of) that table." Democrats predict a healthy, across-the-board increase in resentment of all kinds. "I'm very excited about the prospects for Resentment Day," Senator Kennedy said.
Heartily supporting the change, President-elect Obama's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, adds (see below) that "Thanksgiving has been a holiday that has been controlled by rich, white men. It is a European holiday. My skin is the wrong color for Thanksgiving. I am sick of Negroes who just do not get it."
Speaker Pelosi, Senator Kennedy and President-elect Obama aim to change the Thanksgiving Day dinner ritual, which Senator Kennedy describes as "racist". On Resentment Day all Americans will share with others around the table the reasons why and how they have been wronged, what they are most resentful about and why taxes should be raised to subsidize them.
Especially excited was the head of the Ku Klux Klan. He noted: "White males have been wronged for too long. It is time we got to express our resentment, just like everyone else."
First Lady-elect, Michelle Obama, seemed pleased with prospective name change. She said, "And let me tell you something -- for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change." She emphasized that people are hungry for "change", not "turkey", which she considers to be a racist construct. She added that now she will not feel alone in her frustration. All Americans, especially those whose family incomes reach $1.6 million in a single year, will be "unified" in their expression of resentment toward the United States and freedom.
The animal rights movement is also exuberant about the name change. Writing from the Democratic Party's left wing, Change.org asks "Why do only white turkeys get pardons?" Moreover, Change.org has provided vegetarian Resentment Day recipes. They have proposed that anyone eating Turkey on Thanksgiving Day be sent to one of the re-education camps that Congressman Emanuel has proposed. "Americans must be taught to think in unison. Turkeys have rights, too."
Animal rights activist Stephanie Ernst of Change.org adds:
"A lot of you, I imagine, will be doing your grocery shopping this weekend, so in advance of that, I'm going to share with you a roundup of resources full of animal-free recipes."
While expressing resentment around the table, animal rights activists say, don't forget America's centuries of abuse of turkeys. "We need to resent the turkeys' agonized gobbles and the treatment of their remains as mere 'leftovers'."
Senator Kennedy also voiced support for the change. "People earning the minimum wage should be resentful that they are not earning more. Working families deserve a raise. Everyone deserves a raise. Everyone should be resentful." As well, he added, "automobile drivers who murder their passengers have been unfairly treated. I resent that."
Congressman Emmanuel proposed that anyone celebrating traditional Thanksgiving should be imprisoned. The editors of the New York Times said that Emanuel's proposal is "moderate" and ought to be taken seriously. "This is change we can believe in." The Times said that it resented that its reporting could not be even more overtly biased in President-elect Obama's favor, and suggested across the board tax increases to begin to satisfy Americans' resentments and perhaps create new ones. "We have resentments, too," the Times's editors said.
The esteemed Jim Crum responds:
Don’t laugh too hard…
I can see the day where someone will try to do this.
For what it is worth, you’ll notice that all of the people quoted have one thing in common: They don’t have real jobs, they really don’t work, they simply do not produce. So value added? None.
The renowned Candace de Russy responds:
clever!
Heartily supporting the change, President-elect Obama's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, adds (see below) that "Thanksgiving has been a holiday that has been controlled by rich, white men. It is a European holiday. My skin is the wrong color for Thanksgiving. I am sick of Negroes who just do not get it."
Speaker Pelosi, Senator Kennedy and President-elect Obama aim to change the Thanksgiving Day dinner ritual, which Senator Kennedy describes as "racist". On Resentment Day all Americans will share with others around the table the reasons why and how they have been wronged, what they are most resentful about and why taxes should be raised to subsidize them.
Especially excited was the head of the Ku Klux Klan. He noted: "White males have been wronged for too long. It is time we got to express our resentment, just like everyone else."
First Lady-elect, Michelle Obama, seemed pleased with prospective name change. She said, "And let me tell you something -- for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change." She emphasized that people are hungry for "change", not "turkey", which she considers to be a racist construct. She added that now she will not feel alone in her frustration. All Americans, especially those whose family incomes reach $1.6 million in a single year, will be "unified" in their expression of resentment toward the United States and freedom.
The animal rights movement is also exuberant about the name change. Writing from the Democratic Party's left wing, Change.org asks "Why do only white turkeys get pardons?" Moreover, Change.org has provided vegetarian Resentment Day recipes. They have proposed that anyone eating Turkey on Thanksgiving Day be sent to one of the re-education camps that Congressman Emanuel has proposed. "Americans must be taught to think in unison. Turkeys have rights, too."
Animal rights activist Stephanie Ernst of Change.org adds:
"A lot of you, I imagine, will be doing your grocery shopping this weekend, so in advance of that, I'm going to share with you a roundup of resources full of animal-free recipes."
While expressing resentment around the table, animal rights activists say, don't forget America's centuries of abuse of turkeys. "We need to resent the turkeys' agonized gobbles and the treatment of their remains as mere 'leftovers'."
Senator Kennedy also voiced support for the change. "People earning the minimum wage should be resentful that they are not earning more. Working families deserve a raise. Everyone deserves a raise. Everyone should be resentful." As well, he added, "automobile drivers who murder their passengers have been unfairly treated. I resent that."
Congressman Emmanuel proposed that anyone celebrating traditional Thanksgiving should be imprisoned. The editors of the New York Times said that Emanuel's proposal is "moderate" and ought to be taken seriously. "This is change we can believe in." The Times said that it resented that its reporting could not be even more overtly biased in President-elect Obama's favor, and suggested across the board tax increases to begin to satisfy Americans' resentments and perhaps create new ones. "We have resentments, too," the Times's editors said.
The esteemed Jim Crum responds:
Don’t laugh too hard…
I can see the day where someone will try to do this.
For what it is worth, you’ll notice that all of the people quoted have one thing in common: They don’t have real jobs, they really don’t work, they simply do not produce. So value added? None.
The renowned Candace de Russy responds:
clever!
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Laisser-Faire Made The Industrial Revolution Possible
The Tudors ruled England from 1485 to 1603. The Stuarts ruled Scotland from 1371 to 1603 and England as well from 1603 to 1701. The Tudor Industrial Code and Statute of Artificers were laws passed from 1558 to 1563 that replaced previous feudal guild regulation of crafts and modified the Statutes of Labourers, which were passed from 1350 to 1562 and repealed in 1714. The last statement of the Statute of Laborers was passed under Queen Elizabeth in 1562 and was called the Statute of Apprentices. The Ordinances of Laborers passed from 1350 to 1562 included restrictions on the freedom of serfs, fixed wages for laborers, prohibited hiring by the week, and gave justices the power to regulate wages. The Statute of Artificers also regulated labor, set wages, established training standards and regulated apprenticeships.
TS Ashton writes
"The belief that the Tudors and Stuarts had a consistent plan for the conduct of economic relations dies hard. The regulation of wages, employment, technical training, industrial location, prices and commerce established by them was in fact less generous, less enlightened and less systematic than is sometimes supposed. However that may be, the diminution of the powers of the Crown and the weakening of the Privy Council in the seventeenth century meant that some at least of the instruments of control were allowed to rust. At the same time the rise of wider markets, more elaborate techniques, and more specialized types of labor must have made the task of detailed supervision difficult indeed. Even if there had been no Civil War, no political power, central direction must almost certainly have broken down. For more than a hundred years before the industrial revolution the State was in retreat from the economic field."
T.S. Ashton, The Industrial Revolution. London: Oxford University Books, 1948. p. 138.
TS Ashton writes
"The belief that the Tudors and Stuarts had a consistent plan for the conduct of economic relations dies hard. The regulation of wages, employment, technical training, industrial location, prices and commerce established by them was in fact less generous, less enlightened and less systematic than is sometimes supposed. However that may be, the diminution of the powers of the Crown and the weakening of the Privy Council in the seventeenth century meant that some at least of the instruments of control were allowed to rust. At the same time the rise of wider markets, more elaborate techniques, and more specialized types of labor must have made the task of detailed supervision difficult indeed. Even if there had been no Civil War, no political power, central direction must almost certainly have broken down. For more than a hundred years before the industrial revolution the State was in retreat from the economic field."
T.S. Ashton, The Industrial Revolution. London: Oxford University Books, 1948. p. 138.
How Federal Reserve Policy Has Reduced Wages
The economists who have been managing the money supply since the 1930s have generally followed a low interest rate policy in order to stimulate employment. When the Fed introduces extra money into circulation interest rates fall. This in turn stimulates economic activity because it is cheap to borrow. The additional economic activity results in hiring, and employment increases and unemployment decreases. This is the pattern that has motivated the Federal Reserve Bank's officially-induced inflation since the 1930s.
However, the long run effects of low interest rates may be opposite to the short run effects. There are strategic as well as stimulative effects of easy money.
The economic historian TS Ashton notices this in his little book The Industrial Revolution: 1760-1830.* Ashton notes that the course of innovation in 18th century Great Britain tended to respond to the availability of labor. Early innovation focused on harnessing the forces of nature. The success of this early innovation led to increasing population. But in the 1730s and '40s labor was still scarce and capital abundant, so:
"attention was centered on labour-saving mechanisms, such as those of Kay and Paul in the textile industries; and the search continued until in the 'sixties and 'seventies it culminated in the appliances of Hargreaves, Arkwright and Crompton. By this time the nature of the economic problem was changing: population was beginning to press on resources. The quickening of the pace of enclosure and the breaking in of the waste were the outcome of a growing demand for food; Watt's first engine and the Duke's canals were the answer to a problem set by a shortage of coal...Towards the end of the century and later, when rates of interest were moving up, some (though by no means all) of the inventors turned their minds to capital-saving ends. The newer types of engine of Bull and Trevithick and the newer ways of transmitting power, dispensed with much costly equipment...It would be dangerous, however, to press these generalizations far. There was often a lag of years between an invention and its application, and it was this last, rather than the discovery itself, that was influenced by such things as a growing shortage of materials or a change in the supply of labor or capital."
Taking Ashton at his word that the effects of policies are often approximate and long term, what would be the long as opposed to the short run effects of artificially stimulating the amount of available capital, i.e., the Federal Reserve Bank's artificially increasing the amount of money?
In the short run, in which the ratio of labor to capital is constant, demand for labor will naturally increase in proportion to the increased capital due to the Fed's monetary expansion. In the short run, the production function is constant, so the increased supply of capital increases labor demand.
In the long run, however, the production function is no longer constant. Production and innovation will focus on cost saving with respect to the relatively most expensive resources. Since capital has been made artificially cheap, the cost saving on which industry focuses becomes, because of Fed policy, finding new methods to save on labor costs. Capital investment focuses on saving labor through new machinery or alternative uses of capital such as plant relocation.
This, rather than enhanced transportation and reduced trade impediment may explain the relocation of plants overseas. General Motors, for example, has moved the majority of its plants to Mexico yet still complains about labor costs with respect to the slim percentage of remaining US employees. It costs money to move plants overseas. The learning required to competently manage a foreign plant is significant. Errors with respect to cultural differences, misunderstanding of legal systems, political risk, transportation costs (themselves reflecting capital costs) all amount to non-labor costs that are financed through reductions in capital costs.
Thus, over the long run, the Federal Reserve Bank effectively increases firms' strategic focus on capital investment by reducing the cost of capital. This has the perverse effect of reducing labor demand while increasing firms' profitability. This in turn leads to a two-tier economy in which technological workers who benefit from employment in excessively capital intensive firms earn super-normal wages while a large number are excluded because excessive capital investment has made their services redundant.
Traditional macro-economic models do not assume change in technology due to monetary policy. But firms have moved plants overseas because Fed policy has reduced the cost of doing so because it has increased the advantage of utilizing capital over labor (because it reduces capital costs). Strategically planning firms shift their production functions to invest more in labor-replacing capital investment. This reduces wages over the long term even as it stimulates labor demand over the short term. The labor-stimulating effects of new money are reduced over the long term, and like a drug addiction, the amount of money needed to achieve full employment increases at an increasing rate.
Thus, Keynesian policy in the long run produces results that differ from those in the short run. If this is so, we would expect to see higher wages from Keynesian policies from the 1940s to the 1960s, and lower wages from the same policies thereafter. This is what has occurred. However, rather than question their own assumptions, Keynesian economists seek elaborate, often illogical excuses in areas like blaming trade, income and capital gains tax policy and free market processes for declining real wages. This in turn leads them to advocate further capital investment and injections of money that stimulate labor demand in the short run but add to further replacement of labor by capital investment in the long run. Perhaps this is what futurists refer to as a coming "singularity", the ultimate replacement of human agency with machinery because of super-acceleration of technological advance.
*T.S. Ashton, The Industrial Revolution 1760-1830. London: Oxford University Press, 1948, p. 91.
However, the long run effects of low interest rates may be opposite to the short run effects. There are strategic as well as stimulative effects of easy money.
The economic historian TS Ashton notices this in his little book The Industrial Revolution: 1760-1830.* Ashton notes that the course of innovation in 18th century Great Britain tended to respond to the availability of labor. Early innovation focused on harnessing the forces of nature. The success of this early innovation led to increasing population. But in the 1730s and '40s labor was still scarce and capital abundant, so:
"attention was centered on labour-saving mechanisms, such as those of Kay and Paul in the textile industries; and the search continued until in the 'sixties and 'seventies it culminated in the appliances of Hargreaves, Arkwright and Crompton. By this time the nature of the economic problem was changing: population was beginning to press on resources. The quickening of the pace of enclosure and the breaking in of the waste were the outcome of a growing demand for food; Watt's first engine and the Duke's canals were the answer to a problem set by a shortage of coal...Towards the end of the century and later, when rates of interest were moving up, some (though by no means all) of the inventors turned their minds to capital-saving ends. The newer types of engine of Bull and Trevithick and the newer ways of transmitting power, dispensed with much costly equipment...It would be dangerous, however, to press these generalizations far. There was often a lag of years between an invention and its application, and it was this last, rather than the discovery itself, that was influenced by such things as a growing shortage of materials or a change in the supply of labor or capital."
Taking Ashton at his word that the effects of policies are often approximate and long term, what would be the long as opposed to the short run effects of artificially stimulating the amount of available capital, i.e., the Federal Reserve Bank's artificially increasing the amount of money?
In the short run, in which the ratio of labor to capital is constant, demand for labor will naturally increase in proportion to the increased capital due to the Fed's monetary expansion. In the short run, the production function is constant, so the increased supply of capital increases labor demand.
In the long run, however, the production function is no longer constant. Production and innovation will focus on cost saving with respect to the relatively most expensive resources. Since capital has been made artificially cheap, the cost saving on which industry focuses becomes, because of Fed policy, finding new methods to save on labor costs. Capital investment focuses on saving labor through new machinery or alternative uses of capital such as plant relocation.
This, rather than enhanced transportation and reduced trade impediment may explain the relocation of plants overseas. General Motors, for example, has moved the majority of its plants to Mexico yet still complains about labor costs with respect to the slim percentage of remaining US employees. It costs money to move plants overseas. The learning required to competently manage a foreign plant is significant. Errors with respect to cultural differences, misunderstanding of legal systems, political risk, transportation costs (themselves reflecting capital costs) all amount to non-labor costs that are financed through reductions in capital costs.
Thus, over the long run, the Federal Reserve Bank effectively increases firms' strategic focus on capital investment by reducing the cost of capital. This has the perverse effect of reducing labor demand while increasing firms' profitability. This in turn leads to a two-tier economy in which technological workers who benefit from employment in excessively capital intensive firms earn super-normal wages while a large number are excluded because excessive capital investment has made their services redundant.
Traditional macro-economic models do not assume change in technology due to monetary policy. But firms have moved plants overseas because Fed policy has reduced the cost of doing so because it has increased the advantage of utilizing capital over labor (because it reduces capital costs). Strategically planning firms shift their production functions to invest more in labor-replacing capital investment. This reduces wages over the long term even as it stimulates labor demand over the short term. The labor-stimulating effects of new money are reduced over the long term, and like a drug addiction, the amount of money needed to achieve full employment increases at an increasing rate.
Thus, Keynesian policy in the long run produces results that differ from those in the short run. If this is so, we would expect to see higher wages from Keynesian policies from the 1940s to the 1960s, and lower wages from the same policies thereafter. This is what has occurred. However, rather than question their own assumptions, Keynesian economists seek elaborate, often illogical excuses in areas like blaming trade, income and capital gains tax policy and free market processes for declining real wages. This in turn leads them to advocate further capital investment and injections of money that stimulate labor demand in the short run but add to further replacement of labor by capital investment in the long run. Perhaps this is what futurists refer to as a coming "singularity", the ultimate replacement of human agency with machinery because of super-acceleration of technological advance.
*T.S. Ashton, The Industrial Revolution 1760-1830. London: Oxford University Press, 1948, p. 91.
Contrairimairi Is Sending a Daily Birth Certificate E-mail to Propagandists
Sorry, Mitchell,
Was just letting you know, I am starting a DAILY e-mail campaign to fill the FOX mailboxes. Greta has said she is SICK of getting these mails.......really ridiculous! If she is getting that many, people are letting her KNOW, and she is ignoring! I sent copies of two e-mails I have sent to Bill O, Greta, and Sean. I am going to send DAILY mails, and HOPE others will fill their mailboxes with this topic as well!
Mairi
Was just letting you know, I am starting a DAILY e-mail campaign to fill the FOX mailboxes. Greta has said she is SICK of getting these mails.......really ridiculous! If she is getting that many, people are letting her KNOW, and she is ignoring! I sent copies of two e-mails I have sent to Bill O, Greta, and Sean. I am going to send DAILY mails, and HOPE others will fill their mailboxes with this topic as well!
Mairi
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Barack Obama's Double Talk
The Wall Street Journal reports that Barack Obama has said that he aims to cut back government spending. This contrasts with his statement yesterday that he aims to increase government spending. Democrats have long argued that they can improve efficiency in government while maintaining existing programs. When I worked in the New York State Assembly Ways and Means Committee staff in 1991 this was precisely the committee's stated goal. However, as an analyst I quickly learned that real cuts were verboten. Upon reading about the principles of quality management several years later I learned that it is impossible for government agencies to cut costs and be run efficiently without a major overhaul of government processes, an overhaul that would require Herculean courage in the face of public sector unions' political pressure on elected officials.
It is good that President-elect Obama aims to make government more efficient, but it is unlikely that a politician lacking in executive or management experience will know where to begin. I would not take claims about making government more efficient very seriously. Rather, this kind of rhetoric will be accompanied by waste and mismanagement.
It is good that President-elect Obama aims to make government more efficient, but it is unlikely that a politician lacking in executive or management experience will know where to begin. I would not take claims about making government more efficient very seriously. Rather, this kind of rhetoric will be accompanied by waste and mismanagement.
Bush Deputy Press Secretary Fratto Avoids BOCOLB Question
America's Right (h/t Bob Robbins) notes:
"In a press briefing this morning, Deputy White House Press Secretary Tony Fratto ended the briefing by overtly avoiding a question regarding President-elect Barack Obama's birth certificate and demands made by the CEO of WorldNetDaily that a long-form document be released.
From the transcript (video also available at the link HERE):
This is from the Bush White House release:
"Q Good. The CEO of WorldNetDaily has called on the President-elect to release a birth certificate listing the hospital and names of parents. The White House believes that this would fully satisfy the constitutional requirement, don't you?
"MR. FRATTO: I don't think I have anything to say on that, Lester, and I think we're going to end it right there.
"Thank you.
"In a press briefing this morning, Deputy White House Press Secretary Tony Fratto ended the briefing by overtly avoiding a question regarding President-elect Barack Obama's birth certificate and demands made by the CEO of WorldNetDaily that a long-form document be released.
From the transcript (video also available at the link HERE):
This is from the Bush White House release:
"Q Good. The CEO of WorldNetDaily has called on the President-elect to release a birth certificate listing the hospital and names of parents. The White House believes that this would fully satisfy the constitutional requirement, don't you?
"MR. FRATTO: I don't think I have anything to say on that, Lester, and I think we're going to end it right there.
"Thank you.
Ron Polarik's Final Report
Contrairimairi has forwarded this link to Ron Polarik's blog. Polarik offers an in-depth analysis of the question of the forgery of the Obama birth certificate. I'm trying to understand if the judge who supposedly checked out the copy in one of the cases was able to assess Polarik's claims.
Polarik writes of President-elect Obama's birth certificate that the Obama campaign had posted on a left-wing blog:
"from the first time I saw the Daily Kos image, or what I now call, "Obama's bogus birth certificate," that something was just not right about it. As someone who has scanned hundreds of thousands of documents in his lifetime, I had a hard time accepting that this was an original scan image made from an original paper document. As Fate would have it, right then, on June 13, I was looking at the conclusive evidence that the text on this image had been graphically altered, or "manufactured," as my first blog post would claim."
Polarik writes that he was subjected to harrassment from pro-Obama goons, which sounds like business as usual for the thuggish Obama pro-closed-society camp.
Polarik quotes from Authenticate 360, a document security expert:
Birth certificates are generally used as “breeder” documents to gain other identity documents and to perpetuate fraud. But unlike Social Security cards, birth certificates are issued by hundreds, if not thousands, of entities, with little regard to consistency or security. An accurately forged birth certificate is a dangerous document, allowing the bearer significant access to everything from driver’s licenses to passports...The increasing availability and affordability of high-quality digital scanners and copiers is a constant threat to the authenticity of government issued documents.
Polarik writes:
"There is conclusive and irrefutable evidence that the COLB image created and distributed by Obama's campaign to the Daily Kos, Annenberg's Factcheck, and the St. Pete Times, Politifact, is, unquestionably, a false identification document. Furthermore, there is conclusive and irrefutable evidence that the photos taken by Annenberg's Factcheck, in collusion with the Obama campaign, are themselves, false identification documents, having been made from the same false identification document image, as well as from additional false identification documents created for the same purpose; namely, to proffer these false identification documents as true reproductions of a genuine, Hawaii-issued and certified, "Certification of Live Birth" document, and thereby, intentionally deceive the American public into believing that Barack Hussein Obama is a natural-born citizen of the United States, and thereby, fully qualified to become their President...
"...here we are, more than twenty months after Obama announced his candidacy for the Presidency, and nearly three weeks after the election, and Obama still refuses to show his real birth certificate!"
Polarik goes on to write:
"To validate my findings that the text in this COLB document image was the result of graphic alternations, and not a result of any printer or scanner artifacts, I made over 700 test scans and images using an actual paper COLB and different scanners that were subjected to different combinations of scanning and image parameters. I was finally able to replicate the Kos image so closely that other image experts thought it was the same Kos image, and not my “clone.”
"From this date forward, when I first discovered the evidence of tampering, and regardless of the unfamiliar format of the COLB and the questionable information it contained, I collected a great deal of additional evidence, that the scanned image alleged to be a true copy of Obama’s original COLB was forged, and that this altered image of an official state-issued document is nothing less than a false identification document as defined by Chapter 18, Section 1028 of the United States Code.
"All of my findings pertaining to a single source image and the four copies made from of it that are still posted on the four (4) websites, DAILYKOS.COM, FIGHTTHESMEARS.COM, FACTCHECK.ORG, and POLITIFACT.COM, as referred to and described above, are outlined in my Final Report"
After reviewing birth certificates that appeared on Fact Check and Daily Kos, Polarik concludes:
"I have thoroughly examined the photographs that FactCheck published, and have subsequently found clear and irrefutable evidence of tampering with both the alleged COLB objects photographed and with the photos themselves. One of those COLB objects was, in fact, a printout of a forged document image with the Seal superimposed onto it for the final pictures."
"With my experience and specialization in document imaging, my findings are conclusive and irrefutable that the COLB images posted by Obama to his campaign website, fightthesmears.com, to the dailykos.com, a pro-Obama blog, to FactCheck.org, a pro-Obama political research group, and to Politifact.org, are, in fact, image forgeries with the intent to defraud the American People into believing that these images were digitally scanned from Obama’s genuine, “original” birth certificate."
Of the certificate that appeared on the various pro-Obama sites, Polarik writes:
"Specifically, I saw that the text in this image bore the telltale signs of being graphically altered after the image was created. From June 13 onwards, the unfamiliar format of this document, and the questionable information that it contained, became tangential to my discovery that the scanned image alleged to be a true copy Obama's original COLB, was a forged document image. Now, with four months worth of research and supportive evidence behind me, I can now say, without any reservations, that my initial recognition of this image forgery was absolutely correct."
"...That is, the original text had been graphically altered from what was originally written there. The signs of this "overwriting" were patently obvious to me, yet, as I was soon to learn, not at all obvious to anyone else (anyone, that is, who had personally seen and analyzed this COLB image, who knew enough about how COLB's are made, and who wanted to prove to the public that it was a forged image)."
"What is particularly important for the reader to realize is that, after four months of controversy over a single image allegedly scanned from Obama's original birth certificate, that image is still the only one ever made. Any time anyone on the Left is asked the birth certificate question, what we get back is a rhetorical question, like "Do you really think that a US Senator running for President would fake his own birth certificate?" How come they never ask why, with over $600 million dollars collected in campaign contributions, the Obama campaign could only afford to produce one lousy-looking image copy?"
"...NO, it was never intended to be a high quality image, which is how "high resolution" should be defined...Why is this discussion relevant to spotting a potential image forgery? Because, a forger knows that the evidence of graphical manipulation is more likely to be detected in a larger image of higher quality than in a smaller image of lower quality...
"No matter how many challenges to my conclusions have come my way, I have never wavered from the inescapable truth, that an image of someone's real COLB had been markedly altered to look like it belonged to Obama. Or so the forgery conspirators thought.
"To summarize, there was one, original source image that was forged, and four copies of this source image were distributed to (1) the pro-Obama Daily Kos blog, (2) Obama's Fight The Smears campaign website, (3) Annenberg's Factcheck website, and lastly, the St. Petersburg times Politifact website...
"The forgery began its life as an actual scan of a real, 2007 Hawaiian "Certificate of Live Birth," (COLB) that belonged to someone other than Obama (No, not his sister). The image acquired by the scanner was then saved as a JPG file. This is the file that was sent to the person who would do the actual forging. Whoever that person was, he or she was sent the information that was to go on the image. I doubt that the forger was the same person who did the scan (or scans, plural. In my analyses, I discovered that there had to be more than one COLB image used to make the forgery). Whoever did the scan did not have Obama's real birth certificate on hand, nor did he or she pull the birth information out of thin air. Only Obama, himself, knows the full truth of his birth origin, and only Obama would know which parts of it needed to be "modified." Somehow, and by some mean, that information needed to be relayed to the forger.
"The most salient point about the person who created the forgery (a person I dubbed, "Dr. X") is that he or she was not very diligent in its construction, even though the process used was sound. The original image, that served as the basis for the forgery, was made from a scan of a real, 2007 COLB that belonged to someone other than Obama (No, not his sister). This image acquired by the scanner was then saved as a GIF file (an image format different from the JPG format of the four image copies posted online). This GIF image was then imported into a graphics program (NOT Photoshop) where the existing text was covered over with portions of the background pattern, and on top of that, in the spaces where the original text formerly information appeared, fraudulent information was typed in to make the image LOOK like it was Obama's COLB. I say, "fraudulent" information, because if it were true, then Obama would have had no reason to refuse showing a real, paper copy of his COLB from Day One."
"Three months later, no other "reporters" have ever received a copy of this "birth certificate" image, or any other birth certificate image, for that matter, from Tommy Vietor or any one else. To reiterate, there has been one, and only one, image alleged to have been scanned from Obama's "original birth certificate," and that the only people alleged to have received a copy of this document image from the Obama Campaign have been (1) Markos Moulitsas, the creator of the Daily Kos, a pro-Obama blog, (2) FactCheck, a pro-Obama political research group, and (3) Politifact."
"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. 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."
"Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”
Polarik goes on to discuss additional analyses. He concludes:
"To put it bluntly, the Factcheck photos have been "Frankensteined," just as the Factcheck scan image was cobbled together with the parts of different COLBs. The use of the term, "document" is simply for expediency sake, as no, single "real" document was used for these photos or for the scan image."
All of this is going to take some time to digest. I suggest that you start reading what Polarik says as I am.
Polarik writes of President-elect Obama's birth certificate that the Obama campaign had posted on a left-wing blog:
"from the first time I saw the Daily Kos image, or what I now call, "Obama's bogus birth certificate," that something was just not right about it. As someone who has scanned hundreds of thousands of documents in his lifetime, I had a hard time accepting that this was an original scan image made from an original paper document. As Fate would have it, right then, on June 13, I was looking at the conclusive evidence that the text on this image had been graphically altered, or "manufactured," as my first blog post would claim."
Polarik writes that he was subjected to harrassment from pro-Obama goons, which sounds like business as usual for the thuggish Obama pro-closed-society camp.
Polarik quotes from Authenticate 360, a document security expert:
Birth certificates are generally used as “breeder” documents to gain other identity documents and to perpetuate fraud. But unlike Social Security cards, birth certificates are issued by hundreds, if not thousands, of entities, with little regard to consistency or security. An accurately forged birth certificate is a dangerous document, allowing the bearer significant access to everything from driver’s licenses to passports...The increasing availability and affordability of high-quality digital scanners and copiers is a constant threat to the authenticity of government issued documents.
Polarik writes:
"There is conclusive and irrefutable evidence that the COLB image created and distributed by Obama's campaign to the Daily Kos, Annenberg's Factcheck, and the St. Pete Times, Politifact, is, unquestionably, a false identification document. Furthermore, there is conclusive and irrefutable evidence that the photos taken by Annenberg's Factcheck, in collusion with the Obama campaign, are themselves, false identification documents, having been made from the same false identification document image, as well as from additional false identification documents created for the same purpose; namely, to proffer these false identification documents as true reproductions of a genuine, Hawaii-issued and certified, "Certification of Live Birth" document, and thereby, intentionally deceive the American public into believing that Barack Hussein Obama is a natural-born citizen of the United States, and thereby, fully qualified to become their President...
"...here we are, more than twenty months after Obama announced his candidacy for the Presidency, and nearly three weeks after the election, and Obama still refuses to show his real birth certificate!"
Polarik goes on to write:
"To validate my findings that the text in this COLB document image was the result of graphic alternations, and not a result of any printer or scanner artifacts, I made over 700 test scans and images using an actual paper COLB and different scanners that were subjected to different combinations of scanning and image parameters. I was finally able to replicate the Kos image so closely that other image experts thought it was the same Kos image, and not my “clone.”
"From this date forward, when I first discovered the evidence of tampering, and regardless of the unfamiliar format of the COLB and the questionable information it contained, I collected a great deal of additional evidence, that the scanned image alleged to be a true copy of Obama’s original COLB was forged, and that this altered image of an official state-issued document is nothing less than a false identification document as defined by Chapter 18, Section 1028 of the United States Code.
"All of my findings pertaining to a single source image and the four copies made from of it that are still posted on the four (4) websites, DAILYKOS.COM, FIGHTTHESMEARS.COM, FACTCHECK.ORG, and POLITIFACT.COM, as referred to and described above, are outlined in my Final Report"
After reviewing birth certificates that appeared on Fact Check and Daily Kos, Polarik concludes:
"I have thoroughly examined the photographs that FactCheck published, and have subsequently found clear and irrefutable evidence of tampering with both the alleged COLB objects photographed and with the photos themselves. One of those COLB objects was, in fact, a printout of a forged document image with the Seal superimposed onto it for the final pictures."
"With my experience and specialization in document imaging, my findings are conclusive and irrefutable that the COLB images posted by Obama to his campaign website, fightthesmears.com, to the dailykos.com, a pro-Obama blog, to FactCheck.org, a pro-Obama political research group, and to Politifact.org, are, in fact, image forgeries with the intent to defraud the American People into believing that these images were digitally scanned from Obama’s genuine, “original” birth certificate."
Of the certificate that appeared on the various pro-Obama sites, Polarik writes:
"Specifically, I saw that the text in this image bore the telltale signs of being graphically altered after the image was created. From June 13 onwards, the unfamiliar format of this document, and the questionable information that it contained, became tangential to my discovery that the scanned image alleged to be a true copy Obama's original COLB, was a forged document image. Now, with four months worth of research and supportive evidence behind me, I can now say, without any reservations, that my initial recognition of this image forgery was absolutely correct."
"...That is, the original text had been graphically altered from what was originally written there. The signs of this "overwriting" were patently obvious to me, yet, as I was soon to learn, not at all obvious to anyone else (anyone, that is, who had personally seen and analyzed this COLB image, who knew enough about how COLB's are made, and who wanted to prove to the public that it was a forged image)."
"What is particularly important for the reader to realize is that, after four months of controversy over a single image allegedly scanned from Obama's original birth certificate, that image is still the only one ever made. Any time anyone on the Left is asked the birth certificate question, what we get back is a rhetorical question, like "Do you really think that a US Senator running for President would fake his own birth certificate?" How come they never ask why, with over $600 million dollars collected in campaign contributions, the Obama campaign could only afford to produce one lousy-looking image copy?"
"...NO, it was never intended to be a high quality image, which is how "high resolution" should be defined...Why is this discussion relevant to spotting a potential image forgery? Because, a forger knows that the evidence of graphical manipulation is more likely to be detected in a larger image of higher quality than in a smaller image of lower quality...
"No matter how many challenges to my conclusions have come my way, I have never wavered from the inescapable truth, that an image of someone's real COLB had been markedly altered to look like it belonged to Obama. Or so the forgery conspirators thought.
"To summarize, there was one, original source image that was forged, and four copies of this source image were distributed to (1) the pro-Obama Daily Kos blog, (2) Obama's Fight The Smears campaign website, (3) Annenberg's Factcheck website, and lastly, the St. Petersburg times Politifact website...
"The forgery began its life as an actual scan of a real, 2007 Hawaiian "Certificate of Live Birth," (COLB) that belonged to someone other than Obama (No, not his sister). The image acquired by the scanner was then saved as a JPG file. This is the file that was sent to the person who would do the actual forging. Whoever that person was, he or she was sent the information that was to go on the image. I doubt that the forger was the same person who did the scan (or scans, plural. In my analyses, I discovered that there had to be more than one COLB image used to make the forgery). Whoever did the scan did not have Obama's real birth certificate on hand, nor did he or she pull the birth information out of thin air. Only Obama, himself, knows the full truth of his birth origin, and only Obama would know which parts of it needed to be "modified." Somehow, and by some mean, that information needed to be relayed to the forger.
"The most salient point about the person who created the forgery (a person I dubbed, "Dr. X") is that he or she was not very diligent in its construction, even though the process used was sound. The original image, that served as the basis for the forgery, was made from a scan of a real, 2007 COLB that belonged to someone other than Obama (No, not his sister). This image acquired by the scanner was then saved as a GIF file (an image format different from the JPG format of the four image copies posted online). This GIF image was then imported into a graphics program (NOT Photoshop) where the existing text was covered over with portions of the background pattern, and on top of that, in the spaces where the original text formerly information appeared, fraudulent information was typed in to make the image LOOK like it was Obama's COLB. I say, "fraudulent" information, because if it were true, then Obama would have had no reason to refuse showing a real, paper copy of his COLB from Day One."
"Three months later, no other "reporters" have ever received a copy of this "birth certificate" image, or any other birth certificate image, for that matter, from Tommy Vietor or any one else. To reiterate, there has been one, and only one, image alleged to have been scanned from Obama's "original birth certificate," and that the only people alleged to have received a copy of this document image from the Obama Campaign have been (1) Markos Moulitsas, the creator of the Daily Kos, a pro-Obama blog, (2) FactCheck, a pro-Obama political research group, and (3) Politifact."
"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. 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."
"Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”
Polarik goes on to discuss additional analyses. He concludes:
"To put it bluntly, the Factcheck photos have been "Frankensteined," just as the Factcheck scan image was cobbled together with the parts of different COLBs. The use of the term, "document" is simply for expediency sake, as no, single "real" document was used for these photos or for the scan image."
All of this is going to take some time to digest. I suggest that you start reading what Polarik says as I am.
Bob Robbins Asks President-Elect Obama: What's Wrong with This Picture
I just received the following e-mail from Bob Robbins:
>WHAT’S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE ?
... Sorry to bother you, Mr. Obama, Sir?
Excuse me, Mr. Obama, ... I mean President-elect Obama, sir. Um, ... I know you are busy, and important, ... and stuff.
I mean, ... running for president is very important and, ... umm, ... ah, ... I hate to bother you. I’ll only take a minute, OK?
See, … I have these missing pieces that are holding me up, and I was wondering sir, if you could take time out of your busy schedule and help me out. You know, - … no big deal, … just some loose ends and things.
I can't seem to get some information I need to wrap this up. These things seem to either be “locked” or “not available”. I'm sure it's just some oversight or glitch, or something ....... So, if you could you tell me where these things are .....
I, er,… ah, … I . . . have them written down here somewhere, ... oh, wait. Sorry about the smears. It was raining out. I'll just read it to you.
Could you help me please find these things, sir?
1. Occidental College records -- Not released
2. Columbia College records -- Not released
3. Columbia Thesis paper -- Not available, locked down by faculty
4. Harvard College records -- Not released, locked down by faculty
5. Selective Service Registration – Questionable, … at best (under review)
6. Medical records -- Not released … (except for a one page summary)
7. Illinois State Senate schedule – “Not available”
8. Law practice client list – “Not released”
9. Certified Copy of a valid original Birth certificate - - “Not released” (lawsuits pending)
10. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth – “Not released” (lawsuits pending)
11. Harvard Law Review articles published -- None
12. University of Chicago scholarly articles -- None
13. Your Record of baptism -- Not released or “Not available”
14. Your Illinois State Senate records —“Not available”
>WHAT’S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE ?
... Sorry to bother you, Mr. Obama, Sir?
Excuse me, Mr. Obama, ... I mean President-elect Obama, sir. Um, ... I know you are busy, and important, ... and stuff.
I mean, ... running for president is very important and, ... umm, ... ah, ... I hate to bother you. I’ll only take a minute, OK?
See, … I have these missing pieces that are holding me up, and I was wondering sir, if you could take time out of your busy schedule and help me out. You know, - … no big deal, … just some loose ends and things.
I can't seem to get some information I need to wrap this up. These things seem to either be “locked” or “not available”. I'm sure it's just some oversight or glitch, or something ....... So, if you could you tell me where these things are .....
I, er,… ah, … I . . . have them written down here somewhere, ... oh, wait. Sorry about the smears. It was raining out. I'll just read it to you.
Could you help me please find these things, sir?
1. Occidental College records -- Not released
2. Columbia College records -- Not released
3. Columbia Thesis paper -- Not available, locked down by faculty
4. Harvard College records -- Not released, locked down by faculty
5. Selective Service Registration – Questionable, … at best (under review)
6. Medical records -- Not released … (except for a one page summary)
7. Illinois State Senate schedule – “Not available”
8. Law practice client list – “Not released”
9. Certified Copy of a valid original Birth certificate - - “Not released” (lawsuits pending)
10. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth – “Not released” (lawsuits pending)
11. Harvard Law Review articles published -- None
12. University of Chicago scholarly articles -- None
13. Your Record of baptism -- Not released or “Not available”
14. Your Illinois State Senate records —“Not available”
Obama Eligibility Issues
I just received the following e-mail to propagandist media outlets from Bob Robbins. Unfortunately for Bob's ulcer, he still believes that they are mass or mainstream media as opposed to propagandists:
>Please report on these activities. I beg of you - for the good of the country! This is probably the biggest story since the beginning of television, and you've almost totally ignored it. Even if it turns out good for Obama, there is a huge story in the number of people who are deeply concerned about this and the number and quality of lawsuits in-work with more to come. Report on THAT.
There are two different lawsuits active at the US Supreme Court right now. One is scheduled for a full conference of all nine judges on December 5. Another is awaiting response from the Obama camp by December 1. So far, Obama has resisted all attempts by journalists and courts to obtain information. He refuses to supply any verifiable data relative to his birth or citizenship. To millions of Americans, that sure looks like he's hiding something!
The only available documents are posted on websites as photographs or “scans” of purported real documents. The existence of or veracity of these real documents have been in question for some time. As of this weekend, technical analysis completed and underway have revealed, with very little room for error, that these documents have been forged or substantially altered.
Dear reporter, journalist, newscaster, commentator or whatever you wish to be called; - THIS IS NEWS!
No specific facts of the situation are above dispute - either pro or con - but the abundance of credible information and the high level of legal activity make this an important topic. Not only should you be reporting it, but you should be involved in significant investigative journalism.
How can you promote your role as a fair and balanced information source when you do not even mention these critical activities? And, many of us watching and listening to you don’t buy for a second that this is because the results aren’t final yet. You always report on many other significant activities “in progress”.
Continued silence is not helping anyone. You are not only allowing, but aiding and abetting a great sore to fester. Better to address it sooner than later. And, it will NOT go away by itself. It will likely only get bigger and bigger.
Please pass this on to many others, blogs, etc., and ask them to ALSO send copies to Fox News, as well as to send Cc and Bcc copies to numerous other recipients.
>Please report on these activities. I beg of you - for the good of the country! This is probably the biggest story since the beginning of television, and you've almost totally ignored it. Even if it turns out good for Obama, there is a huge story in the number of people who are deeply concerned about this and the number and quality of lawsuits in-work with more to come. Report on THAT.
There are two different lawsuits active at the US Supreme Court right now. One is scheduled for a full conference of all nine judges on December 5. Another is awaiting response from the Obama camp by December 1. So far, Obama has resisted all attempts by journalists and courts to obtain information. He refuses to supply any verifiable data relative to his birth or citizenship. To millions of Americans, that sure looks like he's hiding something!
The only available documents are posted on websites as photographs or “scans” of purported real documents. The existence of or veracity of these real documents have been in question for some time. As of this weekend, technical analysis completed and underway have revealed, with very little room for error, that these documents have been forged or substantially altered.
Dear reporter, journalist, newscaster, commentator or whatever you wish to be called; - THIS IS NEWS!
No specific facts of the situation are above dispute - either pro or con - but the abundance of credible information and the high level of legal activity make this an important topic. Not only should you be reporting it, but you should be involved in significant investigative journalism.
How can you promote your role as a fair and balanced information source when you do not even mention these critical activities? And, many of us watching and listening to you don’t buy for a second that this is because the results aren’t final yet. You always report on many other significant activities “in progress”.
Continued silence is not helping anyone. You are not only allowing, but aiding and abetting a great sore to fester. Better to address it sooner than later. And, it will NOT go away by itself. It will likely only get bigger and bigger.
Please pass this on to many others, blogs, etc., and ask them to ALSO send copies to Fox News, as well as to send Cc and Bcc copies to numerous other recipients.
Obama Advocates Inflation, Big Government
The Wall Street Journal reports that Barack Obama is arguing for deficit spending and a sharp increase in government.
The Journal's Jon Hilsenrath and Jonathan Weisman report that President-elect Obama includes in his spending and stimulus plan:
"a list of priorities that included: creating 2.5 million jobs, and spending on roads, bridges, schools and clean-energy programs. Jason Furman, the Obama campaign's economic policy director, briefed Democratic leaders and conservative "Blue Dog Democrats" last week on the shape of the proposed stimulus, according to senior House aides...
"...The advisers Mr. Obama named on Monday hail from the centrist part of the Democratic Party. During the Clinton years they played an important role in turning a budget deficit into a surplus. Now they argue the worsening economy requires steep deficit spending."
There is considerable question as to what the current economic malaise really is. In the 1930s the Fed (not with the support of Herbert Hoover, as many people believe) decided to contract the money supply (i.e., raise interest rates), which led to the stock market crash, subsequent bank failures and unemployment. Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed Marriner Eccles to be Fed chairman, and he began to re-inflate. In 1935 and 1936 there was a bull market in stocks. In 1936 Eccles in effect tightened again, to the chagrin of the Roosevelt administration, and there was a second crash in 1937, leading to a market bottom. The re-inflation associated with World War II led to a subsequent 65 year inflation that continues.
In the current situation there has been no cutback in the money supply. Interest rates are at all time lows. The excessive liquidity of the Bush years had led to recklessness among bankers, to include both low-quality lending to sub-prime borrowers and willingness to provide credit guarantees, swaps or derivatives concerning those loans across financial institutions. From what I can gather, few bankers were able to assess the risk of the swaps or derivatives which they transacted, and they panicked this year, leading to their unwillingness to lend. This kind of psychological reaction to risk can be undone by adding a few extra shots of heroine. The Fed has added a few kilos.
Banks have slowed lending because of their panicked reaction to their own incompetence. Lending leads to increased circulation of money, which economists call velocity. Velocity increases the amount of money in circulation, because when a borrower deposits the loan, the bank can lend out that deposit. A shift in velocity can cause a short term reduction in the amount of money and a slowdown in economic activity. The velocity of money probably fell during the past few months of the recent bankers' psychological panic. However, it is important to note that not many (if any) commercial banks have failed. This contrasts with the Great Depression, when a large number of banks failed. AIG, an insurance company which owed money to banks was not allowed to fail, so the Fed took action several steps away.
I do not believe that the Fed was able to assess either the risk or the necessity of bailing out AIG or Bear Stearns, nor of the likelihood of Citibank's failure. This was done by guesswork akin to how an investor decides on how to invest in a stock. Someone once said that throwing a dart at a newspaper is as good a way to choose a stock as what portfolio managers do, and the quality of the Fed's decision making is probably even worse than that.
The bailout took two forms. First, a large amount of money was borrowed and used to purchase the complex derivatives from investors. This not only protected the economy but also the well being of a wide range of wealthy investors, including many in foreign countries who have no direct effect on the United States's economy. Again, the actions that the Fed has been taking have been several steps removed from any important economic effects on the nation and have the advantage, much to the pleasure of the propaganda outlets, of helping wealthy investors, the Ochs Sulzbergers, Rupert Murdoch, etc.
Second, the Fed created a large amount of new money and deposited it in the various commercial banks by purchasing bonds. This contrasts with the Great Depression, where the Fed cut back on the money supply. In other words, the situation now may have surface behavior in common with the Great Depression, but little else. So far, it seems to bear the same relation to an actual bank run as as a Hollywood movie's depiction of an earthquake is to a real earthquake. Of course, many billionaires have received direct income transfers in the name of helping the poor...or have the Keynesians dropped that pretense and just started saying what they've really meant all the time---the wealthy should be subsidized via the stock market at the expense of workers and the poor, who should have reduced wages and opportunities?
The result of credit expansion is normally twofold. The average person pays higher prices, and stockholders and large borrowers, i.e., the wealthy (not the young and poor as William Greider incompetently claims in his book Secrets of the Temple ) gain. Stockholders gain because lower interest rates increase the present value of future earnings--a lower interest rate discounts the future revenue stream less and so increases shareholder wealth. Borrowers (to include large corporations, real estate developers, hedge funds and the like) gain because interest payments are reduced and inflation reduces the value of the loan in the future. In contrast, poor people who cannot borrow because they aren't credit worthy, pensioners, the elderly who have anything more than social security but are not big stock market investors (i.e., the lower middle class elderly) pay through higher prices. Old ladies begin to eat cat food while William Greider's buddies on Wall Street see higher returns. The Democrats used to claim that this process helps the poor, and Barack Obama reinvents this tradition, as opposed to the Republican tradition of not claiming this but doing it anyway.
Obama's solution to this problem is to further enhance the amount of borrowing and inflation. His advisers are Keynesians (as are Bush's, there is no difference there) and they advocate several nonsensical ideas. First, you get the government to spend more. This in turn accelerates velocity and "stimulates" the economy. For instance, you have people dig ditches and then fill them up again, and Keynesian economists believe that this is good for the economy because demand has been stimulated. They do not contemplate that wealth is not money but real goods, and government does not produce goods that the public generally wants. As well, their assessment of a decline in "aggregate demand" depends on the existence and neutrality of the slowdown. It is not clear that there really is a slowdown. Rather, the banks may have exaggerated the risk of the derivatives in their own minds, and when they settle down there will be increased velocity. This will be an inflationary period in that case because the amount of reserves that Bush has created has been immense.
I have previously argued that George Bush = Barack Obama and we can see this in Obama's plan for a stimulus package. Obama aims to further increase already enormous federal deficits, increase the already massive increase in monetary expansion and encourage government to engage in boondoggles. Bush squandered, Obama will squander more.
Macro-economics, in which government policy makers are trained, is akin to sociology, psychiatry and theory-y management, the package of quackery that the twentieth century concocted to shore up big government, Wall Street and the Progressives' strategy of convincing the public that big government, which is the chief reason that big business exists, is necessary to regulate big business. Government has been so successful in regulating big business that big businesses like Citibank get $25 billion bailouts while small businesses get to suffer from the inflation. Sounds to me like the Bush-Obama plan is to kill small business in the interest of big.
The inflationary plan that Obama offers is just the same as the inflationary Bush plan. We can look forward to continued decline in the real economy and declining real wages coupled with inflation. Smart people will not rely on the dollar and think in terms of hard assets or going into debt, i.e., mimicking real estate moguls like the Pritzkers (Obama's chief backers), hedge fund managers and the like. It's been a nice ride for the dollar, but I would not want to be holding cash during the Obama administration. It's going to be a big payday for the Pritzkers.
Howard S. Katz responds
Dear Mitchell,
I define velocity of money as (nominal) GDP divided by the money supply.
GDP measures the amount of wealth produced. Hence it measures the total amount of money changing hands per year. Divide this by the money supply and you have the rate at which the average dollar changes hands.
Defined this way velocity is very stable, and there is no evidence that it has fallen.
Howie
The Journal's Jon Hilsenrath and Jonathan Weisman report that President-elect Obama includes in his spending and stimulus plan:
"a list of priorities that included: creating 2.5 million jobs, and spending on roads, bridges, schools and clean-energy programs. Jason Furman, the Obama campaign's economic policy director, briefed Democratic leaders and conservative "Blue Dog Democrats" last week on the shape of the proposed stimulus, according to senior House aides...
"...The advisers Mr. Obama named on Monday hail from the centrist part of the Democratic Party. During the Clinton years they played an important role in turning a budget deficit into a surplus. Now they argue the worsening economy requires steep deficit spending."
There is considerable question as to what the current economic malaise really is. In the 1930s the Fed (not with the support of Herbert Hoover, as many people believe) decided to contract the money supply (i.e., raise interest rates), which led to the stock market crash, subsequent bank failures and unemployment. Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed Marriner Eccles to be Fed chairman, and he began to re-inflate. In 1935 and 1936 there was a bull market in stocks. In 1936 Eccles in effect tightened again, to the chagrin of the Roosevelt administration, and there was a second crash in 1937, leading to a market bottom. The re-inflation associated with World War II led to a subsequent 65 year inflation that continues.
In the current situation there has been no cutback in the money supply. Interest rates are at all time lows. The excessive liquidity of the Bush years had led to recklessness among bankers, to include both low-quality lending to sub-prime borrowers and willingness to provide credit guarantees, swaps or derivatives concerning those loans across financial institutions. From what I can gather, few bankers were able to assess the risk of the swaps or derivatives which they transacted, and they panicked this year, leading to their unwillingness to lend. This kind of psychological reaction to risk can be undone by adding a few extra shots of heroine. The Fed has added a few kilos.
Banks have slowed lending because of their panicked reaction to their own incompetence. Lending leads to increased circulation of money, which economists call velocity. Velocity increases the amount of money in circulation, because when a borrower deposits the loan, the bank can lend out that deposit. A shift in velocity can cause a short term reduction in the amount of money and a slowdown in economic activity. The velocity of money probably fell during the past few months of the recent bankers' psychological panic. However, it is important to note that not many (if any) commercial banks have failed. This contrasts with the Great Depression, when a large number of banks failed. AIG, an insurance company which owed money to banks was not allowed to fail, so the Fed took action several steps away.
I do not believe that the Fed was able to assess either the risk or the necessity of bailing out AIG or Bear Stearns, nor of the likelihood of Citibank's failure. This was done by guesswork akin to how an investor decides on how to invest in a stock. Someone once said that throwing a dart at a newspaper is as good a way to choose a stock as what portfolio managers do, and the quality of the Fed's decision making is probably even worse than that.
The bailout took two forms. First, a large amount of money was borrowed and used to purchase the complex derivatives from investors. This not only protected the economy but also the well being of a wide range of wealthy investors, including many in foreign countries who have no direct effect on the United States's economy. Again, the actions that the Fed has been taking have been several steps removed from any important economic effects on the nation and have the advantage, much to the pleasure of the propaganda outlets, of helping wealthy investors, the Ochs Sulzbergers, Rupert Murdoch, etc.
Second, the Fed created a large amount of new money and deposited it in the various commercial banks by purchasing bonds. This contrasts with the Great Depression, where the Fed cut back on the money supply. In other words, the situation now may have surface behavior in common with the Great Depression, but little else. So far, it seems to bear the same relation to an actual bank run as as a Hollywood movie's depiction of an earthquake is to a real earthquake. Of course, many billionaires have received direct income transfers in the name of helping the poor...or have the Keynesians dropped that pretense and just started saying what they've really meant all the time---the wealthy should be subsidized via the stock market at the expense of workers and the poor, who should have reduced wages and opportunities?
The result of credit expansion is normally twofold. The average person pays higher prices, and stockholders and large borrowers, i.e., the wealthy (not the young and poor as William Greider incompetently claims in his book Secrets of the Temple ) gain. Stockholders gain because lower interest rates increase the present value of future earnings--a lower interest rate discounts the future revenue stream less and so increases shareholder wealth. Borrowers (to include large corporations, real estate developers, hedge funds and the like) gain because interest payments are reduced and inflation reduces the value of the loan in the future. In contrast, poor people who cannot borrow because they aren't credit worthy, pensioners, the elderly who have anything more than social security but are not big stock market investors (i.e., the lower middle class elderly) pay through higher prices. Old ladies begin to eat cat food while William Greider's buddies on Wall Street see higher returns. The Democrats used to claim that this process helps the poor, and Barack Obama reinvents this tradition, as opposed to the Republican tradition of not claiming this but doing it anyway.
Obama's solution to this problem is to further enhance the amount of borrowing and inflation. His advisers are Keynesians (as are Bush's, there is no difference there) and they advocate several nonsensical ideas. First, you get the government to spend more. This in turn accelerates velocity and "stimulates" the economy. For instance, you have people dig ditches and then fill them up again, and Keynesian economists believe that this is good for the economy because demand has been stimulated. They do not contemplate that wealth is not money but real goods, and government does not produce goods that the public generally wants. As well, their assessment of a decline in "aggregate demand" depends on the existence and neutrality of the slowdown. It is not clear that there really is a slowdown. Rather, the banks may have exaggerated the risk of the derivatives in their own minds, and when they settle down there will be increased velocity. This will be an inflationary period in that case because the amount of reserves that Bush has created has been immense.
I have previously argued that George Bush = Barack Obama and we can see this in Obama's plan for a stimulus package. Obama aims to further increase already enormous federal deficits, increase the already massive increase in monetary expansion and encourage government to engage in boondoggles. Bush squandered, Obama will squander more.
Macro-economics, in which government policy makers are trained, is akin to sociology, psychiatry and theory-y management, the package of quackery that the twentieth century concocted to shore up big government, Wall Street and the Progressives' strategy of convincing the public that big government, which is the chief reason that big business exists, is necessary to regulate big business. Government has been so successful in regulating big business that big businesses like Citibank get $25 billion bailouts while small businesses get to suffer from the inflation. Sounds to me like the Bush-Obama plan is to kill small business in the interest of big.
The inflationary plan that Obama offers is just the same as the inflationary Bush plan. We can look forward to continued decline in the real economy and declining real wages coupled with inflation. Smart people will not rely on the dollar and think in terms of hard assets or going into debt, i.e., mimicking real estate moguls like the Pritzkers (Obama's chief backers), hedge fund managers and the like. It's been a nice ride for the dollar, but I would not want to be holding cash during the Obama administration. It's going to be a big payday for the Pritzkers.
Howard S. Katz responds
Dear Mitchell,
I define velocity of money as (nominal) GDP divided by the money supply.
GDP measures the amount of wealth produced. Hence it measures the total amount of money changing hands per year. Divide this by the money supply and you have the rate at which the average dollar changes hands.
Defined this way velocity is very stable, and there is no evidence that it has fallen.
Howie
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
