The New Administration: The Strictest Ethics Rules Ever

From the early days of his campaign, Obama made with the flourish that, should he be elected, lobbyists would not be welcome in his new tone Washington, his Washington of change and hope. Soon after the election, Obama’s spokesman John Podesta made a great show of announcing that Obama was insisting on the “strictest ethics rules ever applied” to his ongoing choices for members of his administration and his transition team.

In the early November news conference, Podesta proudly proclaimed that Obama was so interested in distancing himself from the old, business-as-usual Washington that they didn’t care if they were excluding people of long Washington experience with their supposed strict ethics rules. Podesta sternly told reporters,

“I’ve heard the complaint that we’re leaving all these extra people on the side, that we’re leaving all the people that know everything out in the cold. So be it. That’s a commitment that is one the American people expect and one the President-elect made.”

Yet within weeks it became clear that this new ethical standard was merely so much window dressing. Now, lobbyists abound in Obama’s administration and have since day one. Not only that, but tax cheats seem to be particularly drawn to the new president.

Several high profile Obama appointees have had major tax issues chief of whom is Timothy Geithner, Obama’s new Secretary of Treasury. But, late last week, it also came to light that Obama’s choice to head the Department of Health and Human Services, Tom Daschle, seemed to have conveniently forgotten to claim a free car and driver as income on his taxes and had somehow made this tax faux pas for years.

Naturally, during the vetting process to be approved as the new HHS head, Daschle mysteriously “remembered” the oversight and “repaid” the IRS $101,943 which is the cost of the free limo service and the interest on the “accidentally” forgotten income tax.

And let us not forget that former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson had to withdraw his name for consideration as head of the the Department of Transportation because he is connected to illegal pay-to-play schemes in his state.

Then there are the many lobbyists that have joined the anti-lobbyist president in Washington.

Recently Politico detailed a list of some of the many lobbyists that Barack Obama has seen fit to “bend his rules” to allow into his administration. They find “at least a dozen” lobbyists have entered this purportedly anti-lobbyist administration.

Here is the list of lobbyists joining the Obama administration Politico came up with:

Eric Holder, attorney general nominee, was registered to lobby until 2004 on behalf of clients including Global Crossing, a bankrupt telecommunications firm.

Tom Vilsack, secretary of agriculture nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year on behalf of the National Education Association.

William Lynn, deputy defense secretary nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for defense contractor Raytheon, where he was a top executive.

William Corr, deputy health and human services secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until last year for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a non-profit that pushes to limit tobacco use.

David Hayes, deputy interior secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until 2006 for clients, including the regional utility San Diego Gas & Electric.

Mark Patterson, chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for financial giant Goldman Sachs.

Ron Klain, chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden, was registered to lobby until 2005 for clients, including the Coalition for Asbestos Resolution, U.S. Airways, Airborne Express and drug-maker ImClone.

Mona Sutphen, deputy White House chief of staff, was registered to lobby for clients, including Angliss International in 2003.

Melody Barnes, domestic policy council director, lobbied in 2003 and 2004 for liberal advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American Constitution Society and the Center for Reproductive Rights.

Cecilia Munoz, White House director of intergovernmental affairs, was a lobbyist as recently as last year for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group.

Patrick Gaspard, White House political affairs director, was a lobbyist for the Service Employees International Union.

Michael Strautmanis, chief of staff to the president’s assistant for intergovernmental relations, lobbied for the American Association of Justice from 2001 until 2005.

Doubtless this will be just the beginning.

Obama’s lip service to which he subsequently fails to adhere is nothing new. He has built a career on it. For decades in Chicago Obama used as a weapon with which to disarm his opponents his rhetoric of hope-n-change, his breathless exclamations that we all need to be working together. He’s claimed for a decade that he wants to reach across the aisle and work with anyone that wants to do so. Yet, he has no actual voting record to prove the rhetoric. And now, a simple declaration of "I won" is apparently his trump to any conservative disagreement. He has talked a great game, but every time it has come to crunch time, Obama always votes for an agenda that is strictly in keeping with the far left.

So, it is clear that his acclaimed rhetoric on ethics is in keeping with his long standing practice of issuing flowery speeches and then voting against his own words. After all, from what we’ve seen so far, Obama will hire anyone he wants quite regardless of his so-called “strict ethics.”

Lobbyists and tax cheats quite aside, this is definitely change we can believe in.

The Culture of Death Continues: AIDS Victims Given Death Sentences Courtesy of Obama

From Moe Lane at RedState:

Someone in Obama’s name sentenced AIDS victims to die.
I WANT A NAME.

(Via Instapundit) I am not exaggerating. We are dealing with the real world now, and in the real world you do not cavalierly and abruptly disrupt groups providing vitally critical medical assistance without ill result:

During Obama’s transition, Dr. Mark Dybul was initially asked to stay on as the coordinator of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) for several months until a replacement could be found and confirmed. Because Dybul was the main architect of the program and one of its guiding visionaries, few were surprised by the offer. With Ambassador Randall Tobias, Dybul organized the most staggeringly successful foreign assistance effort since the Marshall Plan — eventually helping support lifesaving AIDS therapy for more than 2 million people.

[snip]

By encouraging Dybul to stay until his successor was in place, the Obama administration displayed a generous spirit, as well as a practical concern for continuity in a vital program. Then, the day after the inauguration, Dybul received a call asking him to submit his resignation and to leave by the end of the day. There was no chance to reassure demoralized staffers, or PEPFAR teams abroad, or the confused health ministers of other nations. The only people who seemed pleased were a few blogging extremists, one declaring, “Dybul Out: Thank you, Hillary!!!”[*]

As in most political hit-and-run attacks, the perpetrator was not anxious to take credit. It seems unlikely to be Hillary Clinton herself — Dybul’s ultimate boss at the State Department — who had not even been confirmed when Dybul received his call. But someone at State or the White House determined that sacrificing Dybul would appease a few vocal, liberal interest groups. One high-ranking Obama official admitted that the decision was “political.” Yet the AIDS coordinator is not a typical political job, distributed as spoils, like some deputy assistant position at the Commerce Department. It involves directing a massive emergency operation to provide lifesaving drugs, through complex logistics, to some of the most distant places on Earth. And now that operation may be months without effective leadership — undermining morale, complicating interagency cooperation, delaying new prevention initiatives and postponing budget decisions.

Translation of that last paragraph: firing Dr. Dybul will make PEPFAR less effective. That means that people who might have been helped in time will not be; that means that people will end up dead much sooner than they might have been. But that was less important to somebody in the Obama administration than scoring domestic political points. Or going after a gay man who had the brazen effrontery to assist a Republican President in the task of saving innocent African lives.

I want the name of the partisan who decided that; and I want the name of the fool who recommended the partisan to President Obama; and I want to know why President Obama thought it a good idea to hire either.

Hey, if it was a justified firing, then there’s no reason not to be transparent, is there?

PS: You can acquaint yourself with Pepfar here. And, to head off the Left-apologists who think that you’re as bigoted as they are, here’s an interview where Dr. Dybul discusses why it’s important to stress a comprehensive approach to AIDS prevention. Remember that when you hear somebody “earnestly” complaining about his willingness to use condoms to fight the spread of the disease, particularly if you’ve never seen them post here before; seven will get you five that they’re actually incensed that he dared agree that abstinence awareness might be effective as well.

Yes, I do think that the people on the Left who are trying that particular trick are vile. What I haven’t decided yet is whether they’re more racist, or homophobic. Oh, well, embrace the healing power of “and.”

[*]Gerson didn’t include the link, but I thought that it’d be a shame not to show you what a racist who delights in the deaths of conveniently far-away foreigners looks like. Although I may be unfair, here: she might simply just not see them as being really real. You know. Like she is, or her friends. But probably not me, or you.

- + - + - + - + - + -

I can't decide if the liberals making these policy decisions are dowright evil or simply shortsighted. Don't they realize the ultimate consequence of their actions is LESS liberals in the future? Granted it's a generality, but as a rule, it's not conservatives lining up for abortions and while I do know SOME gay conservatives, they're few and far between. Let the incompetent vetting continue.

Bipartisanship and transparency my ass.

Official Kenyan National Assembly Report: Obama Son of This Soil

**UPDATED BELOW**

- + - + - + -

From the Kenyan National Assembly Official Report, dated November 5, 2008

http://www.bunge.go.ke/downloads/Tenth%20Parl%201st%20Session/Hansard/5.11.08A.pdf

Scroll through the document to pages 17 & 18:

POINT OF ORDER
HOUSE SHOULD ADJOURN TO DISCUSS ELECTION OF MR. BARRACK OBAMA

Ms. Odhiambo: On a point of order,Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir. It is not on this issue. I stand on a point of order under Standing Order No. 20 to seek leave for adjournment of the House to discuss the American presidential election results.

(Applause)

Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, the President-elect, Mr. Obama, is a son of the soil of this country. Every other country in this continent is celebrating the Obama win. It is only proper and fitting that the country which he originates from should show the same excitement, pomp and colour. I, therefore, seek leave of the House that we adjourn to discuss the issue.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order! Order! Ms. Odhiambo, Standing Order No.20 says:- "Any hon. Member may at any time rise in his place and seek leave to move the adjournment of the House for purposes of discussing a definite matter of urgent national importance." This means national "Kenyan" importance. The election of Senator Barrack Obama---

An hon. Member: It is President Obama!

Mr. Deputy Speaker: President-elect has not been sworn-in yet. The election of President-elect Obama is of utmost national importance to the United States of America. Ms. Odhiambo, you are a lawyer. You had better be very careful where you transgress between watching your own sovereignty and what can be interpreted in some quarters as some form of treason. We appreciate and respect him. We are happy and we were looking forward to his election. It is not a matter of urgent definite national importance to Kenya. In any case, whereas the ruling from the Chair would not have been any different, you are supposed to approach the Chair at least two hours in advance and give a notice of that information. Nonetheless, let us hold our horses. Let the excitement not make us look like American citizens. We are citizens of the sovereign Republic of Kenya.

(Applause)

Hon. Members, I think we had better take note of that and internalise it. We should know where our utmost loyalty is.

The Assistant Minister for Higher Education, Science and Technology (Mr. Kamama): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir. I just want to seek guidance from the Chair on this matter. Considering the fact that even His Excellency the President declared that tomorrow will be a national holiday to celebrate Obama's success, do you not think this is an urgent matter? So many man hours will be lost tomorrow because of this "Obama mania". I seek guidance on this matter.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, tell me what is so urgent that you really want to discuss? Do you want to discuss the speech of Obama? What do you want to discuss on this Floor? If it is the celebrations, His Excellency the President has made tomorrow a public holiday. The House is not open to any debate on the ruling of the Chair. Those are the rules under the Standing Orders of the Republic of Kenya. I do not know how it is in the American Congress but for the Republic of [Mr. Deputy Speaker] Kenya, the Chair has given a ruling on this and the matter is closed.

Mr. Affey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir. While I appreciate your ruling, I also wish to seek the indulgence of the Chair. Given the mood in the country, this morning, quite a number of us failed to ask our Questions because of the excitement in the country. For the first time, we have a leader of a great country in this world whose blood is Kenyan. For that matter, would I be in order to request you to allow me to ask my Question since I did not ask it in the morning.

Ms. Odhiambo: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, Ms. Odhiambo! The Chair of the Kenya National Assembly is on its feet. So, order. Mr. Affey, you approach the Chair and seek if you want a reinstatement of your Question in the formal manner, practice and traditions of this House. The Chair has got some communication to make. As far as the interest and happiness regarding the elections that have just been concluded in the United States of America are concerned, this will put that to rest. (Emphasis mine)

Interesting.

Maybe all those Kenyan officials are nutty conspiracy theorists too.

- + - + - + - + - + -

UPDATE: See also http://www.bunge.go.ke/downloads/Tenth%20Parl%201st%20Session/Hansard/20.01.09.pdf

Starting on page 25:

NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT UNDER STANDING ORDER NO.20

CONGRATULATIONS TO PRESIDENT OBAMA ON HIS INAUGURATION

Mr. Imanyara: Mr. Speaker, Sir, on a happier note and with your permission; pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order No.20, I rise to give notice of Motion for adjournment of the House in order to congratulate the citizens of the United States of America (USA) and the President-elect, Mr. Barack Husein Obama, on his impending inauguration as the 44th President of the USA. As I speak, the ceremony is underway.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, I have indicated this to the Leader of Government Business and he is in agreement.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, the impending inauguration of President Obama is a historic event which will be celebrated worldwide. It is indeed being celebrated worldwide. I have no doubt, being an American of Kenyan decent is a matter of our own national importance as stipulated in Standing Order No. 20.

(Applause)

Mr. Speaker, Sir, I, therefore, humbly request you to allocate time this afternoon for us to congratulate the President-elect of the USA. Mr. Speaker, Sir, I am sure those who support me will stand up.

(Several hon. Members stood up in their places)

Mr. Speaker: Order, hon. Members! I am satisfied that Mr. Gitobu Imanyara's Motion has the necessary support as laid out under Standing Order No. 20. Indeed, Mr. Gitobu Imanyara has complied with the provisions of paragraph 2 of that Standing Order in the sense that he has given to the Chair, prior, to the commencement of this sitting, two hours notice in writing. Given the level of interest that this matter has attracted in Kenya by way of public interest and comments, I am satisfied, therefore, that this is a matter of national importance and that it is definite and urgent. This is because, indeed, Kenyans must be associated with this moment of glory particulary in respect to the claimed linkage of the American President-elect to Kenya. Therefore, I will allocate this matter time to begin at 5.30 p.m. today. It will last one hour.

Hon. Members, I have heard a comment on that claimed linkage. I think during the debate, you will be able to assert positively that indeed, there is lineage between the American President-elect and Kenya.

And so the fight over Obama's allegiance begins.

How long until Kenya demands to be a "state" of the U.S.? Or even worse, the other way around? There is discussion of that very thing in this referenced document. Be sure to read through the pages following the above transcript. On pages 45 -46, there is discussion about Obama having the potential to be "running America" from lands allotted to him from his father.

Pay No Attention to That Man Behind the Curtain!

From FoxNews:


Obama: Quit Listening to Rush Limbaugh if You Want to Get Things Done

Obama warned Republicans to quit listening to Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats, during a White House discussion on his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.


WASHINGTON -- President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill today that they need to quit listening to radio king Rush Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration.

"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.

One White House official confirmed the comment but said he was simply trying to make a larger point about bipartisan efforts.

"There are big things that unify Republicans and Democrats," the official said. "We shouldn't let partisan politics derail what are very important things that need to get done."

That wasn't Obama's only jab at Republicans today.

While discussing the stimulus package with top lawmakers in the White House's Roosevelt Room, President Obama shot down a critic with a simple message.

"I won," he said, according to aides who were briefed on the meeting. "I will trump you on that."

The response was to the objection by Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) to the president's proposal to increase benefits for low-income workers who don't owe federal income taxes.

- + - + - + - + - + - + - + -

And, yes, I still have to write Part 2 of SPO, I know. I just have this crazy thing called a business that actually PAYS me to work, and it's been a tad out of hand the past couple of weeks. It's coming, I promise. Y'know. In case you were wondering.

Lobbyists are Bad ... Except When They're Not

That’s about the only way I can summarize the Obama Administration’s Janus-faced position on having lobbyists working for it:

Two days after introducing what he heralded as the most sweeping ethics rules in American history — ones that would “close the revolving door that lets lobbyists come into government freely” — President Barack Obama today waived those rules for his nominee for Deputy Secretary of Defense,William Lynn.

Until last fall, Lynn was a registered lobbyist for the defense contractor Raytheon.

“After consultation with counsel to the president,” said Director of the Office of Management of Budget Peter Orszag in a statement, “I hereby waive the requirements of Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Ethics Pledge of Mr. William Lynn. I have determined that it is in the public interest to grant the waiver given Mr. Lynn’s qualifications for his position and the current national security situation. I understand that Mr. Lynn will otherwise comply with the remainder of the pledge and with all preexisting government ethics rules.” (Emphasis mine)

So much then for one of the most hyped campaign promises Team Obama made during the 2008 election cycle. The HopeAndChange Administration, which promised us that it would clean up the ways of Washington and which touted its candidate’s manifest inexperience as proof that he has not been co-opted by the dirty ways of the nation’s capital has now made clear that contrary to its brand and public assurances, its motto will be “Business As Usual” on a whole host of matters.

Do the Obamaphiles feel betrayed yet? Do they at the very least hear the footsteps of impending betrayal sneaking up on them? Or is it no longer necessary to pretend to be pure as the driven snow now that there isn’t an election to contest in the near term?

Thank You

Thank you President George W. Bush

Tomorrow I return to business as usual. Part 2 of SCOTUS, POTUS, and Onus is next, but today ... sigh.

SCOTUS, POTUS, and Onus (Part 1)

Earlier this month, I wrote to my congressman for the first time. I figured, "hey, I spout my opinions off enough online - why don't I take my own advice and DO something about it, right?" And, of course, I received a completely canned response, which was expected I guess. I was disappointed though, as I've respected Rep. LaTourette and his voting record - since I've been paying attention anyway. He stood up against the bailout, which is all good in my book. I joined his facebook group, and posted a link to my blog post which, according to my stats page, someone from his office read.

My post about the experience resulted in a couple of emails - some with a typical Obot response ("When you come out of your mother's basement, Obama will still be president"), some that simply continued to state the previously proven erroneous facts ("He already posted his birth certificate online. Adjust your tin foil hat and get over it."), and lo and behold, some that asked questions. So I want to elaborate a little more on the issue and why I think some of the rumors floating around the internet right now are nothing more than distractions - distractions that may actually be intentional.

First, to say that there has been little to no media coverage of any of this is an understatement. I can count the number of times I've heard mention of Obama's natural born citizenship issue on television or radio on one hand - and every single time, it's been accompanied by chuckles or some comment about "right wing loons" or bloggers. (An aside - I think it's time America and the media came to realize that bloggers are no longer confined to geeky, unshowered, lonely men living with their mothers. Most of the bloggers I know are married, professional, well-educated, socially acceptable men and women. Although sometimes, I am unshowered so I guess I'll give them that.) I'm about 99% certain, however, that if this was an incoming Republican administration that the coverage would most assuredly be different. The media outlets would be falling over eachother trying to be the first to "scoop" the latest information.

Let me ask you a question.

If a SINGLE lawsuit had been filed during the election about Sarah Palin's constitutional eligibility to be (Vice) President of The United States (POTUS), do you think you'd have heard about it? Probably, depending how low it was on the court totem pole, right? What about if it was before the Supreme Court? Yeah, unless you live under a rock, you'd hear about it - it would be the breaking news every hour. What if there were, oh let's say over THIRTY lawsuits with FIVE of them at the Supreme Court level? Can you say "media frenzy"? She'd have been done in right then and there. I can just see Keith Olbermann salivating over that story, can't you? It wouldn't matter if the lawsuits were brought by death row inmates - they'd all be credible and there wouldn't be a seat available on any flight to Alaska with all the media flocking there to dig up information.

One more question. What if it was Barack Obama?

(crickets)

That's right. There are five lawsuits currently pending with the Supreme Court of The United States (SCOTUS) regarding Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility to be POTUS. The Right Side of Life is trying to keep up with the current status of all these suits nationwide, but as the list keeps growing, I'm not sure how successful they'll be. Yet, the only attention these suits are getting is from bloggers, and apparently we're ALL missing some critical DNA. Yep, even the attornies involved. All crazy. Even the ones who are (gasp!) democrats.

Ok, I lied. I have another question. How often is it acceptable for the judge in an active case to meet with a defendant behind closed doors, without attornies present? Yeah, just checking. Again, substitute the name "Palin" for "Obama" and tell me what the outrage would be. Granted, Chief Justice Roberts has some pretty solid job security, but if that meeting had taken place with a Republican administration or God forbid, Sarah Palin, it would have been political suicide for him and would never have happened. Sorry, I digress....

If you do some reading on these cases - which, by the way, I highly recommend if for no other reason than to educate yourself on the true constitutional requirements for the presidency - you'll find that the majority of them deal primarily with Obama's birth certificate (or the supposed lack thereof) and the allegations that he was born in Kenya, not Hawaii. While there may or may not be some truth to those allegations, I have a feeling that we may never know. And honestly, it doesn't matter.

Obama may be a lot of things, but he's not stupid. In fact, I think he's wicked smaht. This is a guy who taught constitutional law, for cryin' out loud. Are you going to tell me that he knew he was born in Kenya and still thought it was possible to run for president - and then knowingly posted a fraudulent substitute birth certificate on the internet? Maybe, maybe not. Either way, it was enough to satisfy his supporters, especially those who are ignorant enough of our legal code. But again, I don't think he's that stupid. Eventually, somebody somewhere would get their hands on the real thing, leaving Obama open to exposure or, even worse, blackmail. Although, given the public's general propensity to just shrug off anything negative regarding The One, who knows if exposure would even matter? But blackmail would. You can't tell me that Obama's not an egomaniac and a control freak (let's face it, most presidents probably are), so I doubt that he wouldn't have thought that through enough to know he would be giving up power, even if it was potentially behind the scenes.

But what if there was something else? What if, because of his constitutional law background, Obama DID know he was ineligible to run? When you want to throw a tracking dog off a scent, you give it another one to follow to confuse it, right? Let's just assume for a minute that Obama was telling the truth (for once) about his birthplace - although he might need to get his stories straight about which hospital he was born in. What better way to throw people off of the real issue than by getting them wrapped up in a phony one? By not releasing his long form birth certificate and going along with the governor of Hawaii's "sealing" of his documents, Obama is creating the illusion of impropriety, which I believe to be intentional. The media and the general public are convinced that anybody who believes his birthplace is really in question is nutty anyway, so when the official long form birth certificate is "accidentally" released and, WOW-LOOKY-THERE, it shows his actual birthplace as Hawaii ... any and every current and future lawsuit challenging his eligibility is immediately discredited, if they aren't already.

So if Obama was actually born in Hawaii as he claims, then there's no eligibility issue right?

Wrong.

The requirements for presidential eligibility are quite clear. A candidate must be a natural born citizen. Not just a citizen. Not a native citizen. Not a naturalized citizen. And no, they aren't the same thing. What's the difference?

Despite popular belief, the 14th Amendment does not convey the status of “natural born Citizen” in its text. It just conveys the status of “Citizen”. And it’s very clear that in the pre-amendment Constitution, the Framers made a distinction between a “Citizen” and a “natural born Citizen”. The requirement to be a Senator or Representative is “Citizen”, but the requirement to be President is “natural born Citizen”. Specifically:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”

But even as to this conveyance of citizenship, those who were responsible for drafting the 14th Amendment made it clear that - to them - the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant subject only to the jurisdiction thereof.

Dr. John Fonte, Senior Fellow of The Hudson Institute had this to say about the issue at a Congressional hearing on dual citizenship from September 29, 2005:

The authors in the legislative history, the authors of that language, Senator Lyman Trumbull said, ”When we talk about ’subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,’ it means complete jurisdiction, not owing allegiance to anybody else.” Senator Jacob Howard said that it’s ”a full and complete jurisdiction.”

This illustrates that Congress recently discussed the issue, and they can’t claim they were unaware. Moreover, the following discussion by the various 14th Amendment Framers took place on the Senate floor. Taken from P.A. Madison’s research at http://www.14thamendment.us/articles/anchor_babies_unconstitutionality.html (use his link for footnotes):

It is clear the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had no intention of freely giving away American citizenship to just anyone simply because they may have been born on American soil. Again, we are fortunate enough to have on the record the highest authority tell us, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee… and the one who inserted the phrase:

[T]he provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ’subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

Madison later continues with the greatest authority on the issue:

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment,
confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to
birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:

[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…[6] (Emphasis mine.)

It’s important to note this statement was issued by Bingham only months before the 14th Amendment was proposed.

We also get a clear cut textbook definition of natural born citizen vs. other types of citizenships here:

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

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

Now, from Obama's own website, Fight The Smears:

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. (Emphasis mine.)

There it is. Like it or not, rich or poor, great or strong, Democrat or Republican, Obama was born under the jurisdiction of Great Britain via Kenya. There is nothing conspiratorial about saying that. Obama is telling you his status was “governed” by a foreign jurisdiction. This is no theory. This is a fact.

And, believe it or not, there's more.

To be continued ....

Categorized in: "Are You Freaking Kidding Me??"

From Associated Press:

President George W. Bush on Tuesday declared an emergency in the District of Columbia that will let the nation's capital tap deeper into federal coffers for Barack Obama's inauguration.

Bush said that an emergency exists and ordered federal aid to supplement the $15 million in federal funds already appropriated for the event.

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said District of Columbia Mayor Adrian M. Fenty requested the emergency declaration on Jan. 7 because he decided that the crowds expected for the nation's 56th presidential inauguration would exceed the city's ability to protect the public.

If the extra money is needed, it will come from the Federal Emergency and Management Agency budget, Stanzel said.

In a statement, the White House said the assistance is available to the district for emergency measures to protect public health and safety.

Fenty and others have said millions could descend on Washington for the inauguration.

See that big red banner up there reflecting an estimated of our national debt? Yeah, that one. And when The One doesn't draw the crowd they're expecting (y'know, kind of like election night?) because of the waiting outside for three hours in bitterly and dangerously cold temperatures, no strollers, umpteen million closed roadways, etc.? Mmm hmm. It would seem I'll be paying for a ticket anyway. Good thing we can always count on the government to save us from ourselves.

Who knew that the NRA was a bunch of pansies?

The NRA Grassroots Hotline is 1-800-392-8683. Remember, if they tell you they are opposed to Holder, ask if they are going to score a vote and testify. The answer is “no.” They’re just going to send a letter.

Sources inside the National Rifle Association say the NRA has succumbed to pressure from Democrats to not actively oppose Eric Holder.

Holder has strident, well known anti-second amendment positions. Nonetheless, because the NRA likes to play nice with Democrats, they are going to roll over for Barack Obama on the Holder nomination instead of fighting for, well, the second amendment — their reason for being.

Harry Reid and Pat Leahy both have good NRA ratings on the second amendment. They will support Eric Holder. The NRA does not want to hurt their scores. Therefore they’ll make noises in opposition to Holder, but they will not score a vote for Holder to impact legislators’ rankings.

Pitiful sellouts.

Letter to the Joint Chiefs of Staff

From:

Dr. Douglas W. Schell
Chairman, Restore the CONSTITUTIONAL Republic

To:

The Joint Chiefs of Staff

“Sirs:

The United States is facing the worst Constitutional Crisis since South Carolina seceded from the Union. It could well split the military between those who will stand by the Constitution vs. those who stand by traitors in order to keep their military offices. The major difference is that the secession was covered by the media of the day but this crisis is being hidden by the media or when covered, much misinformation has been provided to deceive We the People. When we who know about this crisis try to BUY time on TV, we are refused.


WHO HAVE PROVEN TO BE TRAITORS?

1. The Electors failed to do their Constitutional duty after being educated as to the crisis.

2. On Jan 8, 2009, the entire Senate and House of Representatives dishonored their oath to sustain and defend the Constitution after also being educated about this crisis.

3. The Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court, are using all types of legal technicalities as an excuse not to keep their oath.


The ONLY group that is left to turn to is the military. If you fail us we have two choices left. First, we can submit to the fall of our Constitutional Republic and live under a New World Order or SECOND we can do as the Patriots did in 1776 and win back our liberties under God. I believe most retired military will take that position as I would. “Don’t Tread On Me” will be our theme like it was the former Patriots.

I spent four years as USAF Officer from 1963-1967. Then, I spent 7 years as an Officer in the Indiana Air National Guard while obtaining my Doctorate Degree in Business at Indiana University.

When I was Commissioned as a USAF ROTC Officer at Penn State University in March, 1963, I swore to “Uphold and Defend the Constitution of the USA against ALL enemies foreign and DOMESTIC so help me God.” I have always taken that oath seriously and feel it is still applicable even though I no longer serve in the USAF.

I KNOW that you took that same oath and hold it dear to your heart as I do. I also KNOW that implied within that oath is to follow all orders given by the President as Commander in Chief IF they are Constitutional. That oath clearly places loyalty to the Constitution above anyone who gives unlawful orders, including the POTUS.


BACKGROUND BRIEFING ON THE CRISIS WE FACE

There are three types of citizens.

First is the natural born. This person can run for President if in addition he/she is at least 35 years old and has lived in the USA for 10 years or more. The two relevant requirements to be natural born are listed below.

Second, is the native citizen. This person is born to at least one parent who is an American citizen.

Third, is to become a naturalized citizen through a legally defined process.

It is either the second or third category that Mr. Obama belongs in. In terms of elected office, all three types of citizens can legally run in EXCEPT for the office of POTUS.

THE PROBLEM is that Mr. Obama cannot be Commander in Chief and give any lawful orders to follow. Why? The Constitution REQUIRES that any POTUS be a natural born citizen which entails:

(1) being born on US soil and
(2) having both parents be USA citizens at the time of birth.

Mr. Obama meets neither of these two requirements. His father was a citizen of Kenya. He even admits this in his book. As such, he was a citizen of the British Empire. At that time (1961) one could not have duel citizenship. Citizenship followed the father.

Mr. Obama also was born in Kenya, not as falsely claimed in Hawaii. (Note from Lizzi: Post forthcoming on why this may or may not be true, but that the point is moot anyway)

Mr. Obama has spent many 1000s of dollars for law firms to make sure NO ONE sees his long form, original, vault birth certificate in Hawaii. The reason is???? We think it’s because the Hawaiian long form, original, vault birth certificate will show that he was physically born in Kenya. ALL WE HAVE ASKED FOR FROM OBAMA AND THE COURTS IS TO SEE THAT BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND HAVE IT TESTED BY A TEAM OF DOCUMENT FORENSIC SCIENTISTS.

The media has willingly deceived the public by claiming that the CERTIFICATE of BIRTH shows he was physically born in Hawaii. Such websites as FactFinder have willingly and knowingly deceived the public that Mr. Obama has been properly vetted.

I am the Chairman of www.restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.org. We have much information showing that what I’ve said above is true and accurate. The best place to start is at http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.org/index.php?board=124.0.

A RECENT SURVEY TAKEN BY THE ARMY TIMES INDICATED THAT OVER 60% OF ACTIVE MILITARY ARE NOT SURE WHETHER THEY CAN FOLLOW THE ORDERS OF MR. OBAMA. THIS IS UNHEARD OF. THIS IS BEFORE THE TRUTH ABOUT MR. OBAMA BEGINS TO SEEP OUT. Our military is way overextended as you well KNOW. One must have 100% confidence in the validity of orders given and by whom if we are to maintain our freedoms through military action.

It is now up to you to stand up and defend the Constitution against DOMESTIC enemies as you swore you would. How? I know what won’t work because we’ve already petitioned Congress, the Electors, President Bush, the Courts and the Main Stream Media. VP Cheney even broke the law on Jan 8, 2009 when he finished recording the Electoral votes of all 50 States. He was required by law to ask for any objections which can also come from citizens. He purposely failed to do this.

Many petitions for a Call to Order were sent by our volunteers to various Senators and Congressmen demanding a vetting. These too were totally ignored.

ACTIONS NEEDED TO BE TAKEN BY THE JCS.

IF you don’t take action before Jan 20, 2009, you will have proven yourselves to be unworthy to hold your commissions and will have broken a solemn oath you’ve made to defend the Constitution against ALL DOMESTIC enemies. These are hard words but are true words.

YOU ARE WE THE PEOPLE'S LAST HOPE FOR A PEACEFUL SETTLEMENT OF THIS CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS. OF ALL AMERICANS I’VE EVER KNOWN IN MY 67 YEARS, THE MILITARY IS THE MOST COURAGEOUS IN DEFENDING OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC TO THE EXTENT OF BEING WILLING TO GIVE UP ONE’S LIFE IF THAT BECOMES NECESSARY.

YOU MUST STAND UP TO AVOID WHAT I BELIEVE WILL BECOME A BLOODY CIVIL WAR. THE PEOPLE ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE TREASON TO THE CONSTITUTION ANY LONGER FROM OUR “REPRESENTATIVE?????”

YOU AND I MUST HONOR THE MILLIONS WHO HAVE GIVEN THEIR LIVES FOR THE CONSTITUTION. WE MUST REMEMBER WHAT THE SIGNERS OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENCE WERE WILLING TO DO.
ARE YOU MILITARY LEADERS IN THE GREAT TRADITION OF GENERAL GEORGE WASHINGTON OR IN THE TRADITION OF GENERAL BENEDICT ARNOLD? YOUR ACTIONS IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS WILL LET WE THE PEOPLE KNOW OF WHOM YOUR ROLE MODEL IS.


For a Restored American Constitutional Republic,

Dr. Douglas W. Schell
Chairman, Restore the CONSTITUTIONAL Republic"

Baby Steps Toward Gun Control

No ammunition after June 30, 2009??

It's already started with the seemingly harmless name of Ammunition Accountability Legislation.

Remember how Obama said that he wasn’t going to take your guns(Hope! Change!)?

Well, it seems that his allies in the anti-gun world have no problem with taking your ammo!

The bill that is being pushed in 18 states (including Illinois and Indiana) requires all ammunition to be encoded by the manufacturer from a data base of all ammunition sales. So they will know how much you buy and what calibers. Nobody can sell any ammunition after June 30, 2009 unless the ammunition is coded.

Any privately held uncoded ammunition must be destroyed by July 1, 2011. (Including hand loaded ammo.) They will also charge a .05 cent tax on every round so every box of ammo you buy will go up at least $2.50 or more!

If they can deprive you of ammo they do not need to take your guns. And if they can track who buys ammunition and what kind, they don't necessarily need gun registration.

This legislation is currently pending in 18 states: Alabama, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington.

Send to your friends in these states AND fight to dissolve this BILL!!

To find more about the anti-gun group that is sponsoring this legislation and the specific legislation for each state, go to:http://ammunitionaccountability.org/Legislation.htm

- + - + - + - + - + -

On another note, in response to a couple of emails I received regarding my last entry, I'll be posting additional details about my correspondence with my congressman, Steve LaTourette, as well as why Obama's birth certificate really doesn't matter.

A True or False Challenge - You be the judge

Last week I wrote my first-ever letter/email to my congressman, Steve LaTourette, and subsequently received a very non-personal and disappointing form letter/email as a response to my questions, which either showed a blatant disregard for the necessity of a "real" response to a voting and politically active constituent or a serious lack of understanding and knowledge of a substantial issue currently facing our country.

In this particular instance, I choose to believe the latter. Other than Nancy Pelosi (who had to personally attest to Obama's legitimacy and qualification to serve as our nation's Commander in Chief, thereby swearing in writing that she either lied and did not actually see proof of this fact or that she has, in fact, seen Obama's long-form birth certificate ... and then lied anyway), it's my opinion that the majority of our elected officials only know what the media has told them about Obama's natural born citizen snag - which is nothing. I'm no longer surprised at the average Joe's gaping stare and shocked expressions when I start sharing some of the "inconsistencies" in the whole Hawaii vs. Kenya vs. Indonesia bit. The response is almost always the same: "How come none of this is in the news?".

So let's play a little game, shall we?


True or False: The Dept of Health in Hawaii has issued a statement saying that they have confirmed Obama was born in Hawaii.

FALSE. Yes, a press release was issued on October 31, 2008, by the Hawaii Department of Health. Its Director, Dr. Fukino, said that she had “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Senator Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.” That statement failed to resolve any of the questions being raised by litigation and press accounts. Being “on record” could mean either that its contents are in the computer database of the department or there is an actual “vault” original. Further, the report does not say whether the birth certificate in the “record” is a Certificate of Live Birth or a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth. In Hawaii, a Certificate of Live Birth resulting from hospital documentation, including a signature of an attending physician, is different from a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth. For births prior to 1972, a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth was the result of the uncorroborated testimony of one witness and was not generated by a hospital. Such a Certificate could be obtained up to one year from the date of the child’s birth. For that reason, its value as prima facie evidence is limited and could be overcome if any of the allegations of substantial evidence of birth outside Hawaii can be obtained. The vault (long Version) birth certificate, per Hawaiian Statute 883.176 allows the birth in another State or another country to be registered in Hawaii. Box 7C of the vault Certificate of Live Birth contains a question, whether the birth was in Hawaii or another State or Country. Therefore, the only way to verify the exact location of birth is to review a certified copy or the original vault Certificate of Live Birth and compare the name of the hospital and the name and the signature of the doctor against the birthing records on file at the hospital noted on the Certificate of the Live Birth.


True or False: FactCheck.org posted a copy of his birth certificate online.

FALSE. There are reports showing that the authenticity of the birth certificate on his website is in question. However, it does not matter if it is or not. The document does not have any of the necessary information to verify. The only way to know the exact location of birth is to review a certified copy or the original vault Certificate of Live Birth and compare the name of the hospital and the name and the signature of the doctor against the birthing records on file at the hospital noted on the Certificate of the Live Birth.


True or False: By winning the popular vote, Obama was properly vetted by the people.

FALSE. How can the people vet someone without the facts about the candidate? Obama has not publicly released any documents, including the birth certificate and college documents. Even if the birth certificate online were proven to be his, many people do not get on the internet. They rely on the media to give them information on the candidate during a press conference. This never happened.


True or False: The Supreme Court has dismissed every case about Obama's eligibility.

FALSE. The Supreme Court denied the portion of the cases requesting stays; none have been dismissed or even heard on their merits yet. One such case is scheduled for conference tomorrow, and another on the 23rd (a case that was recommended for full conference by Chief Justice Roberts). In the meantime, even more cases are being filed.


True or False: It's too late for anything to be done. Congress certified the electors' votes today.

FALSE. Yes, Congress certified the election today. It seems that the main focus ‘we the people’ have right now are small steps that we are all taking: writing to the Supreme Court, our representatives and Senators, Secretaries of States, and many, many letters to the editor. And of course we are talking and letting all who will listen, and then some, know. Individually it seems miniscule; collectively it becomes the awakening of the ‘sleeping giant’ of true American patriotism. And for some, the bravest among us, they are drafting Petitions for Redress and filing well-thought out suits. It may not be today or even tomorrow, but eventually the truth will out.

At this moment, I think the suit to watch is this one. It's also the best and most straightforward description of the issues. I highly recommend taking the time to read through the complaint, as well as the synopsis at America's Right.

Don't let the media tell you (or NOT tell you, as the case may be) what's true or false. Get the facts. You decide.

Open Letter to Chief Justice Roberts

Dr. Orly Taitz has has requested a re-file petition of Lightfoot v. Bowen, to Chief Justice John Roberts of the US Supreme Court. Cover Letter:

Request to Re-file Petition; Lightfoot v. Bowen with Chief Justice John Roberts



Dear Justice Roberts,

This is an open cover letter and it is being posted on the Internet, YouTube, and will be read on a number of radio stations, particularly radio stations around military bases, forwarded to Congress, Senate, Governors of the States and mass media. This legal action, as 20 other actions filed in the past few months, is seeking judicial intervention due to the fact that Mr. Barack Obama, whose father was a Kenyan-British citizen, is not a Natural Born Citizen and is not eligible to be the President of this country.

It also states that Mr. Obama did not prove his citizenship at all, since the state of Hawaii allows issuance of Hawaiian Birth Certificates to foreign born children of Hawaiian residents and there is mounting evidence that Mr. Obama was not born in Hawaii, whereby he will not be a citizen at all.

The plaintiffs in this action are a vice-presidential candidate on the ballot, electors and voters. The majority of the plaintiffs have served many years of their lives in the U.S. military and risked their lives pursuant to their oath, to defend the Constitution of this country against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

The plaintiffs and other members of the U.S. military are deeply concerned about the fact that none of the cases related to Mr. Obama’s lack of eligibility were heard on their merits. The plaintiffs are also concerned about the following: You have recorded a program “Conversations with Chief Justice Roberts.” Numerous high schools students were flown in to D.C. and participated in a discussion about the Constitution, law and the Supreme Court with you.

This program was fully funded by the Annenberg foundation, as it clearly states on the video released, and it appears that as a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court you consider Annenberg to be a reputable organization, supporting the Constitution and you support their efforts. The problem with it is that Annenberg has been employing on their Annenberg Challenge Board, William Ayers, a non-repentant terrorist that participated in the bombing of a police headquarters in 1970, the Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972. As late as 2001, Mr. Ayers stated in a NY times interview: “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel I didn’t do enough.”

From 1995, the Chairman of Annenberg Challenge was none else, but Mr. Barack Obama. Annenberg has created an offshoot, called FactCheck.org, Annenberg political FactCheck, that was supposed to provide an unbiased checking of the facts. In reality, Annenberg FactCheck has actively and intentionally defrauded the American public in leading them to believe that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen and is eligible for the U.S. presidency. Annenberg FactCheck intentionally omitted:

Definition of Law of Nations (Emmerich De Vattel), stating that a natural born citizen is one that is born in the country to parents who are citizens. They omitted a statement by John A. Bingham, framer of the 14th amendment, stating that a natural born citizen is one that was born in the U.S. territory to parents that don’t owe allegiance to any other sovereignty. Due to the fact that Mr. Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen and owed his allegiance to Kenya and Great Britain, Mr. Obama did not qualify as a natural born citizen and does not qualify for the presidency. As of now, the American public has only information from Annenberg, a political organization, some of whose members have very questionable moral qualities (to say the least).

My clients, as well as 300 million American citizens, including thousands of members of the military that are asked to risk their lives to defend the Constitution of this country would like to know if the Supreme Court Justices, particularly Chief Justice Roberts, (who will swear in the President on the Bible) are willing to give a few hours of their time to hear the Oral Arguments in defense of our Constitution. They want to know if the justices believe in the Constitution on which this country was built, or whether they are prepared to tear it apart in favor of some new world order.

Sincerely,

Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

Counsel for the Petitioners

26302 La Paz Suite 211
Mission Viejo Ca 92691

Ph: (w)949-586-8110
(c)949-683-5411
Fax: 949-586-2082

FactCheck intentionally omitted Hawaii statute 338, that allows foreign born children of Hawaiian residence to obtain a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth (COLB).

It omitted the fact that such certification can be obtained based on a statement of one relative only without any corroborating evidence.

It omitted the fact that there was no corroborating evidence of Mr. Obama’s birth from any hospital, nurse or hospital administrator from Hawaii, while there were numerous statements from Mr. Obama’s Kenyan grandmother, Baptist Bishop and ambassador of Kenya about Mr. Obama being born there. If that is the case, Mr. Obama is not a U.S. citizen and will need to apply and wait for his Green Card.

(H/T Citizen Wells)