We caught this news item from Dick Morris. It deserves to go viral. Read it hear or at DickMorris.com
A BLUEPRINT FOR COERCION
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on April 20, 2010
How odd that when the president's largest corporate donor, Goldman Sachs, gets indicted it is seen in the wonderful world of Washington as catalyzing his efforts to modify Wall Street regulation. Goldman's employees, of course, gave Obama just shy of $1 million -- a total exceeded only by the faculty and staff at the University of California -- making them the second largest bundle of donors to the Obama campaign.
There are so many reasons to oppose Obama's financial regulation bill.
Some Republicans have focused on the fact that it sets up a TARP II fund that starts the bidding at $50 billion. In making such an offer to back up firms that are too big to fail, the bill guarantees:
a) that the big firms will feel free to make whatever risky bets they can get away with since their downside (i.e., backside) is covered;
b) that the bigger firms eclipse the smaller ones (as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did to the mortgage industry) because of their implicit federal guarantee; and
c) that more firms crowd to get under the $50 billion umbrella and that it expands into an even larger bailout.
Other Republicans complain, correctly, about the power the secretary of the Treasury is given under the bill to seize any financial institution he deems too big to fail and thinks is at risk of insolvency. They rightly worry about the constraint this provision imposes on business growth and the dictatorial powers it gives the administration to fire management, replace directors, liquidate stock value and sell off parts of the companies they seize.
But we also need to worry about how the power to seize on the one hand and bail out on the other will be used by this administration. Already, we have seen how Obama and Geithner did not hesitate to throw their regulatory weight around to force bondholders to take a pittance in very partial repayment of their loans to General Motors. We can imagine how much political clout these new powers will give to Obama.
With political action committees and bundling by financial firms playing an ever larger part in campaign finance and issue advocacy advertising, will any large financial institution feel free to let its executives work against Obama's reelection? Will they not worry that he could take them over in a twinkling of an eye? Or will they be so anxious to come in out of the rain of competition to nestle under the bailout umbrella that they won't want to risk antagonizing Obama?
Particularly after the Citizens United case, anything that inhibits corporations from participating politically limits political debate and slants it toward the administration. In the very debate now under way, are financial corporations not already pulling their punches so as not to alienate a president whose hand can feed them or seize them as he wishes?
Yes, George W. Bush acquired vast new powers for the executive branch of government in the Patriot Act and the war on terror. But there is no record of his intentionally misusing them to intimidate political opponents. But Obama has a more ruthless mind. His war on Fox News shows how this thin-skinned president keeps track and takes names. We can well imagine a Nixonian enemies list of financial institutions earmarked for special regulation and intensive oversight, not for their economic performance, but for their political views.
Let's remember the days of JFK phoning steel-company executives to force a roll-back in their price increases while Attorney General Bobby threatened increased antitrust scrutiny. Equipped with the powers about to be conferred in the financial regulation bill, such government tyranny could be even more dangerous.
Some seem willing to confer these powers if only a bankruptcy judge signs off on the takeovers and seizures. But the administration, which appoints the judges in the first place, can shop for a compliant one like a prosecutor looking for a jurist to issue a search warrant.
Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez could only marvel at giving the government such powers.
Obama Failure and Socialism
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Obama Failure and Socialism | Will Obama Reveal His Personal Documents And Thus The Truth
Approaching apocalypse: Will Obama docs surface?
The defense attorney for an officer refusing Army orders until Barack Obama documents his eligibility to be commander in chief has hinted that the president’s proof of eligibility could come up during the course of the government’s prosecution of his client.
Read the entire story at westernjournalism
The defense attorney for an officer refusing Army orders until Barack Obama documents his eligibility to be commander in chief has hinted that the president’s proof of eligibility could come up during the course of the government’s prosecution of his client.
Read the entire story at westernjournalism
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Obama Failure and Socialism | A True Patriot Against The Failure and Lies of Obama | Lt. Col. Terry Lakin
An attorney for an officer refusing all Army orders until Barack Obama's eligibility to be commander in chief is documented says his client formally has been "flagged" by the military and the formal filing of charges is expected within days. Attorney Paul Jensen today was on the radio show of G. Gordon Liddy with his client, Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, who has told Obama in a letter that it's up to him to provide the proof. The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President." Some of the various challenges and lawsuits allege Obama was not born in Hawaii as he has claimed and that the framers of the Constitution specifically excluded dual citizens – Obama's father was a subject of the British crown at Obama's birth – from being eligible for the office. The issue has prompted a number of state legislatures to work on proposals that would require presidential candidates to submit proof of their eligibility. A similar proposal has been introduced in Congress by Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla. Lakin and his private counsel told Liddy today they are addressing this "important question about the Constitution." "I've been flagged for missing movement and my intent to disobey all orders. That flagging means there can be no favorable actions taken for me," Lakin said.
Read the entire story here: http://www.westernjournalism.com/?p=7303
Read the entire story here: http://www.westernjournalism.com/?p=7303
Monday, April 19, 2010
Obama Failure and Socialism | Not An American | More Proof For The Fag Liberals
"The intelligence report LTC Terry Lakin discovered on Obama's Eligibility"
The Western Center for Journalism
In December ‘08 a retired CIA officer commissioned an investigator to look into the Barack Obama birth certificate and eligibility issue. On July 21, 2009 westernjournalism.com obtained a copy of the investigator’s report and published it. Thousands have since read the report. The report is featured as one of the Key Documents on the safeguardourconstitution.com website that is maintained by the American Patriot Foundation that supports Lieutenant Colonel Terry Lakin. Lieutenant Colonel Lakin is refusing to deploy as ordered to Afghanistan until Obama permits the Hawaiian Department of Health to release his original birth certificate to support the claim that he is a natural born citizen and thereby meets the eligibility requirement for his office mandated by the Constitution. This may lead to Lakin’s facing a court-martial. Much new information has surfaced since the original publication and the investigator recently submitted to us an updated version of the report. Even if you have read it before, please consider reading the updated version that includes this new information. The situation for Lt Col Lakin is grave and we salute his courage, and we reaffirm the accuracy of this important research.—The Editors
Clearing the Smoke on Obama’s Eligibility: Most people think of an original birth certificate as a state or hospital document containing a statement by a doctor or midwife. The hospital document usually is accompanied by a footprint. No one has ever presented any evidence that such a document has ever existed in the United States for Barack Obama. The Hawaii Dept of Health refuses to give a yes or no answer to the question whether they have such a document on file.
HomeClearing the Smoke on Obama’s Eligibility: An Intelligence Investigator’s June 10 ReportBecome a CorrespondentWho Funds the Radical Left In America?The Mystery of Barack Obama ContinuesList of properties and social security numbers associate with Barack Obama and familyWhat is Obama’s Real Education Agenda?Is Obama A Closet Racist?Obama Surrounds Himself with the Most Extreme Appointees in American HistoryAiring Harry Reid’s Dirty LaundryObama’s Broken Campaign Promise: Alex’s StoryIs Obama Stupid and Lazy?Clearing the Smoke on Obama's EligibilityAbout Western CenterThe TeamContact UsObama appoints Homosexual Propagandist to EducationSearch: Topics: Select category Cable Censored News FCC New Media News Outrageous Lies Print Radio TV Uncategorized Subscribe to PostsSubscribe to Comments
You are here: Home / Clearing the Smoke on Obama’s Eligibility Updated
Clearing the Smoke on Obama’s Eligibility Updated
In December ‘08 a retired CIA officer commissioned an investigator to look into the Barack Obama birth certificate and eligibility issue. On July 21, 2009 westernjournalism.com obtained a copy of the investigator’s report and published it. Thousands have since read the report. The report is featured as one of the Key Documents on the safeguardourconstitution.com website that is maintained by the American Patriot Foundation that supports Lieutenant Colonel Terry Lakin.
Lieutenant Colonel Lakin is refusing to deploy as ordered to Afghanistan until Obama permits the Hawaiian Department of Health to release his original birth certificate to support the claim that he is a natural born citizen and thereby meets the eligibility requirement for his office mandated by the Constitution. This may lead to Lakin’s facing a court-martial.
Much new information has surfaced since the original publication and the investigator recently submitted to us an updated version of the report. Even if you have read it before, please consider reading the updated version that includes this new information. The situation for Lt Col Lakin is grave and we salute his courage, and we reaffirm the accuracy of this important research.—The Editors
Clearing the Smoke on Obama’s Eligibility
Most people think of an original birth certificate as a state or hospital document containing a statement by a doctor or midwife. The hospital document usually is accompanied by a footprint.
No one has ever presented any evidence that such a document has ever existed in the United States for Barack Obama. The Hawaii Dept of Health refuses to give a yes or no answer to the question whether they have such a document on file.
Instead of the birth certificate on file at the Hawaii Dept of Health, the Obama campaign posted on the Daily Kos blog and the Fightthesmears website a “Certification of Live Birth”. This Certification of Live Birth is not a copy of the original birth certificate. It is a computer-generated document that the state of Hawaii issues on request to indicate that a birth certificate of some type is “on record in accordance with state policies and procedures”. And there is the problem. As will be shown below, given the statutes in force in 1961, the Certification of Live Birth proves nothing unless we know what is on the original birth certificate. There are several legal areas (involving ethnic quotas and subsidy) for which the state of Hawaii up until June 2009 did not accept its computer-generated Certification of Live Birth as sufficient proof of birth in Hawaii or parentage. Why should the citizens of the United States be content with lower standards for ascertaining the qualifications of their President than were required by the Department of Hawaiian Homelands for ascertaining whether an applicant for its programs was born in Hawaii?
Obama has refused to allow the Hawaiian Dept of Health to release his original birth certificate. The Hawaiian Dept of Health has refused to provide any information about the hospital, or doctor, or midwife. It also refuses to confirm whether it has on record any information about a hospital, or doctor or midwife.
Jonathan Alter, senior editor at Newsweek magazine, told Keith Olbermann on MSNBC on Feb 20, 2009 that “They [the Republicans] are a party that is out of ideas so they have to resort to these lies about the fact that he’s not a citizen. This came up during the campaign, Keith. The Obama campaign actually posted his birth certificate from a Hawaii hospital online.” But it is Alter who resorted to lying to the American people on television. “The Obama campaign” never “actually posted his birth certificate from a Hawaii hospital online.”
On July 17, 2009 CNN’s Kitty Pilgrim lied when she stated that the Obama campaign had produced “the original birth certificate” on the internet and that FactCheck.org had examined the original birth certificate. The Certification of Live Birth that was posted by the campaign and FactCheck.org is not, and by definition, cannot be the original birth certificate or a copy of the original birth certificate. It contains no space for the signature of a doctor or midwife. It contains no space for the hospital or house where Barack Obama was born. There is no space on the Certification for any probative evidence that can be checked up on to see whether the Certification is valid. There were no computer generated Certifications of Live Birth in 1961, the year Obama was born.
Obama’s original birth certificate was a very different document from this Certification of Live Birth on FactCheck.org. that Kitty Pilgrim, Chris Matthews, Jonathan Alter, and Keith Olbermann have waved around to end the discussion. On the FactCheck.org web site, the claim is made that “FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate.” They only saw and touched the Certification of Live Birth. So FactCheck.org is lying about this as well.
FactCheck.org gets its prestige from a reputation for objectivity. Why would those who run this site choose to tell so obvious a lie and so endanger the site’s reputation? The answer is in the date of the posting, August 21, 2008. It was in mid-August that questions about the Certification of Live Birth began to reach a critical mass and threaten to enter the public discourse. The mostly pro-Obama television and newspaper/magazine media had to be given an excuse and cover for their collective decision to dismiss or ignore the substantial questions about whether Obama met the qualifications for the office set forth in Article II section I of the Constitution. And those reporters and editors who were not in the tank for Obama had to be deceived. After Labor Day the swing voters would begin to pay attention to the Presidential campaign. The truth had to be killed. And with its lie about “how it examined and photographed the original birth certificate“, FactCheck.org killed it.
Birth Certificate and Citizenship Law when Obama was Born
Under Section 57 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii (which was in effect in 1961), a mailed-in form (without mention of a hospital, doctor, or midwife) signed by one of his parents (who could have been out of the country and pre-signed a form or whose signature could have been forged by a grandparent) would have been enough to set up a birth record and a birth certificate at the Dept of Health. The Dept of Health would then have automatically sent the names of the parents, their address as given on the mailed-in form , the gender of the child, and the date of birth to the Honolulu Advertiser and Star-Bulletin. (The address given for the parents in the newspaper announcements is actually, however, the August 1961 home address of Obama’s maternal grandparents Stanley and Madelyn Dunham [6085 Kalanianaole Highway], and not the 1961 home address of Barack Obama, Sr. [625 11th Ave].) This notification would then have automatically generated the newspaper announcements. (This was the practice of the Honolulu Advertiser and Star-Bulletin at the time).
This meager birth record would also be enough to generate the computer-generated Certifications of Live Birth in 2007 and 2008. This series of events is certainly possible. It is also the most likely explanation for Obama’s refusal to request and release (or authorize the release of) his original birth certificate. When these considerations are placed next to the statements by Sarah Onyango Obama, Peter Ogego (the Kenyan ambassador to the U.S), and now a Kenyan cabinet minister, James Orengo, in the Kenyan Parliament that Barack Obama was born in Kenya (on page 31 of the following pdf
http://www.bunge.go.ke/parliament/downloads/tenth_forth_sess/Hansard/RDRAFT25.03P.pdf
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=139481
sufficient questions have been raised to justify a call for Barack Obama to release his original birth certificate. (There are no doctors, nurses, midwives or other witnesses to Ann Dunham giving birth to Barack Obama in Hawaii. In fact, from mid-February 1961 through August 1962, there are no witnesses to or evidence that Ann Dunham was in Hawaii at all.) If the American people are not shown the original birth certificate, his birth in Kenya or elsewhere becomes a clear possibility. And if Obama continues to refuse to allow the state of Hawaii to release the original birth certificate, it begins to look like he was not born in a hospital in Hawaii (as his campaign has claimed) or at home with the assistance of a doctor or midwife.
When you actually look closely at the carefully lawyered statements by the Hawaiian Dept of Health, all that its director is willing to assert is that she has “personally seen and verified that the Hawai’i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.” But according to the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii, no hospital’s name, or doctor’s or midwife’s statement was necessary to establish an original birth certificate.
Now, if it should turn out that there is no hospital or physician record in the original birth certificate, then of course Barack Obama wasn’t born in a hospital in Hawaii. And a home birth or non-hospital birth can then probably be ruled out for the following reason.
When someone has a home birth or is not born in a hospital, this becomes a part of his family’s lore and is now and again spoken of by his parents. He and his siblings grow up knowing that he was born at home or his uncle’s house, etc. The fact that someone in the campaign told a Washington Post reporter that he was born in Kapioliani hospital and his sister said he was born at Queens hospital indicates that there was not and is not any Obama/Dunham family memory of a home birth or non-hospital birth in Hawaii.
A reasonable person would acknowledge that there are serious reasons to doubt that Barack Obama was born in the United States and to ask why the more substantial evidence that the media assume exists, has not been provided. This is especially true because, if Obama was born in a foreign country, his family had a compelling reason to lie about it.
In 1961 if a 17 year old American girl gave birth in a foreign country to a child whose father was not an American citizen, that child had no right to any American citizenship, let alone the “natural born” citizenship that qualifies someone for the Presidency under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.
In 1961, the year that Barack Obama was born, under Sec. 301 (a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Ann Dunham could not transmit citizenship of any kind to Barack Obama.
“ 7 FAM 1133.2-2 Original Provisions and Amendments to Section 301
(CT:CON-204; 11-01-2007)
“a. Section 301 as Effective on December 24, 1952: When enacted in 1952, section 301 required a U.S. citizen married to an alien to have been physically present in the United States for ten years, including five after reaching the age of fourteen, to transmit citizenship to foreign-born children. The ten-year transmission requirement remained in effect from 12:01 a.m. EDT December 24, 1952, through midnight November 13, 1986, and still is applicable to persons born during that period.
“As originally enacted, section 301(a)(7) stated: Section 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph.”
The Immigration and Nationality Corrections Act (Public Law 103-416) on October 25, 1994 revised this law to accommodate “a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years”.
But in 1961, if Barack Obama had been born outside of the country, the Dunham family had no way of knowing that in 1994 Congress would pass a law that would retroactively make him a citizen. At that time, the only way to get citizenship for him would be to take advantage of the loopholes in the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act.
People can debate the meaning of the term “natural-born citizen” as long as they like but this is clear: If, in 1961, 17 year old Ann Dunham gave birth to a child on foreign soil whose father was not an American citizen, then the Immigration and Nationality Act at that time denied Barack Obama any right to American citizenship of any kind. Therefore if at the time of his birth Obama was ineligible for American citizenship of any kind, then he cannot be a “natural-born citizen”. This is true even if the Immigration and Nationality Act was changed 33 years after he was born. Even if the law was retroactively changed to grant citizenship (but not “natural-born” citizenship) to some of those who had at birth been denied it. If a person is not at the time of his birth an American citizen, he cannot be a natural-born citizen. Therefore, that person is ineligible under Article II, Section 1 for the Office of President of the United States.
Obama’s Passport File
It should be added that “Obama’s top terrorism and intelligence adviser”, John O. Brennan, heads a firm that was cited in March 2008 for breaching sensitive files in the State Department’s passport office, according to a State Department Inspector General’s report released this past July.
“The security breach, first reported by the Washington Times and later confirmed by State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, involved a contract employee of Brennan’s firm, The Analysis Corp., which has earned millions of dollars providing intelligence-related consulting services to federal agencies and private companies.
“During a State Department briefing on March 21, 2008, McCormack confirmed that the contractor had accessed the passport files of presidential candidates Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and John McCain, and that the inspector general had launched an investigation.
“Sources who tracked the investigation tell Newsmax that the main target of the breach was the Obama passport file, and that the contractor accessed the file in order to ‘cauterize’ the records of potentially embarrassing information.
“ ‘They looked at the McCain and Clinton files as well to create confusion,’ one knowledgeable source told Newsmax. ‘But this was basically an attempt to cauterize the Obama file.’
“At the time of the breach, Brennan was working as an unpaid adviser to the Obama campaign.
” ‘This individual’s actions were taken without the knowledge or direction of anyone at The Analysis Corp. and are wholly inconsistent with our professional and ethical standards,’ Brennan’s company said in a statement sent to reporters after the passport breach was made public.
“The passport files include ‘personally identifiable information such as the applicant’s name, gender, social security number, date and place of birth, and passport number,’ according to the inspector general report.
“The files may contain additional information including ‘original copies of the associated documents,’ the report added. Such documents include birth certificates, naturalization certificates, or oaths of allegiance for U.S.-born persons who adopted the citizenship of a foreign country as minors.”
“The State Department Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a 104-page report on the breach last July. Although it is stamped ‘Sensitive but Unclassified,’ the report was heavily redacted in the version released to the public, with page after page blacked out entirely.”
http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/brennan_passport_breach/2009/01/12/170430.html
The following may be relevant:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/apr/19/key-witness-in-passport-fraud-case-fatally-shot/
Key witness in passport fraud case fatally shot
Saturday, April 19, 2008
“A key witness in a federal probe into passport information stolen from the State Department was fatally shot in front of a District church, the Metropolitan Police Department said yesterday.
“Lt. Quarles Harris Jr., 24, who had been cooperating with a federal investigators, was found late Thursday night slumped dead inside a car, in front of the Judah House Praise Baptist Church in Northeast, said Cmdr. Michael Anzallo, head of the department’s Criminal Investigations Division.
“Cmdr. Anzallo said a police officer was patrolling the neighborhood when gunshots were heard, then Lt. Harris was found dead inside the vehicle, which investigators would describe only as a blue car.
“Emergency medics pronounced him dead at the scene.
“City police said they do not know whether his death was a direct result of his cooperation with federal investigators.
“We don’t have any information right now that connects his murder to that case,” Cmdr. Anzallo said.
“Police say a “shot spotter” device helped an officer locate Lt. Harris.
“A State Department spokeswoman yesterday declined to comment, saying the investigation into the passport fraud is ongoing.
“The Washington Times reported April 5 that contractors for the State Department had improperly accessed passport information for presidential candidates Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain, which resulted in a series of firings that reached into the agency’s top ranks.
“One agency employee, who was not identified in documents filed in U.S. District Court, was implicated in a credit-card fraud scheme after Lt. Harris told federal authorities he obtained “passport information from a co-conspirator who works for the U.S. Department of State.” “
There is a possibility that the breaches of the passport files associated with the “credit-card fraud scheme” were a cover for or associated with the breaches of the passport files by the employee of Brennan’s Analysis Corp.
Protecting Hawaii’s Favorite Son
Until June 2009, the reasonable doubts about where Obama was born could have quickly and finally been resolved if he had authorized the release by the Hawaiian Dept of Health of his original birth certificate or else applied for it himself and released it to the media. But as these doubts have increased and reached the point where they are no longer a “fringe” phenomenon, the Hawaiian state govt has recently taken certain steps that would create procedural and possibly legal barriers to a resolution of the controversy.
On June 7, 2009, a spokeswoman for the Hawaii Department of Health, Janice Okubo, announced that “The state Department of Health no longer issues copies of paper birth certificates as was done in the past. The department only issues ‘certifications’ of live births, and that is the ‘official birth certificate’ issued by the state of Hawaii, she said. ” [Honolulu Star Bulletin] http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html
This 2009 announcement sets up a way for the bureaucracy to stonewall any requests by Obama’s relatives or other interested parties who, before the change in policy, had a right to obtain his original birth certificate. (Now they will be fobbed off with the certification of live birth which the Dept of Health has now declared to be the ” ‘official birth certificate’ issued by the state of Hawaii”, a very dodgy bureaucratic maneuver that I doubt would stand up in a court of law if a relative contested it.) It also violated the long-standing right of all Hawaiian citizens to obtain copies of their original birth certificates. This right was often a legal necessity.
As late as June 10, 2009, the Department of Hawaiian Homelands insisted that it would not accept the Certification of Live Birth as adequate proof of birth in Hawaii. All applicants for its special programs had to present an original birth certificate, and the Department of Hawaiian Homelands described the simple procedure by which the original birth certificate could be obtained from the Department of Health. This was the statement on their website on June 10, 2009:
“In order to process your application, DHHL [Department of Hawaiian Homelands] utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.
“Please note that DOH [Department of Health] no longer offers same day service. If you plan on picking up your certified DOH document(s), you should allow at least 10 working days for DOH to process your request(s), OR four to six weeks if you want your certified certificate(s) mailed to you.”
On July 8, 2009 the web site World Net Daily accurately reported that “The state, which had excluded the controversial document [the Certification of Live Birth] as proof of native Hawaiian status, has changed its policy and now makes a point of including it.”
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103408
Here is the new statement on the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands web site [July 8, 2009]. “The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth [original birth certificates] and Certifications of Live Birth … Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth.
The web site theobamafile.com picked up this significant change in procedure on the Dept of Hawaiian Homelands website on June 18, 2009. http://www.theobamafile.com/_BogusPOTUS/20090608.htm#HawaiiRuleChange
Sometime between June 10, 2009 and June 18, 2009 the state of Hawaii changed its long-standing rule on what documents and data were necessary to prove a birth in Hawaii for the Dept of Hawaiian Homelands, thereby upgrading the apparent status of the Certification of Live Birth which it had formerly regarded as insufficiently probative. Why?
A family that I am acquainted with has a child who was born in Hawaii in December 2008. They filled out and mailed in a form to the Dept of Health, as did their doctor. In return the Dept sent them in the first week of June, 2009, the same computer-generated form that last year on the Daily Kos and subsequently on the Obama campaign web site was called a “Certification of Live Birth”. The form that this family received this year is identical in format to the Certification of Live Birth on the Daily Kos web site with one exception: the title at the top of the form.
On June 12, 2008 the title for this form was Certification of Live Birth. The title for the form that this family received in the first week of June 2009 is Certificate of Live Birth. I called The Dept of Health and confirmed that the title of the form had been changed. The bureaucrat that I spoke to said the change had been made “recently”, but could not or would not tell me when. Sometime between June 12, 2008 and the first week of June 2009 the Hawaiian Dept of Health changed the title of this abbreviated form from “Certification of Live Birth” to “Certificate of Live Birth“. Why?
The use of the word “Certificate” rather than “Certification” makes the form feel somewhat more like a traditional birth certificate than the “Certification of Live Birth” that the Daily Kos website and subsequently the Obama campaign posted on the Internet even though, like the “Certification“, it also lacks any information about the hospital, doctor, or midwife. This renaming of the document will be very convenient for the Hawaiian Dept of Health in future stonewalling should any legal pressure be brought against them to produce Obama’s “Certificate of Live Birth”. Instead of producing the original “Certificate of Live Birth”, they will produce the “Certification of Live Birth” form that the Dept of Health has now renamed a “Certificate of Live Birth” and claim that they are doing so “in accordance with state policies and procedures” in the words of the Dept’s Director, Dr. Chiyome Fukino.
What is a “Natural Born Citizen”
It is only by examining the 18th century usage and definition of a term that we can ascertain its meaning in the Constitution. In the 18th century, and at the time of the framing and ratification of the Constitution by the states, the term “natural-born” subject or citizen was always used or defined in such a way as to exclude the child of a British or American girl or woman when that child was born in a foreign country and that child’s father was a foreign citizen. No 18th century jurist would have thought the term “natural-born” citizen or subject could have been extended to the child of a British or American girl or woman when that child was born in a foreign country and that child’s father was a foreign citizen.
Here is Blackstone’s classic exposition in 1765 of the legal meaning of the term from the Commentaries on the Laws of England.
William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:354, 357–58, 361–62
1765
“Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it.. . .
“When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king’s dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty’s English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king’s embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king,…might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.”
Avoiding a Constitutional Crisis
I think it is clear that there are reasonable arguments that Barack Obama may not be a natual-born citizen of the United States. These arguments could be settled if Obama allowed the Hawaii Department of Health to release his original birth certificate. It is completely reasonable to regard his refusal to do so as suspect.
In 2008, these justifiable doubts should have led to demands for the original birth certificate by the media, the responsible officials in the Democratic Party, the Secretaries of State in the different states, the members of the Electoral College and the Unites States Senate. John McCain was asked to provide his original birth certificate, and he did so.
The irresponsible confirmation in the Senate of the irresponsible tallying of votes in the Electoral College does not supersede the clear meaning of Article II, Section 1. If it is allowed to stand, disregard of the Constitution by all branches of the government would be openly established. To all who believe that the Constitution is the government’s basic law, that the Constitution is the only instrument that gives the enactments of Congress and the commands of the Executive validity, it will be clear that the rule of law in the United States is a fiction.
Journalists and politicians complain that we must avoid a Constitutional crisis, but there already is a Constitutional crisis. It has been caused by Obama’s refusal to take the simple step to clear the matter up. The power of the Executive branch has been compromised. Its right to collect taxes and sign Congressional enactments into law, in fact all of its powers, have become problematic. Since their validity under Section I is now doubtful, they depend on the illegal exercise of force. Since officers of the American military take their oath on commissioning to the Constitution and not the President, their obedience to the Commander-in-Chief has lapsed and, if they challenge or resist his authority, any court-martial will also be an illegal exercise of force. The only way out of the present Constitutional crisis is for Obama to do as McCain did when he was confronted by far less pressing doubts about the circumstances of his birth. He must disclose his original birth certificate. Since the document has been so suspiciously withheld for so long, it should be subjected to rigorous forensic tests. Then whatever is on it should be judicially assessed together with the claims that have been made that Barack Obama was born on foreign soil.
The Western Center for Journalism
In December ‘08 a retired CIA officer commissioned an investigator to look into the Barack Obama birth certificate and eligibility issue. On July 21, 2009 westernjournalism.com obtained a copy of the investigator’s report and published it. Thousands have since read the report. The report is featured as one of the Key Documents on the safeguardourconstitution.com website that is maintained by the American Patriot Foundation that supports Lieutenant Colonel Terry Lakin. Lieutenant Colonel Lakin is refusing to deploy as ordered to Afghanistan until Obama permits the Hawaiian Department of Health to release his original birth certificate to support the claim that he is a natural born citizen and thereby meets the eligibility requirement for his office mandated by the Constitution. This may lead to Lakin’s facing a court-martial. Much new information has surfaced since the original publication and the investigator recently submitted to us an updated version of the report. Even if you have read it before, please consider reading the updated version that includes this new information. The situation for Lt Col Lakin is grave and we salute his courage, and we reaffirm the accuracy of this important research.—The Editors
Clearing the Smoke on Obama’s Eligibility: Most people think of an original birth certificate as a state or hospital document containing a statement by a doctor or midwife. The hospital document usually is accompanied by a footprint. No one has ever presented any evidence that such a document has ever existed in the United States for Barack Obama. The Hawaii Dept of Health refuses to give a yes or no answer to the question whether they have such a document on file.
HomeClearing the Smoke on Obama’s Eligibility: An Intelligence Investigator’s June 10 ReportBecome a CorrespondentWho Funds the Radical Left In America?The Mystery of Barack Obama ContinuesList of properties and social security numbers associate with Barack Obama and familyWhat is Obama’s Real Education Agenda?Is Obama A Closet Racist?Obama Surrounds Himself with the Most Extreme Appointees in American HistoryAiring Harry Reid’s Dirty LaundryObama’s Broken Campaign Promise: Alex’s StoryIs Obama Stupid and Lazy?Clearing the Smoke on Obama's EligibilityAbout Western CenterThe TeamContact UsObama appoints Homosexual Propagandist to EducationSearch: Topics: Select category Cable Censored News FCC New Media News Outrageous Lies Print Radio TV Uncategorized Subscribe to PostsSubscribe to Comments
You are here: Home / Clearing the Smoke on Obama’s Eligibility Updated
Clearing the Smoke on Obama’s Eligibility Updated
In December ‘08 a retired CIA officer commissioned an investigator to look into the Barack Obama birth certificate and eligibility issue. On July 21, 2009 westernjournalism.com obtained a copy of the investigator’s report and published it. Thousands have since read the report. The report is featured as one of the Key Documents on the safeguardourconstitution.com website that is maintained by the American Patriot Foundation that supports Lieutenant Colonel Terry Lakin.
Lieutenant Colonel Lakin is refusing to deploy as ordered to Afghanistan until Obama permits the Hawaiian Department of Health to release his original birth certificate to support the claim that he is a natural born citizen and thereby meets the eligibility requirement for his office mandated by the Constitution. This may lead to Lakin’s facing a court-martial.
Much new information has surfaced since the original publication and the investigator recently submitted to us an updated version of the report. Even if you have read it before, please consider reading the updated version that includes this new information. The situation for Lt Col Lakin is grave and we salute his courage, and we reaffirm the accuracy of this important research.—The Editors
Clearing the Smoke on Obama’s Eligibility
Most people think of an original birth certificate as a state or hospital document containing a statement by a doctor or midwife. The hospital document usually is accompanied by a footprint.
No one has ever presented any evidence that such a document has ever existed in the United States for Barack Obama. The Hawaii Dept of Health refuses to give a yes or no answer to the question whether they have such a document on file.
Instead of the birth certificate on file at the Hawaii Dept of Health, the Obama campaign posted on the Daily Kos blog and the Fightthesmears website a “Certification of Live Birth”. This Certification of Live Birth is not a copy of the original birth certificate. It is a computer-generated document that the state of Hawaii issues on request to indicate that a birth certificate of some type is “on record in accordance with state policies and procedures”. And there is the problem. As will be shown below, given the statutes in force in 1961, the Certification of Live Birth proves nothing unless we know what is on the original birth certificate. There are several legal areas (involving ethnic quotas and subsidy) for which the state of Hawaii up until June 2009 did not accept its computer-generated Certification of Live Birth as sufficient proof of birth in Hawaii or parentage. Why should the citizens of the United States be content with lower standards for ascertaining the qualifications of their President than were required by the Department of Hawaiian Homelands for ascertaining whether an applicant for its programs was born in Hawaii?
Obama has refused to allow the Hawaiian Dept of Health to release his original birth certificate. The Hawaiian Dept of Health has refused to provide any information about the hospital, or doctor, or midwife. It also refuses to confirm whether it has on record any information about a hospital, or doctor or midwife.
Jonathan Alter, senior editor at Newsweek magazine, told Keith Olbermann on MSNBC on Feb 20, 2009 that “They [the Republicans] are a party that is out of ideas so they have to resort to these lies about the fact that he’s not a citizen. This came up during the campaign, Keith. The Obama campaign actually posted his birth certificate from a Hawaii hospital online.” But it is Alter who resorted to lying to the American people on television. “The Obama campaign” never “actually posted his birth certificate from a Hawaii hospital online.”
On July 17, 2009 CNN’s Kitty Pilgrim lied when she stated that the Obama campaign had produced “the original birth certificate” on the internet and that FactCheck.org had examined the original birth certificate. The Certification of Live Birth that was posted by the campaign and FactCheck.org is not, and by definition, cannot be the original birth certificate or a copy of the original birth certificate. It contains no space for the signature of a doctor or midwife. It contains no space for the hospital or house where Barack Obama was born. There is no space on the Certification for any probative evidence that can be checked up on to see whether the Certification is valid. There were no computer generated Certifications of Live Birth in 1961, the year Obama was born.
Obama’s original birth certificate was a very different document from this Certification of Live Birth on FactCheck.org. that Kitty Pilgrim, Chris Matthews, Jonathan Alter, and Keith Olbermann have waved around to end the discussion. On the FactCheck.org web site, the claim is made that “FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate.” They only saw and touched the Certification of Live Birth. So FactCheck.org is lying about this as well.
FactCheck.org gets its prestige from a reputation for objectivity. Why would those who run this site choose to tell so obvious a lie and so endanger the site’s reputation? The answer is in the date of the posting, August 21, 2008. It was in mid-August that questions about the Certification of Live Birth began to reach a critical mass and threaten to enter the public discourse. The mostly pro-Obama television and newspaper/magazine media had to be given an excuse and cover for their collective decision to dismiss or ignore the substantial questions about whether Obama met the qualifications for the office set forth in Article II section I of the Constitution. And those reporters and editors who were not in the tank for Obama had to be deceived. After Labor Day the swing voters would begin to pay attention to the Presidential campaign. The truth had to be killed. And with its lie about “how it examined and photographed the original birth certificate“, FactCheck.org killed it.
Birth Certificate and Citizenship Law when Obama was Born
Under Section 57 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii (which was in effect in 1961), a mailed-in form (without mention of a hospital, doctor, or midwife) signed by one of his parents (who could have been out of the country and pre-signed a form or whose signature could have been forged by a grandparent) would have been enough to set up a birth record and a birth certificate at the Dept of Health. The Dept of Health would then have automatically sent the names of the parents, their address as given on the mailed-in form , the gender of the child, and the date of birth to the Honolulu Advertiser and Star-Bulletin. (The address given for the parents in the newspaper announcements is actually, however, the August 1961 home address of Obama’s maternal grandparents Stanley and Madelyn Dunham [6085 Kalanianaole Highway], and not the 1961 home address of Barack Obama, Sr. [625 11th Ave].) This notification would then have automatically generated the newspaper announcements. (This was the practice of the Honolulu Advertiser and Star-Bulletin at the time).
This meager birth record would also be enough to generate the computer-generated Certifications of Live Birth in 2007 and 2008. This series of events is certainly possible. It is also the most likely explanation for Obama’s refusal to request and release (or authorize the release of) his original birth certificate. When these considerations are placed next to the statements by Sarah Onyango Obama, Peter Ogego (the Kenyan ambassador to the U.S), and now a Kenyan cabinet minister, James Orengo, in the Kenyan Parliament that Barack Obama was born in Kenya (on page 31 of the following pdf
http://www.bunge.go.ke/parliament/downloads/tenth_forth_sess/Hansard/RDRAFT25.03P.pdf
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=139481
sufficient questions have been raised to justify a call for Barack Obama to release his original birth certificate. (There are no doctors, nurses, midwives or other witnesses to Ann Dunham giving birth to Barack Obama in Hawaii. In fact, from mid-February 1961 through August 1962, there are no witnesses to or evidence that Ann Dunham was in Hawaii at all.) If the American people are not shown the original birth certificate, his birth in Kenya or elsewhere becomes a clear possibility. And if Obama continues to refuse to allow the state of Hawaii to release the original birth certificate, it begins to look like he was not born in a hospital in Hawaii (as his campaign has claimed) or at home with the assistance of a doctor or midwife.
When you actually look closely at the carefully lawyered statements by the Hawaiian Dept of Health, all that its director is willing to assert is that she has “personally seen and verified that the Hawai’i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.” But according to the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii, no hospital’s name, or doctor’s or midwife’s statement was necessary to establish an original birth certificate.
Now, if it should turn out that there is no hospital or physician record in the original birth certificate, then of course Barack Obama wasn’t born in a hospital in Hawaii. And a home birth or non-hospital birth can then probably be ruled out for the following reason.
When someone has a home birth or is not born in a hospital, this becomes a part of his family’s lore and is now and again spoken of by his parents. He and his siblings grow up knowing that he was born at home or his uncle’s house, etc. The fact that someone in the campaign told a Washington Post reporter that he was born in Kapioliani hospital and his sister said he was born at Queens hospital indicates that there was not and is not any Obama/Dunham family memory of a home birth or non-hospital birth in Hawaii.
A reasonable person would acknowledge that there are serious reasons to doubt that Barack Obama was born in the United States and to ask why the more substantial evidence that the media assume exists, has not been provided. This is especially true because, if Obama was born in a foreign country, his family had a compelling reason to lie about it.
In 1961 if a 17 year old American girl gave birth in a foreign country to a child whose father was not an American citizen, that child had no right to any American citizenship, let alone the “natural born” citizenship that qualifies someone for the Presidency under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.
In 1961, the year that Barack Obama was born, under Sec. 301 (a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Ann Dunham could not transmit citizenship of any kind to Barack Obama.
“ 7 FAM 1133.2-2 Original Provisions and Amendments to Section 301
(CT:CON-204; 11-01-2007)
“a. Section 301 as Effective on December 24, 1952: When enacted in 1952, section 301 required a U.S. citizen married to an alien to have been physically present in the United States for ten years, including five after reaching the age of fourteen, to transmit citizenship to foreign-born children. The ten-year transmission requirement remained in effect from 12:01 a.m. EDT December 24, 1952, through midnight November 13, 1986, and still is applicable to persons born during that period.
“As originally enacted, section 301(a)(7) stated: Section 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph.”
The Immigration and Nationality Corrections Act (Public Law 103-416) on October 25, 1994 revised this law to accommodate “a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years”.
But in 1961, if Barack Obama had been born outside of the country, the Dunham family had no way of knowing that in 1994 Congress would pass a law that would retroactively make him a citizen. At that time, the only way to get citizenship for him would be to take advantage of the loopholes in the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act.
People can debate the meaning of the term “natural-born citizen” as long as they like but this is clear: If, in 1961, 17 year old Ann Dunham gave birth to a child on foreign soil whose father was not an American citizen, then the Immigration and Nationality Act at that time denied Barack Obama any right to American citizenship of any kind. Therefore if at the time of his birth Obama was ineligible for American citizenship of any kind, then he cannot be a “natural-born citizen”. This is true even if the Immigration and Nationality Act was changed 33 years after he was born. Even if the law was retroactively changed to grant citizenship (but not “natural-born” citizenship) to some of those who had at birth been denied it. If a person is not at the time of his birth an American citizen, he cannot be a natural-born citizen. Therefore, that person is ineligible under Article II, Section 1 for the Office of President of the United States.
Obama’s Passport File
It should be added that “Obama’s top terrorism and intelligence adviser”, John O. Brennan, heads a firm that was cited in March 2008 for breaching sensitive files in the State Department’s passport office, according to a State Department Inspector General’s report released this past July.
“The security breach, first reported by the Washington Times and later confirmed by State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, involved a contract employee of Brennan’s firm, The Analysis Corp., which has earned millions of dollars providing intelligence-related consulting services to federal agencies and private companies.
“During a State Department briefing on March 21, 2008, McCormack confirmed that the contractor had accessed the passport files of presidential candidates Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and John McCain, and that the inspector general had launched an investigation.
“Sources who tracked the investigation tell Newsmax that the main target of the breach was the Obama passport file, and that the contractor accessed the file in order to ‘cauterize’ the records of potentially embarrassing information.
“ ‘They looked at the McCain and Clinton files as well to create confusion,’ one knowledgeable source told Newsmax. ‘But this was basically an attempt to cauterize the Obama file.’
“At the time of the breach, Brennan was working as an unpaid adviser to the Obama campaign.
” ‘This individual’s actions were taken without the knowledge or direction of anyone at The Analysis Corp. and are wholly inconsistent with our professional and ethical standards,’ Brennan’s company said in a statement sent to reporters after the passport breach was made public.
“The passport files include ‘personally identifiable information such as the applicant’s name, gender, social security number, date and place of birth, and passport number,’ according to the inspector general report.
“The files may contain additional information including ‘original copies of the associated documents,’ the report added. Such documents include birth certificates, naturalization certificates, or oaths of allegiance for U.S.-born persons who adopted the citizenship of a foreign country as minors.”
“The State Department Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a 104-page report on the breach last July. Although it is stamped ‘Sensitive but Unclassified,’ the report was heavily redacted in the version released to the public, with page after page blacked out entirely.”
http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/brennan_passport_breach/2009/01/12/170430.html
The following may be relevant:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/apr/19/key-witness-in-passport-fraud-case-fatally-shot/
Key witness in passport fraud case fatally shot
Saturday, April 19, 2008
“A key witness in a federal probe into passport information stolen from the State Department was fatally shot in front of a District church, the Metropolitan Police Department said yesterday.
“Lt. Quarles Harris Jr., 24, who had been cooperating with a federal investigators, was found late Thursday night slumped dead inside a car, in front of the Judah House Praise Baptist Church in Northeast, said Cmdr. Michael Anzallo, head of the department’s Criminal Investigations Division.
“Cmdr. Anzallo said a police officer was patrolling the neighborhood when gunshots were heard, then Lt. Harris was found dead inside the vehicle, which investigators would describe only as a blue car.
“Emergency medics pronounced him dead at the scene.
“City police said they do not know whether his death was a direct result of his cooperation with federal investigators.
“We don’t have any information right now that connects his murder to that case,” Cmdr. Anzallo said.
“Police say a “shot spotter” device helped an officer locate Lt. Harris.
“A State Department spokeswoman yesterday declined to comment, saying the investigation into the passport fraud is ongoing.
“The Washington Times reported April 5 that contractors for the State Department had improperly accessed passport information for presidential candidates Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain, which resulted in a series of firings that reached into the agency’s top ranks.
“One agency employee, who was not identified in documents filed in U.S. District Court, was implicated in a credit-card fraud scheme after Lt. Harris told federal authorities he obtained “passport information from a co-conspirator who works for the U.S. Department of State.” “
There is a possibility that the breaches of the passport files associated with the “credit-card fraud scheme” were a cover for or associated with the breaches of the passport files by the employee of Brennan’s Analysis Corp.
Protecting Hawaii’s Favorite Son
Until June 2009, the reasonable doubts about where Obama was born could have quickly and finally been resolved if he had authorized the release by the Hawaiian Dept of Health of his original birth certificate or else applied for it himself and released it to the media. But as these doubts have increased and reached the point where they are no longer a “fringe” phenomenon, the Hawaiian state govt has recently taken certain steps that would create procedural and possibly legal barriers to a resolution of the controversy.
On June 7, 2009, a spokeswoman for the Hawaii Department of Health, Janice Okubo, announced that “The state Department of Health no longer issues copies of paper birth certificates as was done in the past. The department only issues ‘certifications’ of live births, and that is the ‘official birth certificate’ issued by the state of Hawaii, she said. ” [Honolulu Star Bulletin] http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html
This 2009 announcement sets up a way for the bureaucracy to stonewall any requests by Obama’s relatives or other interested parties who, before the change in policy, had a right to obtain his original birth certificate. (Now they will be fobbed off with the certification of live birth which the Dept of Health has now declared to be the ” ‘official birth certificate’ issued by the state of Hawaii”, a very dodgy bureaucratic maneuver that I doubt would stand up in a court of law if a relative contested it.) It also violated the long-standing right of all Hawaiian citizens to obtain copies of their original birth certificates. This right was often a legal necessity.
As late as June 10, 2009, the Department of Hawaiian Homelands insisted that it would not accept the Certification of Live Birth as adequate proof of birth in Hawaii. All applicants for its special programs had to present an original birth certificate, and the Department of Hawaiian Homelands described the simple procedure by which the original birth certificate could be obtained from the Department of Health. This was the statement on their website on June 10, 2009:
“In order to process your application, DHHL [Department of Hawaiian Homelands] utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.
“Please note that DOH [Department of Health] no longer offers same day service. If you plan on picking up your certified DOH document(s), you should allow at least 10 working days for DOH to process your request(s), OR four to six weeks if you want your certified certificate(s) mailed to you.”
On July 8, 2009 the web site World Net Daily accurately reported that “The state, which had excluded the controversial document [the Certification of Live Birth] as proof of native Hawaiian status, has changed its policy and now makes a point of including it.”
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103408
Here is the new statement on the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands web site [July 8, 2009]. “The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth [original birth certificates] and Certifications of Live Birth … Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth.
The web site theobamafile.com picked up this significant change in procedure on the Dept of Hawaiian Homelands website on June 18, 2009. http://www.theobamafile.com/_BogusPOTUS/20090608.htm#HawaiiRuleChange
Sometime between June 10, 2009 and June 18, 2009 the state of Hawaii changed its long-standing rule on what documents and data were necessary to prove a birth in Hawaii for the Dept of Hawaiian Homelands, thereby upgrading the apparent status of the Certification of Live Birth which it had formerly regarded as insufficiently probative. Why?
A family that I am acquainted with has a child who was born in Hawaii in December 2008. They filled out and mailed in a form to the Dept of Health, as did their doctor. In return the Dept sent them in the first week of June, 2009, the same computer-generated form that last year on the Daily Kos and subsequently on the Obama campaign web site was called a “Certification of Live Birth”. The form that this family received this year is identical in format to the Certification of Live Birth on the Daily Kos web site with one exception: the title at the top of the form.
On June 12, 2008 the title for this form was Certification of Live Birth. The title for the form that this family received in the first week of June 2009 is Certificate of Live Birth. I called The Dept of Health and confirmed that the title of the form had been changed. The bureaucrat that I spoke to said the change had been made “recently”, but could not or would not tell me when. Sometime between June 12, 2008 and the first week of June 2009 the Hawaiian Dept of Health changed the title of this abbreviated form from “Certification of Live Birth” to “Certificate of Live Birth“. Why?
The use of the word “Certificate” rather than “Certification” makes the form feel somewhat more like a traditional birth certificate than the “Certification of Live Birth” that the Daily Kos website and subsequently the Obama campaign posted on the Internet even though, like the “Certification“, it also lacks any information about the hospital, doctor, or midwife. This renaming of the document will be very convenient for the Hawaiian Dept of Health in future stonewalling should any legal pressure be brought against them to produce Obama’s “Certificate of Live Birth”. Instead of producing the original “Certificate of Live Birth”, they will produce the “Certification of Live Birth” form that the Dept of Health has now renamed a “Certificate of Live Birth” and claim that they are doing so “in accordance with state policies and procedures” in the words of the Dept’s Director, Dr. Chiyome Fukino.
What is a “Natural Born Citizen”
It is only by examining the 18th century usage and definition of a term that we can ascertain its meaning in the Constitution. In the 18th century, and at the time of the framing and ratification of the Constitution by the states, the term “natural-born” subject or citizen was always used or defined in such a way as to exclude the child of a British or American girl or woman when that child was born in a foreign country and that child’s father was a foreign citizen. No 18th century jurist would have thought the term “natural-born” citizen or subject could have been extended to the child of a British or American girl or woman when that child was born in a foreign country and that child’s father was a foreign citizen.
Here is Blackstone’s classic exposition in 1765 of the legal meaning of the term from the Commentaries on the Laws of England.
William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:354, 357–58, 361–62
1765
“Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it.. . .
“When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king’s dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty’s English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king’s embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king,…might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.”
Avoiding a Constitutional Crisis
I think it is clear that there are reasonable arguments that Barack Obama may not be a natual-born citizen of the United States. These arguments could be settled if Obama allowed the Hawaii Department of Health to release his original birth certificate. It is completely reasonable to regard his refusal to do so as suspect.
In 2008, these justifiable doubts should have led to demands for the original birth certificate by the media, the responsible officials in the Democratic Party, the Secretaries of State in the different states, the members of the Electoral College and the Unites States Senate. John McCain was asked to provide his original birth certificate, and he did so.
The irresponsible confirmation in the Senate of the irresponsible tallying of votes in the Electoral College does not supersede the clear meaning of Article II, Section 1. If it is allowed to stand, disregard of the Constitution by all branches of the government would be openly established. To all who believe that the Constitution is the government’s basic law, that the Constitution is the only instrument that gives the enactments of Congress and the commands of the Executive validity, it will be clear that the rule of law in the United States is a fiction.
Journalists and politicians complain that we must avoid a Constitutional crisis, but there already is a Constitutional crisis. It has been caused by Obama’s refusal to take the simple step to clear the matter up. The power of the Executive branch has been compromised. Its right to collect taxes and sign Congressional enactments into law, in fact all of its powers, have become problematic. Since their validity under Section I is now doubtful, they depend on the illegal exercise of force. Since officers of the American military take their oath on commissioning to the Constitution and not the President, their obedience to the Commander-in-Chief has lapsed and, if they challenge or resist his authority, any court-martial will also be an illegal exercise of force. The only way out of the present Constitutional crisis is for Obama to do as McCain did when he was confronted by far less pressing doubts about the circumstances of his birth. He must disclose his original birth certificate. Since the document has been so suspiciously withheld for so long, it should be subjected to rigorous forensic tests. Then whatever is on it should be judicially assessed together with the claims that have been made that Barack Obama was born on foreign soil.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Obama Failure And Socialism | Obama Bullshit Bingo
Playing Bullshit Bingo
This is really funny!
Rules for Bullshit Bingo
Dear Friends,
If you are in town for the next official speech the party's at my house! This is better than bunko!
1. Before Barrack Obama's next televised speech, prepare your "Bullshit Bingo" card by drawing a square
I find that 5" x 5" is a good size -- and dividing it into columns--five across and five down. That will give you 25 1-inch
blocks.
2. Write one of the following words/phrases in each block:
.Restored our reputation
.Strategic fit
.Let me be clear
.Make no mistake
.Back from the brink
.Signs of recovery
.Out of the loop
.Benchmark
.Job creation
.Fiscal restraint
.Win-win
.Affordable health care
.Previous Administration
.Greed on Wall Street
.At the end of the day
.Empower (or empowerment)
.Touch base
.Mindset
.Corporate greed
.Ballpark
.Game plan
.Inherited as in "I inherited this mess"
.Relief for working families
3. Check off the appropriate block when you hear one of those words or phrases.
4. When you get five blocks horizontally, vertically, or diagonally, stand up and shout "BULLSHIT!"
Testimonials from past satisfied "Bullshit Bingo" players:
"I had been listening to the speech for only five minutes when I won."
Jack W., Boston
"My attention span during speeches has improved dramatically."
David D., Florida
"What a gas! Speeches will never be the same after my first win."
Bill R., New York City
"The atmosphere was tense in the last speech as 14 of us waited for the fifth box."
Ben G., Denver
"The speaker was stunned as eight of us screamed "BULLSHIT!" for the third time in two hours."
Harry A, Chantilly
"This is the most fun I have ever had with my pants up!"
Robert H., Portland
Political humor brought to you by Obama Failure and Socialism Blog
This is really funny!
Rules for Bullshit Bingo
Dear Friends,
If you are in town for the next official speech the party's at my house! This is better than bunko!
1. Before Barrack Obama's next televised speech, prepare your "Bullshit Bingo" card by drawing a square
I find that 5" x 5" is a good size -- and dividing it into columns--five across and five down. That will give you 25 1-inch
blocks.
2. Write one of the following words/phrases in each block:
.Restored our reputation
.Strategic fit
.Let me be clear
.Make no mistake
.Back from the brink
.Signs of recovery
.Out of the loop
.Benchmark
.Job creation
.Fiscal restraint
.Win-win
.Affordable health care
.Previous Administration
.Greed on Wall Street
.At the end of the day
.Empower (or empowerment)
.Touch base
.Mindset
.Corporate greed
.Ballpark
.Game plan
.Inherited as in "I inherited this mess"
.Relief for working families
3. Check off the appropriate block when you hear one of those words or phrases.
4. When you get five blocks horizontally, vertically, or diagonally, stand up and shout "BULLSHIT!"
Testimonials from past satisfied "Bullshit Bingo" players:
"I had been listening to the speech for only five minutes when I won."
Jack W., Boston
"My attention span during speeches has improved dramatically."
David D., Florida
"What a gas! Speeches will never be the same after my first win."
Bill R., New York City
"The atmosphere was tense in the last speech as 14 of us waited for the fifth box."
Ben G., Denver
"The speaker was stunned as eight of us screamed "BULLSHIT!" for the third time in two hours."
Harry A, Chantilly
"This is the most fun I have ever had with my pants up!"
Robert H., Portland
Political humor brought to you by Obama Failure and Socialism Blog
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Obama Failure and Socialism | Another Challenge "Just Provide A Legal US Birth Certificate"
Lt. Col. Terry Lakin is facing possible imprisonment, and it has been reported that Army officials have gone so far as to "suggest" that he submit to a "mental evaluation" ... all because he has the audacity to ask Barack Hussein Obama to supply a copy of his actual birth certificate.
During his 18-year career as a flight-surgeon in the United States Army, Lakin has put his life on the line in defense of the United States Constitution. And he's more than willing to do so again.
But before Lakin places himself, yet again, in harm's way, he's asking Barack Hussein Obama to do the very same thing that he, and countless others who honorably serve our country are, in so many cases, REQUIRED to do... namely, supply a copy of an actual birth certificate; and thereby prove that the orders he gives as "Commander-in-Chief" are, indeed, LAWFUL.
Why go to all the trouble? Lakin answers the question best himself: "I feel I have no choice but the distasteful one of inviting my own court martial. The Constitution matters. The truth matters."
And so, a brave soldier, who has placed himself in harm's way, and is willing to do so again, is being harassed and faces possible imprisonment because Barack Hussein Obama... REFUSES to honor the Constitution... REFUSES to prove that he is not a FRAUD and a USURPER... REFUSES to prove that the orders he is giving our brave men and women in uniform are lawful... and REFUSES to release his actual birth certificate.
Of course you won't hear about Lt Col. Lakin's plight on the nightly news or the front page of the New York Times. In fact, there are only a handful of credible news organizations and blogs calling attention to Lakin's plight.
Of course, if you have been paying attention you already know much of what the Mainstream Media is not reporting.
You already know that Barack Hussein Obama has outright REFUSED to release his actual birth certificate and that hundreds-of-thousands of dollars have been spent to OBSTRUCT requests that he supply his actual birth certificate.
You already know that the document that Barack Hussein Obama claims is his "birth certificate" is NOT a valid long form birth certificate and that, until recently, the state of Hawaii did not even accept that very same document as proof that an individual is a Hawaiian citizen because that document can be issued to individuals not actually born in Hawaii.
And you also know that when Lakin (an officer with 18 years of service in the Army) stated his intention to refuse deployment orders until his presumed "Commander-in-Chief" proves that he is eligible to hold the post, he was "counseled," threatened with jail time and encouraged to undergo psychiatric evaluation.
Specifically, , Lakin received a reprimand which stated, in part:
"On 30 March 2010, this command became aware of your intentions to refuse to follow deployment orders. Your stated reason for refusal was your belief that the election of the President of the United States is invalid.... Failure to follow your reassignment and/or deployment orders may result in adverse action including court-martial... If found guilty … you could be sentenced to dismissal from the service... forefeiture (sic) of all pay and allowances; and confinement for a period of months or years in a military prison."
But here's something else the pro-Obama Mainstream Media will NOT report.
If the Army follows through on its threat to court martial Lakin, he would have the right of discovery... meaning that his defense team could compel Barack Hussein Obama to produce the document that he has REFUSED to produce... his actual birth certificate.
That's why Barack Hussein Obama's allies in the media are NOT covering this story. They don't want to the American people to know what is going on... they don't want the American people to start asking pesky questions.
In short, they don't want the American people to know the truth.
And that's why your tax-deductible donation to the Western Center for Journalism is so important. It will make it possible for us to continue covering this story and keep pressure on Barack Hussein Obama and the Mainstream media so that Americans WILL start asking those pesky questions.
Is the biggest political crime in American history taking place right before our eyes? Is the man in the White House INELIGIBLE, according to the Constitution, to sit in the Oval Office... is he a FRAUD... a USURPER?
Barack Hussein Obama could put the issue to rest right now by simply releasing his actual birth certificate.
He's dug in his heels. He has teams of lawyers fighting efforts to get him to release his actual birth certificate, while his underlings look down their noses at the American people and call these legitimate requests “garbage.”
And the one pivotal question that those who attempt to dismiss the controversy cannot answer is: If Barack Hussein Obama has nothing to hide, what’s the problem? The more he resists, the more you have to wonder.
Meanwhile the liberal press is trying to drag this story into a dark alley and bludgeon it to death.
It’s time for you and me to weigh in and force the issue. Let's call-out the liberal media.
Fighting, with words, to keep America Free, the Obama Failure and Socialism Blog
During his 18-year career as a flight-surgeon in the United States Army, Lakin has put his life on the line in defense of the United States Constitution. And he's more than willing to do so again.
But before Lakin places himself, yet again, in harm's way, he's asking Barack Hussein Obama to do the very same thing that he, and countless others who honorably serve our country are, in so many cases, REQUIRED to do... namely, supply a copy of an actual birth certificate; and thereby prove that the orders he gives as "Commander-in-Chief" are, indeed, LAWFUL.
Why go to all the trouble? Lakin answers the question best himself: "I feel I have no choice but the distasteful one of inviting my own court martial. The Constitution matters. The truth matters."
And so, a brave soldier, who has placed himself in harm's way, and is willing to do so again, is being harassed and faces possible imprisonment because Barack Hussein Obama... REFUSES to honor the Constitution... REFUSES to prove that he is not a FRAUD and a USURPER... REFUSES to prove that the orders he is giving our brave men and women in uniform are lawful... and REFUSES to release his actual birth certificate.
Of course you won't hear about Lt Col. Lakin's plight on the nightly news or the front page of the New York Times. In fact, there are only a handful of credible news organizations and blogs calling attention to Lakin's plight.
Of course, if you have been paying attention you already know much of what the Mainstream Media is not reporting.
You already know that Barack Hussein Obama has outright REFUSED to release his actual birth certificate and that hundreds-of-thousands of dollars have been spent to OBSTRUCT requests that he supply his actual birth certificate.
You already know that the document that Barack Hussein Obama claims is his "birth certificate" is NOT a valid long form birth certificate and that, until recently, the state of Hawaii did not even accept that very same document as proof that an individual is a Hawaiian citizen because that document can be issued to individuals not actually born in Hawaii.
And you also know that when Lakin (an officer with 18 years of service in the Army) stated his intention to refuse deployment orders until his presumed "Commander-in-Chief" proves that he is eligible to hold the post, he was "counseled," threatened with jail time and encouraged to undergo psychiatric evaluation.
Specifically, , Lakin received a reprimand which stated, in part:
"On 30 March 2010, this command became aware of your intentions to refuse to follow deployment orders. Your stated reason for refusal was your belief that the election of the President of the United States is invalid.... Failure to follow your reassignment and/or deployment orders may result in adverse action including court-martial... If found guilty … you could be sentenced to dismissal from the service... forefeiture (sic) of all pay and allowances; and confinement for a period of months or years in a military prison."
But here's something else the pro-Obama Mainstream Media will NOT report.
If the Army follows through on its threat to court martial Lakin, he would have the right of discovery... meaning that his defense team could compel Barack Hussein Obama to produce the document that he has REFUSED to produce... his actual birth certificate.
That's why Barack Hussein Obama's allies in the media are NOT covering this story. They don't want to the American people to know what is going on... they don't want the American people to start asking pesky questions.
In short, they don't want the American people to know the truth.
And that's why your tax-deductible donation to the Western Center for Journalism is so important. It will make it possible for us to continue covering this story and keep pressure on Barack Hussein Obama and the Mainstream media so that Americans WILL start asking those pesky questions.
Is the biggest political crime in American history taking place right before our eyes? Is the man in the White House INELIGIBLE, according to the Constitution, to sit in the Oval Office... is he a FRAUD... a USURPER?
Barack Hussein Obama could put the issue to rest right now by simply releasing his actual birth certificate.
He's dug in his heels. He has teams of lawyers fighting efforts to get him to release his actual birth certificate, while his underlings look down their noses at the American people and call these legitimate requests “garbage.”
And the one pivotal question that those who attempt to dismiss the controversy cannot answer is: If Barack Hussein Obama has nothing to hide, what’s the problem? The more he resists, the more you have to wonder.
Meanwhile the liberal press is trying to drag this story into a dark alley and bludgeon it to death.
It’s time for you and me to weigh in and force the issue. Let's call-out the liberal media.
Fighting, with words, to keep America Free, the Obama Failure and Socialism Blog
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Obama Failure and Socialism | More Michelle Obama (The Ape Woman) Helping Her Friends and Family
Some have said that the stimulus hasn't saved any jobs, but here is a case
where at least one job was saved. Oregon State University Athletic
Director Bob DeCarolis was considering firing their basketball coach,
Craig Robinson, after an 8-11 start (2-5 in the Pac 10 conference). When
word of this reached Washington, Undersecretary of Education Martha Kanter
was dispatched to Corvallis with $17 million in stimulus money for the
university. Craig Robinson's job is safe for this year. For those of you
unfamiliar with Coach Robinson, he just so happens to be Michelle Obama's
brother. Just a coincidence I'm sure!
More Truth About The Anti Americans Residing At 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Brought to you by the Obama Failure and Socialism Blog
where at least one job was saved. Oregon State University Athletic
Director Bob DeCarolis was considering firing their basketball coach,
Craig Robinson, after an 8-11 start (2-5 in the Pac 10 conference). When
word of this reached Washington, Undersecretary of Education Martha Kanter
was dispatched to Corvallis with $17 million in stimulus money for the
university. Craig Robinson's job is safe for this year. For those of you
unfamiliar with Coach Robinson, he just so happens to be Michelle Obama's
brother. Just a coincidence I'm sure!
More Truth About The Anti Americans Residing At 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Brought to you by the Obama Failure and Socialism Blog
Obama Failure and Socialism | ObamaCare Unconstitutional?
THE NEW SUPREME COURT LITMUS TEST: ARE OBAMA'S PROGRAMS CONSTITUTIONAL?
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
As Republicans contemplate their response to President Obama's coming nomination to the Supreme Court, we should go beyond the traditional scrutiny over social issues and demand that any nominee elaborate his or her views about the constitutionality of the recent legislation passed by this Administration. The hearings on his nominee will be an ideal opportunity to convince the public of the unconstitutionality of his power grabs.
The Obamacare bill, for example, not only strips states of the right to determine who will get Medicaid coverage within their borders, but it forces the states to pick up part of the tab. This is a violation of the very concept of the Tenth Amendment which provides that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Read The Entire Story At DickMoris.com
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
As Republicans contemplate their response to President Obama's coming nomination to the Supreme Court, we should go beyond the traditional scrutiny over social issues and demand that any nominee elaborate his or her views about the constitutionality of the recent legislation passed by this Administration. The hearings on his nominee will be an ideal opportunity to convince the public of the unconstitutionality of his power grabs.
The Obamacare bill, for example, not only strips states of the right to determine who will get Medicaid coverage within their borders, but it forces the states to pick up part of the tab. This is a violation of the very concept of the Tenth Amendment which provides that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Read The Entire Story At DickMoris.com
Obama Failure and Socialism Court Martialling Our Military For Following Oath
'Birther' Lt. Col. Terry Lakin to be court-martialed
BY MICHAEL SHERIDAN, New York Daily NEws
An Army doc who refuses to go to Afghanistan until President Obama produces a birth certificate will face court-martial. Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, a decorated military man who has become a part of the fringe "birther" movement - which believes President Obama was not born in the United States - could face a dishonorable discharge for failing to obey orders, MSNBC reported on Tuesday.
The 18-year veteran came out in support of the largely discredited conspiracy theorists at the end of March, proclaiming he would "disobey" his "illegal" orders to deploy. "I believe all servicemen and women, and the American people, deserve the truth about President Obama's constitutional eligibility to the office of the presidency and the commander in chief," he said in a video statement posted on YouTube on March 30.
The Bronze Star Medal recipient refuses to go to Afghanistan for a second tour until Obama releases his birth certificate showing he was, in fact, born in the U.S. "Seeking out public office, especially the highest in our land, means you must uphold the Constitution, Mr. President, and confirm your eligibility," Lakin said in the video.
See the video and hear the truth here http://www.westernjournalism.com/?p=7179
BY MICHAEL SHERIDAN, New York Daily NEws
An Army doc who refuses to go to Afghanistan until President Obama produces a birth certificate will face court-martial. Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, a decorated military man who has become a part of the fringe "birther" movement - which believes President Obama was not born in the United States - could face a dishonorable discharge for failing to obey orders, MSNBC reported on Tuesday.
The 18-year veteran came out in support of the largely discredited conspiracy theorists at the end of March, proclaiming he would "disobey" his "illegal" orders to deploy. "I believe all servicemen and women, and the American people, deserve the truth about President Obama's constitutional eligibility to the office of the presidency and the commander in chief," he said in a video statement posted on YouTube on March 30.
The Bronze Star Medal recipient refuses to go to Afghanistan for a second tour until Obama releases his birth certificate showing he was, in fact, born in the U.S. "Seeking out public office, especially the highest in our land, means you must uphold the Constitution, Mr. President, and confirm your eligibility," Lakin said in the video.
See the video and hear the truth here http://www.westernjournalism.com/?p=7179
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Monday, April 12, 2010
Obama Failure and Socilism | Marxist Democrats Supporters Harrass Tea Party
Warning: Marinated-in-Marxism Democrats and supporters are hot on the trail of Tea Party patriots.
They have launched a Crash the Tea Party (CTTP) website: crashtheteaparty.org on the eve of the April 15 anniversary of the Tea Party.
“WHO WE ARE, Crash The Tea Party style, is a lesson in Marxism 101: “A nationwide network of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents who are sick and tired of that loose affiliation of racists, homophobes, and morons; who constitute the fake grass-roots movement which calls itself “The Tea Party.”
The definition of CTTP couldn’t have been better scripted by Nancy Pelosi.
“WHAT WE WANT: To dismantle and demolish the Tea Party by any non-violent means necessary.
“HOW WE WILL SUCCEED: By infiltrating the Tea Party itself! In an effort to propagate their pre-existing propensity for paranoia and suspicion…We have already sat quietly in their meetings, and observed their rallies.”
But the game-plan is Crash the Tea Party’s most ominous part: “We will act on behalf of the Tea Party in ways which exaggerate their least appealing qualities (misspelled protest signs, wild claims in TV interviews, etc.) to further distance them from mainstream America and damage the public’s opinion of them. We will also use the inside information that we have gained in order to disrupt and derail their plans.” (Emphasis CFP’s).
“Sound like fun? It is!! If you’d like to join us, just click on the word “crash!” below.
Crash the Tea Party could should be called Agent Provocateurs Are Us!
And like the scurrilous snipers of the sidelines they are, they try to pass off their website registrant name as Ben Franklin.
Crash the Tea Party was registered April 3, 2010.
CFP conducted an Internic “Whois” search and discovered that the phone number listed for the Ben Franklin registrant gave an S. Lamonoff in Langhorne, Pa. White pages list a Sheila R. Lamonoff as holder of the telephone line, also listed as S. Lamonoff.
The telephone number listed for Crash the Tea Party is 215-752-1992. The number has call block service.
CFP dialed the number and reached a recorded female voice saying “You have reached Carol and Nat, We are not available. Leave a message and have a nice day.”
Other records indicate that there is a Norman Lamonoff listed at the same address.
Meanwhile, patriots take note: The Dem-inspired agent provocateurs want to crash your Tea Party.
UPDATE: Courtesy Free Republic
Link to full post
Vanity: Jason Levin (xenex11)-the man behind the “Crash The Tea Party” website(Pics)
http://crashtheteaparty.org ^ 4-10-10 Freeper Research
Posted on Sat Apr 10 03:02:12 2010 by icwhatudo
Tea Party activists, be on the lookout for this man at your next event:
His name is Jason Levin and he has set up a website urging people to infiltrate Tea Parties and act in such a way as to damage their public image. His website is called CrashTheTeaParty.org
While the website’s registry has been changed to hide the owner, Freepers were able to track down Mr. Levin and here is what we found:
The current registry for the website lists:
Registrant:
Ben Franklin
3 chestnut lane
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19115
United States
Luckily, freeper HOYA97 was able to grab the true registry info before it was changed to cover Mr. Levin’s tracks.
Registrant ID:CR45137659
Registrant Name:Jason Levin
Registrant Street1:xxxx SW Birch Street
Registrant City:Portland
Registrant State/Province:Oregon
Registrant Postal Code:97223
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.503936xxxx
Registrant Email:xenex11@gmail.com
So now we learn the website’s true owner is Jason Levin of Portland, OR. His attempt to hide his info by using “Ben Franklin” and “Philadelphia” came from his Myspace page (found by freeper correct thought) as Franklin is listed as his hero and Philly was listed as his hometown. His Myspace page uses the screen name “xenex11” which also was listed on the original registry info.
They have launched a Crash the Tea Party (CTTP) website: crashtheteaparty.org on the eve of the April 15 anniversary of the Tea Party.
“WHO WE ARE, Crash The Tea Party style, is a lesson in Marxism 101: “A nationwide network of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents who are sick and tired of that loose affiliation of racists, homophobes, and morons; who constitute the fake grass-roots movement which calls itself “The Tea Party.”
The definition of CTTP couldn’t have been better scripted by Nancy Pelosi.
“WHAT WE WANT: To dismantle and demolish the Tea Party by any non-violent means necessary.
“HOW WE WILL SUCCEED: By infiltrating the Tea Party itself! In an effort to propagate their pre-existing propensity for paranoia and suspicion…We have already sat quietly in their meetings, and observed their rallies.”
But the game-plan is Crash the Tea Party’s most ominous part: “We will act on behalf of the Tea Party in ways which exaggerate their least appealing qualities (misspelled protest signs, wild claims in TV interviews, etc.) to further distance them from mainstream America and damage the public’s opinion of them. We will also use the inside information that we have gained in order to disrupt and derail their plans.” (Emphasis CFP’s).
“Sound like fun? It is!! If you’d like to join us, just click on the word “crash!” below.
Crash the Tea Party could should be called Agent Provocateurs Are Us!
And like the scurrilous snipers of the sidelines they are, they try to pass off their website registrant name as Ben Franklin.
Crash the Tea Party was registered April 3, 2010.
CFP conducted an Internic “Whois” search and discovered that the phone number listed for the Ben Franklin registrant gave an S. Lamonoff in Langhorne, Pa. White pages list a Sheila R. Lamonoff as holder of the telephone line, also listed as S. Lamonoff.
The telephone number listed for Crash the Tea Party is 215-752-1992. The number has call block service.
CFP dialed the number and reached a recorded female voice saying “You have reached Carol and Nat, We are not available. Leave a message and have a nice day.”
Other records indicate that there is a Norman Lamonoff listed at the same address.
Meanwhile, patriots take note: The Dem-inspired agent provocateurs want to crash your Tea Party.
UPDATE: Courtesy Free Republic
Link to full post
Vanity: Jason Levin (xenex11)-the man behind the “Crash The Tea Party” website(Pics)
http://crashtheteaparty.org ^ 4-10-10 Freeper Research
Posted on Sat Apr 10 03:02:12 2010 by icwhatudo
Tea Party activists, be on the lookout for this man at your next event:
His name is Jason Levin and he has set up a website urging people to infiltrate Tea Parties and act in such a way as to damage their public image. His website is called CrashTheTeaParty.org
While the website’s registry has been changed to hide the owner, Freepers were able to track down Mr. Levin and here is what we found:
The current registry for the website lists:
Registrant:
Ben Franklin
3 chestnut lane
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19115
United States
Luckily, freeper HOYA97 was able to grab the true registry info before it was changed to cover Mr. Levin’s tracks.
Registrant ID:CR45137659
Registrant Name:Jason Levin
Registrant Street1:xxxx SW Birch Street
Registrant City:Portland
Registrant State/Province:Oregon
Registrant Postal Code:97223
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.503936xxxx
Registrant Email:xenex11@gmail.com
So now we learn the website’s true owner is Jason Levin of Portland, OR. His attempt to hide his info by using “Ben Franklin” and “Philadelphia” came from his Myspace page (found by freeper correct thought) as Franklin is listed as his hero and Philly was listed as his hometown. His Myspace page uses the screen name “xenex11” which also was listed on the original registry info.
Obama Failure and Socialism | Obama Kenyan Born?
A Kenyan lawmaker told the nation's Parliament last month that Barack Obama was born in Africa and is therefore "not even a native American."
During debate over the draft of a new Kenyan constitution, James Orengo, the country's minister of lands and a member of parliament for the Ugenya constituency, cited America's election of a Kenyan-born president as an example of what can be accomplished when diverse peoples unite:
"If America was living in a situation where they feared ethnicity and did not see itself as a multiparty state or nation," Orengo posited, "how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the president of America?"
Read the whole story at Vision To America
During debate over the draft of a new Kenyan constitution, James Orengo, the country's minister of lands and a member of parliament for the Ugenya constituency, cited America's election of a Kenyan-born president as an example of what can be accomplished when diverse peoples unite:
"If America was living in a situation where they feared ethnicity and did not see itself as a multiparty state or nation," Orengo posited, "how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the president of America?"
Read the whole story at Vision To America
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Obama Failure and Socialism | Pelosi Is Nothing More Than A New Curse Word
Years ago when I sometimes used unsavory language, I often used the expression "Bull Shit."
As I grew up a bit and learned not to use such crude language, that expression became "B.S."
What did I really mean when I used those expressions? I meant that something was ridiculous, or idiotic or a half truth or just stupid. It covered any number of negative formats.
The dictionary defines it as: nonsense; especially: foolish insolent talk...
I have decided that I no longer will use either of those expressions in the future.
When I have a need to express such feelings, I will use the word "Pelosi."
Let me use it in a sentence. "That's just a bunch of Pelosi.." I encourage you to do the same.
It is such a nasty sounding word, it really packs a punch, we are no longer being vulgar, and it clearly expresses our feelings.If enough of us use it, perhaps the word could be entered into the dictionary.
When on a ranch watch your step and don't step in Pelosi. It will get on the bottom of your boot and won't go away until next election.
What a fitting and descriptive legacy for the Speaker of the House!
Pass it on to at least 10,000,000 people. Do not break this chain or you will get more Pelosi than you can shake a stick at.
P.S. Betcha when this new word reaches D.C., the PELOSI WILL HIT THE FAN!
Obama Failure and Socialism
As I grew up a bit and learned not to use such crude language, that expression became "B.S."
What did I really mean when I used those expressions? I meant that something was ridiculous, or idiotic or a half truth or just stupid. It covered any number of negative formats.
The dictionary defines it as: nonsense; especially: foolish insolent talk...
I have decided that I no longer will use either of those expressions in the future.
When I have a need to express such feelings, I will use the word "Pelosi."
Let me use it in a sentence. "That's just a bunch of Pelosi.." I encourage you to do the same.
It is such a nasty sounding word, it really packs a punch, we are no longer being vulgar, and it clearly expresses our feelings.If enough of us use it, perhaps the word could be entered into the dictionary.
When on a ranch watch your step and don't step in Pelosi. It will get on the bottom of your boot and won't go away until next election.
What a fitting and descriptive legacy for the Speaker of the House!
Pass it on to at least 10,000,000 people. Do not break this chain or you will get more Pelosi than you can shake a stick at.
P.S. Betcha when this new word reaches D.C., the PELOSI WILL HIT THE FAN!
Obama Failure and Socialism
Obama Failure and Socialism | Obama Signs Death Warrant For America
If any nation wants to attack the United States with chemical, biological, or electromagnetic pulse weapons, it need not fear nuclear retaliation as long as it has no nuclear weapons and abides by the Non Proliferation Treaty, Obama has announced. So, as New Yorkers are coughing their lungs out from mustard gas or dying in the streets of biological weapons, they will know that their government will not use nuclear weapons to retaliate against their murderers.
In effect, Obama has said if you are a signatory to the non proliferation treaty and do not have nuclear weapons, we will not hit you with nuclear bombs even if you unleash poison gas or biological microbes in crowded American cities or cripple our economy by a massive electromagnetic pulse
Obama's incredible announcement amounts to a green light for anti-American nations to hit our cities with gas or poisons resting secure in the knowledge that we will not use our nuclear arsenal to reply.
The Nuclear Policy review, issued by the Pentagon yesterday said that “the U.S. does not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states party to the NPT (Non Proliferation Treaty) and [who are] meeting their obligations.” Defense Secretary Robert Gates went on to say that “there is a limited range of contingencies in which U.S. nuclear weapons may have a role to stop an attack with conventional or chemical or biological weapons.” He said that these contingencies only included countries “that possess nuclear weapons or that do not comply with their non proliferation treaty obligations.” In other words, if Iran, India, Pakistan, or North Korea hits us with chemical weapons, we will reply with nuclear retaliation. But if any other nation (like a Taliban-controlled Afghanistan) does so, we will only use conventional weapons to retaliate.
Republicans should reply by introducing a bill in the Senate committing the United States to a nuclear response should any nation attack us with biological, chemical, or electromagnetic pulse weapons. Let the Democrats vote against it. Let them filibuster it. Let them explain why we will not use our strongest weapons to deter an attack that could kill millions of our citizens or immobilize our entire economy!
Obama’s motivations for this absurd policy are plain enough. He wants to up the ante for Iran and make it clear that the Islamic Republic can develop crippling weapons for use against the United States without going nuclear. He wants to invest chemical, biological, and electromagnetic pulse weaponry with an impunity that can only be obtained at the price of nuclear virginity.
But think about the consequences of Obama's policy! Are we really going to overlook so horrendous an attack and confine our response to cruise missiles with conventional warheads or a few divisions of American soldiers? Is it really material to our nation whether millions of our fellow citizens die of a nuclear bomb or are slain by chemical or biological weaponry?
Obama has violated the Ronald Reagan rule that a president must “never say never.” He has eliminated the ambiguity which has kept us safe for decades and made it clear that our nation will not use its full resources to defend its citizenry even if millions are obliterated by heinous biological or chemical weaponry. He has made a big mistake and the Republicans must pounce on it.
In effect, Obama has said if you are a signatory to the non proliferation treaty and do not have nuclear weapons, we will not hit you with nuclear bombs even if you unleash poison gas or biological microbes in crowded American cities or cripple our economy by a massive electromagnetic pulse
Obama's incredible announcement amounts to a green light for anti-American nations to hit our cities with gas or poisons resting secure in the knowledge that we will not use our nuclear arsenal to reply.
The Nuclear Policy review, issued by the Pentagon yesterday said that “the U.S. does not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states party to the NPT (Non Proliferation Treaty) and [who are] meeting their obligations.” Defense Secretary Robert Gates went on to say that “there is a limited range of contingencies in which U.S. nuclear weapons may have a role to stop an attack with conventional or chemical or biological weapons.” He said that these contingencies only included countries “that possess nuclear weapons or that do not comply with their non proliferation treaty obligations.” In other words, if Iran, India, Pakistan, or North Korea hits us with chemical weapons, we will reply with nuclear retaliation. But if any other nation (like a Taliban-controlled Afghanistan) does so, we will only use conventional weapons to retaliate.
Republicans should reply by introducing a bill in the Senate committing the United States to a nuclear response should any nation attack us with biological, chemical, or electromagnetic pulse weapons. Let the Democrats vote against it. Let them filibuster it. Let them explain why we will not use our strongest weapons to deter an attack that could kill millions of our citizens or immobilize our entire economy!
Obama’s motivations for this absurd policy are plain enough. He wants to up the ante for Iran and make it clear that the Islamic Republic can develop crippling weapons for use against the United States without going nuclear. He wants to invest chemical, biological, and electromagnetic pulse weaponry with an impunity that can only be obtained at the price of nuclear virginity.
But think about the consequences of Obama's policy! Are we really going to overlook so horrendous an attack and confine our response to cruise missiles with conventional warheads or a few divisions of American soldiers? Is it really material to our nation whether millions of our fellow citizens die of a nuclear bomb or are slain by chemical or biological weaponry?
Obama has violated the Ronald Reagan rule that a president must “never say never.” He has eliminated the ambiguity which has kept us safe for decades and made it clear that our nation will not use its full resources to defend its citizenry even if millions are obliterated by heinous biological or chemical weaponry. He has made a big mistake and the Republicans must pounce on it.
Obama Failure and Socialism | Obama And Holder Call Gun Owners Terrorists In Defiance Of The Second Amendment
The Obama Failure and Socialism Blog brings you this message from the National Association For Gun Rights before the criminals Eric Holder and Buttcrack Osammy take away your SECOND AMMENDMENT RIGHTS. Read and Then Take Action To PROTECT the U.S. Constitution.
Dear Gun Owner or American Supporter Of The Second Ammendment,
Please forgive our bluntness, but the United States Government thinks you’re a terrorist.
And now they’re trying to pass a bill allowing gun-grabbing Attorney General Eric Holder to revoke all your Second Amendment rights at will if he has “a reasonable belief” you could pose a “threat.”
We know this sounds unbelievable, but read on.
As you know, in a recently released report, the goons at Barack Obama’s Department of Homeland Security classified gun owners, honorably discharged veterans and little old church ladies as threats to the security and stability of the United States of America.
Even a gesture as simple as placing a pro-gun bumper sticker on your car, or supporting a pro-gun candidate makes you a potential “domestic terrorist” in the eyes of the thugs running our government.
Obviously, your First Amendment rights of free speech mean as much to Obama’s Department of Homeland Security as your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
And to add insult to injury, Barack Obama’s Surveillance Czar Janet Napolitano sees no difference between law-abiding gun owners like you and violent racists who murder and vandalize.
But if that’s not shocking and outrageous enough, it gets worse . . .
Republican quislings Peter King of New York, Mark Kirk of Illinois and Mike Castle of Delaware have introduced a new gun control bill that comes right out of this so-called “Rightwing Extremist” report.
We're talking about H.R. 2159, the shockingly misnamed “Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009.”
We call it the “Disarming American Citizens Act of 2009.”
These anti-gun Republicans-in-Name-Only want to disarm you because they fear your pro-liberty views.
In fact, your love of freedom frightens them so much that they’re now going to great lengths to label you a domestic terrorist.
It’s the perfect way to silence “troublemakers” like you and me, and to marginalize our influence.
And make no mistake: If Congress passes H.R. 2159, Eric Holder would have the authority to deny thousands of innocent Americans their constitutionally protected rights.
But this bill isn’t just about Eric Holder taking away your Second Amendment rights if you’re “appropriately suspected” of “terrorism.”
H.R. 2159 also allows Holder and his team of gun-grabbing henchmen to “withhold” any and all evidence from you or a court if Holder & co. “determine” that it might “compromise national security.”
These are the same people who labeled small government advocates potential “domestic terrorists!” Who cares what they “determine”?
Even more ridiculous, H.R. 2159 says that the courts “must” rely on Eric Holder’s personally “redacted versions” or “summaries” of the “evidence” he supposedly has against you . . .
. . . and he never has to release the evidence he claims to have!
They could annul your Second Amendment rights and convict you in a court of “law” without a shred of actual evidence . . . legally!
You already know Attorney General Eric Holder is Barack Obama’s most ruthless anti-gun henchman.
And we all know what Barack Obama himself thinks of gun owners.
As a candidate, he claimed you and I were “bitter” uneducated folks “clinging” to guns out of hatred and frustration.
And now as President, he and Surveillance Czar Janet Napolitano have gone a step further in declaring gun rights activists and pro-gun voters domestic terrorist threats.
To make matters worse, Republican scalawags Mike Castle and Mark Kirk -- both notorious anti-gunners -- are working with Obama and Carolyn McCarthy to strip you of your most fundamental freedoms.
If H.R. 2159 becomes law, Eric Holder -- or any other Attorney General for that matter -- will be allowed to disarm you based on your political views without having to provide any evidence for his claims.
We are committed to this fight. Are you?
We hope you realize how dangerous this bill is. And we hope that you will take action to stop this anti-American bill.
Let us give you an idea of what gun owners are up against.
With anti-gun Barack Obama in the White House, and Nancy Pelosi ruling the House of Representatives with an iron fist, our only hope to stop the Disarming American Citizens Act is in the Senate.
As We’ve told you before, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid finds himself between a rock and a hard place.
Even as his re-election to the Senate from pro-gun Nevada is very much in doubt, anti-gunners like Sarah Brady and MoveOn.org are pressuring him to do their bidding in Washington.
To break a politician like Harry Reid, we need to stir up a hornet’s nest of discontent among gun owners across the country and especially in targeted states like Nevada.
The good news is concerned Americans in support of protecting our Second Amentdment Rights have the ability to contact hundreds of thousands of gun owners by phone, fax, email and traditional mail.
Unfortunately, reaching gun owners in a timely manner takes resources that most supporters simply don’t have.
Fighting for our right to keep and bear arms isn’t cheap.
For example, with the recent postage increases, it now costs Second Amendment rights Supporters well over $1000 to produce and mail a letter to 1000 gun owners.
But no matter what, we simply cannot let H.R. 2159, the Disarming American Citizens Act, become law.
That’s why it’s imperative you take a moment to send in your most generous donation possible to your chosen support group. The NRA, the National Association For Gun Rights or your pro second amendment congressman.
$50, $100, $150 or $200 will make a huge difference in our fight to stop H.R. 2159.
We know that times are tough in this economy, but your generous donation of $50, $100, $150 or even $200 could mean the difference between success and failure for this program.
This message of hope is brought to you by the Obama Failure and Socialism
Dear Gun Owner or American Supporter Of The Second Ammendment,
Please forgive our bluntness, but the United States Government thinks you’re a terrorist.
And now they’re trying to pass a bill allowing gun-grabbing Attorney General Eric Holder to revoke all your Second Amendment rights at will if he has “a reasonable belief” you could pose a “threat.”
We know this sounds unbelievable, but read on.
As you know, in a recently released report, the goons at Barack Obama’s Department of Homeland Security classified gun owners, honorably discharged veterans and little old church ladies as threats to the security and stability of the United States of America.
Even a gesture as simple as placing a pro-gun bumper sticker on your car, or supporting a pro-gun candidate makes you a potential “domestic terrorist” in the eyes of the thugs running our government.
Obviously, your First Amendment rights of free speech mean as much to Obama’s Department of Homeland Security as your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
And to add insult to injury, Barack Obama’s Surveillance Czar Janet Napolitano sees no difference between law-abiding gun owners like you and violent racists who murder and vandalize.
But if that’s not shocking and outrageous enough, it gets worse . . .
Republican quislings Peter King of New York, Mark Kirk of Illinois and Mike Castle of Delaware have introduced a new gun control bill that comes right out of this so-called “Rightwing Extremist” report.
We're talking about H.R. 2159, the shockingly misnamed “Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009.”
We call it the “Disarming American Citizens Act of 2009.”
These anti-gun Republicans-in-Name-Only want to disarm you because they fear your pro-liberty views.
In fact, your love of freedom frightens them so much that they’re now going to great lengths to label you a domestic terrorist.
It’s the perfect way to silence “troublemakers” like you and me, and to marginalize our influence.
And make no mistake: If Congress passes H.R. 2159, Eric Holder would have the authority to deny thousands of innocent Americans their constitutionally protected rights.
But this bill isn’t just about Eric Holder taking away your Second Amendment rights if you’re “appropriately suspected” of “terrorism.”
H.R. 2159 also allows Holder and his team of gun-grabbing henchmen to “withhold” any and all evidence from you or a court if Holder & co. “determine” that it might “compromise national security.”
These are the same people who labeled small government advocates potential “domestic terrorists!” Who cares what they “determine”?
Even more ridiculous, H.R. 2159 says that the courts “must” rely on Eric Holder’s personally “redacted versions” or “summaries” of the “evidence” he supposedly has against you . . .
. . . and he never has to release the evidence he claims to have!
They could annul your Second Amendment rights and convict you in a court of “law” without a shred of actual evidence . . . legally!
You already know Attorney General Eric Holder is Barack Obama’s most ruthless anti-gun henchman.
And we all know what Barack Obama himself thinks of gun owners.
As a candidate, he claimed you and I were “bitter” uneducated folks “clinging” to guns out of hatred and frustration.
And now as President, he and Surveillance Czar Janet Napolitano have gone a step further in declaring gun rights activists and pro-gun voters domestic terrorist threats.
To make matters worse, Republican scalawags Mike Castle and Mark Kirk -- both notorious anti-gunners -- are working with Obama and Carolyn McCarthy to strip you of your most fundamental freedoms.
If H.R. 2159 becomes law, Eric Holder -- or any other Attorney General for that matter -- will be allowed to disarm you based on your political views without having to provide any evidence for his claims.
We are committed to this fight. Are you?
We hope you realize how dangerous this bill is. And we hope that you will take action to stop this anti-American bill.
Let us give you an idea of what gun owners are up against.
With anti-gun Barack Obama in the White House, and Nancy Pelosi ruling the House of Representatives with an iron fist, our only hope to stop the Disarming American Citizens Act is in the Senate.
As We’ve told you before, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid finds himself between a rock and a hard place.
Even as his re-election to the Senate from pro-gun Nevada is very much in doubt, anti-gunners like Sarah Brady and MoveOn.org are pressuring him to do their bidding in Washington.
To break a politician like Harry Reid, we need to stir up a hornet’s nest of discontent among gun owners across the country and especially in targeted states like Nevada.
The good news is concerned Americans in support of protecting our Second Amentdment Rights have the ability to contact hundreds of thousands of gun owners by phone, fax, email and traditional mail.
Unfortunately, reaching gun owners in a timely manner takes resources that most supporters simply don’t have.
Fighting for our right to keep and bear arms isn’t cheap.
For example, with the recent postage increases, it now costs Second Amendment rights Supporters well over $1000 to produce and mail a letter to 1000 gun owners.
But no matter what, we simply cannot let H.R. 2159, the Disarming American Citizens Act, become law.
That’s why it’s imperative you take a moment to send in your most generous donation possible to your chosen support group. The NRA, the National Association For Gun Rights or your pro second amendment congressman.
$50, $100, $150 or $200 will make a huge difference in our fight to stop H.R. 2159.
We know that times are tough in this economy, but your generous donation of $50, $100, $150 or even $200 could mean the difference between success and failure for this program.
This message of hope is brought to you by the Obama Failure and Socialism
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Obama Failure and Socialism | Davey Crockett Acted Unconstitutionally Is Your CongressMan Doing The Same?
The account below of a newspaper reporter's story who questioned Davey Crocket's character is brought to you by the Obama Failure and Socialism blog. After reading you will find that you will ask yourself, "Is my Congressman / Congresswoman acting in an unconstitutional manner?"
From "The Life of Colonel David Crockett", by Edward S. Ellis
(Philadelphia: Porter & Coates, 1884)
CROCKETT was then the lion of Washington. I was a great admirer of his character, and, having several friends who were intimate with him, I found no difficulty in making his acquaintance. I was fascinated with him, and he seemed to take a fancy to me.
I was one day in the lobby of the House of Representatives when a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support—rather, as I thought, because it afforded the speakers a fine opportunity for display than from the necessity of convincing anybody, for it seemed to me that everybody favored it. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose. Everybody expected, of course, that he was going to make one of his characteristic speeches in support of the bill. He commenced:
"Mr. Speaker—I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it.
We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. This government can owe no debts but for services rendered, and at a stipulated price. If it is a debt, how much is it? Has it been audited, and the amount due ascertained? If it is a debt, this is not the place to present it for payment, or to have its merits examined. If it is a debt, we owe more than we can ever hope to pay, for we owe the widow of every soldier who fought in the War of 1812 precisely the same amount.
There is a woman in my neighborhood, the widow of as gallant a man as ever shouldered a musket. He fell in battle. She is as good in every respect as this lady, and is as poor. She is earning her daily bread by her daily labor; but if I were to introduce a bill to appropriate five or ten thousand dollars for her benefit, I should be laughed at, and my bill would not get five votes in this House. There are thousands of widows in the country just such as the one I have spoken of, but we never hear of any of these large debts to them. Sir, this is no debt.
The government did not owe it to the deceased when he was alive; it could not contract it after he died. I do not wish to be rude, but I must be plain. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity.
Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much of our own money as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."
He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.
Like many other young men, and old ones, too, for that matter, who had not thought upon the subject, I desired the passage of the bill, and felt outraged at its defeat. I determined that I would persuade my friend Crockett to move a reconsideration the next day.
Previous engagements preventing me from seeing Crockett that night, I went early to his room the next morning and found him engaged in addressing and franking letters, a large pile of which lay upon his table.
I broke in upon him rather abruptly, by asking him what devil had possessed him to make that speech and defeat that bill yesterday. Without turning his head or looking up from his work, he replied:
"You see that I am very busy now; take a seat and cool yourself. I will be through in a few minutes, and then I will tell you all about it."
He continued his employment for about ten minutes, and when he had finished he turned to me and said: "Now, sir, I will answer your question. But thereby hangs a tale, and one of considerable length, to which you will have to listen."
I listened, and this is the tale which I heard:
SEVERAL YEARS AGO I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. When we got there, I went to work, and I never worked as hard in my life as I did there for several hours. But, in spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them, and everybody else seemed to feel the same way.
The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done. I said everybody felt as I did. That was not quite so; for, though they perhaps sympathized as deeply with the sufferers as I did, there were a few of the members who did not think we had the right to indulge our sympathy or excite our charity at the expense of anybody but ourselves. They opposed the bill, and upon its passage demanded the yeas and nays. There were not enough of them to sustain the call, but many of us wanted our names to appear in favor of what we considered a praiseworthy measure, and we voted with them to sustain it. So the yeas and nays were recorded, and my name appeared on the journals in favor of the bill.
The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up, and I thought it was best to let the boys know that I had not forgot them, and that going to Congress had not made me too proud to go to see them.
So I put a couple of shirts and a few twists of tobacco into my saddlebags, and put out. I had been out about a week and had found things going very smoothly, when, riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly, and was about turning his horse for another furrow when I said to him: "Don’t be in such a hurry, my friend; I want to have a little talk with you, and get better acquainted."
He replied: "I am very busy, and have but little time to talk, but if it does not take too long, I will listen to what you have to say."
I began: "Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and…"
"’Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.’
This was a sockdolager… I begged him to tell me what was the matter.
"Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the Constitution to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is."
"I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question."
"No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?"
"Certainly it is, and I thought that was the last vote which anybody in the world would have found fault with."
"Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?"
Here was another sockdolager; for, when I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I found I must take another tack, so I said:
"Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did."
"It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government.
So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other.
No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The Congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give.
The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution."
I have given you an imperfect account of what he said. Long before he was through, I was convinced that I had done wrong. He wound up by saying:
"So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you."
I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:
"Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it full. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said there at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot."
He laughingly replied:
"Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way."
"If I don’t," said I, "I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say, I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it."
"No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday a week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you."
"Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye… I must know your name."
"My name is Bunce."
"Not Horatio Bunce?"
"Yes."
"Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me; but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend. You must let me shake your hand before I go."
We shook hands and parted.
It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.
At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.
Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.
I have told you Mr. Bunce converted me politically. He came nearer converting me religiously than I had ever been before. He did not make a very good Christian of me, as you know; but he has wrought upon my mind a conviction of the truth of Christianity, and upon my feelings a reverence for its purifying and elevating power such as I had never felt before.
I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him—no, that is not the word—I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if everyone who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.
But to return to my story: The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted—at least, they all knew me.
In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:
"Fellow citizens—I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only."
I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation as I have told it to you, and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:
"And now, fellow citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.
"It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit of it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so."
He came upon the stand and said:
"Fellow citizens—It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today."
He went down, and there went up from the crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.
I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.
"NOW, SIR," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. I have had several thousand copies of it printed and was directing them to my constituents when you came in.
"There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week’s pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men—men who think nothing of spending a week’s pay, or a dozen of them for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased—a debt which could not be paid by money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."
Alan Grayson, Barney Frank, Harry Reid, Nancy Peliosi, Buttcrack Obama are all defying the U.S. Constitution. Shouldn't they be tried as such?
Obama Failure and Socialsim
From "The Life of Colonel David Crockett", by Edward S. Ellis
(Philadelphia: Porter & Coates, 1884)
CROCKETT was then the lion of Washington. I was a great admirer of his character, and, having several friends who were intimate with him, I found no difficulty in making his acquaintance. I was fascinated with him, and he seemed to take a fancy to me.
I was one day in the lobby of the House of Representatives when a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support—rather, as I thought, because it afforded the speakers a fine opportunity for display than from the necessity of convincing anybody, for it seemed to me that everybody favored it. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose. Everybody expected, of course, that he was going to make one of his characteristic speeches in support of the bill. He commenced:
"Mr. Speaker—I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it.
We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. This government can owe no debts but for services rendered, and at a stipulated price. If it is a debt, how much is it? Has it been audited, and the amount due ascertained? If it is a debt, this is not the place to present it for payment, or to have its merits examined. If it is a debt, we owe more than we can ever hope to pay, for we owe the widow of every soldier who fought in the War of 1812 precisely the same amount.
There is a woman in my neighborhood, the widow of as gallant a man as ever shouldered a musket. He fell in battle. She is as good in every respect as this lady, and is as poor. She is earning her daily bread by her daily labor; but if I were to introduce a bill to appropriate five or ten thousand dollars for her benefit, I should be laughed at, and my bill would not get five votes in this House. There are thousands of widows in the country just such as the one I have spoken of, but we never hear of any of these large debts to them. Sir, this is no debt.
The government did not owe it to the deceased when he was alive; it could not contract it after he died. I do not wish to be rude, but I must be plain. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity.
Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much of our own money as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."
He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.
Like many other young men, and old ones, too, for that matter, who had not thought upon the subject, I desired the passage of the bill, and felt outraged at its defeat. I determined that I would persuade my friend Crockett to move a reconsideration the next day.
Previous engagements preventing me from seeing Crockett that night, I went early to his room the next morning and found him engaged in addressing and franking letters, a large pile of which lay upon his table.
I broke in upon him rather abruptly, by asking him what devil had possessed him to make that speech and defeat that bill yesterday. Without turning his head or looking up from his work, he replied:
"You see that I am very busy now; take a seat and cool yourself. I will be through in a few minutes, and then I will tell you all about it."
He continued his employment for about ten minutes, and when he had finished he turned to me and said: "Now, sir, I will answer your question. But thereby hangs a tale, and one of considerable length, to which you will have to listen."
I listened, and this is the tale which I heard:
SEVERAL YEARS AGO I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. When we got there, I went to work, and I never worked as hard in my life as I did there for several hours. But, in spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them, and everybody else seemed to feel the same way.
The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done. I said everybody felt as I did. That was not quite so; for, though they perhaps sympathized as deeply with the sufferers as I did, there were a few of the members who did not think we had the right to indulge our sympathy or excite our charity at the expense of anybody but ourselves. They opposed the bill, and upon its passage demanded the yeas and nays. There were not enough of them to sustain the call, but many of us wanted our names to appear in favor of what we considered a praiseworthy measure, and we voted with them to sustain it. So the yeas and nays were recorded, and my name appeared on the journals in favor of the bill.
The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up, and I thought it was best to let the boys know that I had not forgot them, and that going to Congress had not made me too proud to go to see them.
So I put a couple of shirts and a few twists of tobacco into my saddlebags, and put out. I had been out about a week and had found things going very smoothly, when, riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly, and was about turning his horse for another furrow when I said to him: "Don’t be in such a hurry, my friend; I want to have a little talk with you, and get better acquainted."
He replied: "I am very busy, and have but little time to talk, but if it does not take too long, I will listen to what you have to say."
I began: "Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and…"
"’Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.’
This was a sockdolager… I begged him to tell me what was the matter.
"Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the Constitution to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is."
"I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question."
"No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?"
"Certainly it is, and I thought that was the last vote which anybody in the world would have found fault with."
"Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?"
Here was another sockdolager; for, when I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I found I must take another tack, so I said:
"Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did."
"It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government.
So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other.
No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The Congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give.
The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution."
I have given you an imperfect account of what he said. Long before he was through, I was convinced that I had done wrong. He wound up by saying:
"So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you."
I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:
"Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it full. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said there at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot."
He laughingly replied:
"Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way."
"If I don’t," said I, "I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say, I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it."
"No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday a week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you."
"Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye… I must know your name."
"My name is Bunce."
"Not Horatio Bunce?"
"Yes."
"Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me; but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend. You must let me shake your hand before I go."
We shook hands and parted.
It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.
At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.
Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.
I have told you Mr. Bunce converted me politically. He came nearer converting me religiously than I had ever been before. He did not make a very good Christian of me, as you know; but he has wrought upon my mind a conviction of the truth of Christianity, and upon my feelings a reverence for its purifying and elevating power such as I had never felt before.
I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him—no, that is not the word—I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if everyone who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.
But to return to my story: The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted—at least, they all knew me.
In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:
"Fellow citizens—I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only."
I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation as I have told it to you, and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:
"And now, fellow citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.
"It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit of it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so."
He came upon the stand and said:
"Fellow citizens—It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today."
He went down, and there went up from the crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.
I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.
"NOW, SIR," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. I have had several thousand copies of it printed and was directing them to my constituents when you came in.
"There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week’s pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men—men who think nothing of spending a week’s pay, or a dozen of them for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased—a debt which could not be paid by money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."
Alan Grayson, Barney Frank, Harry Reid, Nancy Peliosi, Buttcrack Obama are all defying the U.S. Constitution. Shouldn't they be tried as such?
Obama Failure and Socialsim
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
