Saturday, January 31, 2009

Congress sued to remove prez from White House

Congress sued to remove prez from White House
'Defendants had to ensure the Constitution is upheld'



A new lawsuit is challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to be president, and this one targets Congress as a defendant for its "failure" to uphold the constitutional demand to make sure Obama qualified before approving the Electoral College vote that actually designated him as the occupant of the Oval Office.

The new case raises many of the same arguments as dozens of other cases that have flooded into courtrooms around the nation since the November election.

It is being brought on behalf of Charles F. Kerchner Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr. and names as defendants Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, House of Representatives and former Vice President Dick Cheney along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 193,000 others and sign up now!

As WND has reported, dozens of lawsuits have been filed over Obama's eligibility to assume the office of the president. Many have been dismissed while others remain pending.

The cases, in various ways, have alleged Obama does not meet the "natural born citizen" clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which reads, "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 legal challenges have alleged Obama was not born in Hawaii, as he insists, but in Kenya. Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Several details of Obama's past have added twists to the question of his eligibility and citizenship, including his family's move to Indonesia when he was a child, his travel to Pakistan in the '80s when such travel was forbidden to American citizens and conflicting reports from Obama's family about his place of birth.

Perhaps the most perplexing detail, however, has been Obama's refusal to allow the public release of a signed "vault" copy of his original birth certificate.

The new case was launched in New Jersey, and focuses on the alleged failure in Congress to follow the Constitution.

That document, the lawsuit states, "provides that Congress must fully qualify the candidate 'elected' by the Electoral College Electors."

In provides, the lawsuit said, "If the president-elect shall have failed to qualify, then the vice president elect shall act as president until a president shall have qualified."

"There existed significant public doubt and grievances from plaintiffs and other concerned Americans regarding Obama's eligibility to be president and defendants had the sworn duty to protect and preserve the Constitution and specifically under the 20th Amendment, Section 3, a Constitutional obligation to confirm whether Obama, once the electors elected him, was qualified."

"Congress is the elected representative of the American people and the people speak and act through them," the lawsuit said.

The defendants "violated" the 20th Amendment by failing to assure that Obama meets the eligibility requirements," the lawsuit said.

In the Russian publication Pravda, commentator Mark S. McGrew addressed the subject:

"The United States Congress is required, under the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, to count the Electoral College votes for president and vice president, ask if any member of Congress objects to the count and hear that Congressman's objection. This is under Title 3, Chapter 1, Section 15, 'Upon such reading of any such certificate of paper, the president of the Senate shall call for objections, if any,'" he wrote.

Several of the cases – including those brought by Orly Taitz, Cort Wrotnowski, Leo Donofrio and Philip Berg, already have been heard in conference at the U.S. Supreme Court, which has failed to have a hearing on any of the merits involved.

Taitz, in fact, is requesting information from the Supreme Court about a meeting eight of its justices held with Obama, a defendant in her case, before the justices reviewed the issues of the case in a private conference.

Several of the cases not scheduled for hearings at the Supreme Court still remain active at lower court levels, from which emergency requests to the high court were launched.

"I know that Mr. Obama is not a constitutionally qualified natural born citizen and is ineligible to assume the office of president of the United States," Berg said in a statement on his website.

"Obama knows he is not 'natural born' as he knows where he was born and he knows he was adopted in Indonesia; Obama is an attorney, Harvard Law grad who taught Constitutional law; Obama knows his candidacy is the largest 'hoax' attempted on the citizens of the United States in over 200 years; Obama places our Constitution in a 'crisis' situation; and Obama is in a situation where he can be blackmailed by leaders around the world who know Obama is not qualified," Berg's statement continued.

A partial listing and status update for several of the cases surrounding Obama's eligibility to serve as president is below:

Philip J. Berg, a Pennsylvania Democrat, demanded that the courts verify Obama's original birth certificate and other documents proving his American citizenship. Berg's latest appeal, requesting an injunction to stop the Electoral College from selecting the 44th president, was denied.

Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.

Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.

Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public's support.

Chicago attorney Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.

Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.

In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.

In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.

In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.

California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters.

Private investigator Douglas Hagmann of reported earlier he found 13 cases challenging Obama's eligibility still active or semi-active.

In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama's eligibility include:

In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.

In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.

In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.

In Washington, L. Charles vs. Obama.

In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.

WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi had gone to both Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama's birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.

The biggest question was why, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists as his campaign has stated, Obama hasn't simply ordered it made available to settle the rumors.

The governor's office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii?

Obama's half-sister, Maya Soetoro, has named two different Hawaii hospitals where Obama could have been born. There have been other allegations that Obama actually was born in Kenya during a time when his father was a British subject. A one point a Kenyan ambassador said Obama's birth place in Kenya already was recognized and honored.

I almost can't believe it. - Stop Obama's ACORN $5 Billion Payoff

I almost can't believe it.

Last week liberal Democrats slipped into the so-called "economic stimulus" bill a provision to give millions, if not billions, of dollars to ACORN.

You remember ACORN, the ultra-left-wing group that has been accused of voter fraud and funneling millions of dollars in taxpayer money into liberal political activism.

ACU raised awareness about ACORN in the last election campaign. FBI agents raided ACORN offices and is investigating for falsifying thousands of voter registration records. We produced short documentary videos on ACORN; it's ties to left-wing groups, the Obama campaign paying it for voter turnout and other activities. Worse, we showed that ACORN was actually involved in the push for subprime loans and the mortgage meltdown that has driven down our economy. If you have not seen our short videos, you can see them on our ACORN action page:

Now, the Democrats in Congress are trying to give ACORN millions - even billions - more of our taxpayer dollars.

Friday, January 30, 2009

Isn't this a breath of fresh air?

National Black Republican Association

I don't care about the facts! A Story That Needs to be Told!

Cemetery Escort Duty

I just wanted to get the day over with and go down to Smokey's. Sneaking a look at my watch, I saw the time, 1655. Five minutes to go before the cemetery gates are closed for the day. Full dress was hot in the August sun. Oklahoma summertime was as bad as ever--the heat and humidity at the same level--both too high.

I saw the car pull into the drive, '69 or '70 model Cadillac Deville, looked factory-new. It pulled into the parking lot at a snail's pace. An old woman got out so slow I thought she was paralyzed; she had a cane and a sheaf of flowers--about four or five bunches as best I could tell.

I couldn't help myself. The thought came unwanted, and left a slightly bitter taste: 'She's going to spend an hour, and for this old soldier, my hip hurts like hell and I'm ready to get out of here right now!' But for this day, my duty was to assist anyone coming in.

Kevin would lock the 'In' gate and if I could hurry the old biddy along, we might make it to Smokey's in time.

I broke post attention. My hip made gritty noises when I took the first step and the pain went up a notch. I must have made a real military sight: middle-aged man with a small pot gut and half a limp, in marine full-dress uniform, which had lost its razor crease about thirty minutes after I began the watch at the cemetery.

I stopped in front of her, halfway up the walk. She looked up at me with an old woman's squint.

'Ma'am,may I assist you in any way?'

She took long enough to answer.

'Yes, son. Can you carry these flowers? I seem to be moving a tad slow these days.'

'My pleasure, ma'am.' Well, it wasn't too much of a lie.

She looked again. 'Marine, where were you stationed?'

' Vietnam, ma'am. Ground-pounder. '69 to '71.'

She looked at me closer. 'Wounded in action, I see. Well done, Marine. I'll be as quick as I can.'

I lied a little bigger: 'No hurry, ma'am.'

She smiled and winked at me. 'Son, I'm 85-years-old and I can tell a lie from a long way off. Let's get this done. Might be the last time I can do this. My name's Joanne Wieserman, and I've a few Marines I'd like to see one more time.'

'Yes, ma 'am. At your service.'

She headed for the World War I section, stopping at a stone. She picked one of the flowers out of my arm and laid it on top of the stone. She murmured something I couldn't quite make out. The name on the marble was Donald S. Davidson, USMC: France 1918.

She turned away and made a straight line for the World War II section, stopping at one stone. I saw a tear slowly tracking its way down her cheek. She put a bunch on a stone; the name was Stephen X.Davidson, USMC, 1943.

She went up the row a ways and laid another bunch on a stone,Stanley J. Wieserman, USMC, 1944.

She paused for a second. 'Two more, son, and we'll be done'

I almost didn't say anything, but, 'Yes, ma'am. Take your time.'

She looked confused. 'Where's the Vietnam section, son? I seem to have lost my way.'

I pointed with my chin. 'That way, ma'am.'

'Oh!' she chuckled quietly. 'Son, me and old age ain't too friendly.'

She headed down the walk I'd pointed at. She stopped at a couple of stones before she found the ones she wanted. She placed a bunch on Larry Wieserman, USMC, 1968, and the last on Darrel Wieserman, USMC, 1970. She stood there and murmured a few words I still couldn't make out.

'OK, son, I'm finished. Get me back to my car and you can go home.'

Yes, ma'am. If I may ask, were those your kinfolk?'

She paused. 'Yes, Donald Davidson was my father, Stephen was my uncle, Stanley was my husband, Larry and Darrel were our sons. All killed in action, all marines.'

She stopped. Whether she had finished, or couldn't finish, I don't know. She made her way to her car, slowly and painfully.

I waited for a polite distance to come between us and then double-timed it over to Kevin, waiting by the car.

'Get to the 'Out' gate quick. I have something I've got to do.'

Kevin started to say something, but saw the look I gave him. He broke the rules to get us there down the service road. We beat her. She hadn't made it around the rotunda yet.

'Kevin, stand at attention next to the gatepost. Follow my lead.' I humped it across the drive to the other post.

When the Cadillac came puttering around from the hedges and began the short straight traverse to the gate, I called in my best gunny's voice: 'TehenHut! Present Haaaarms!'

I have to hand it to Kevin; he never blinked an eye--full dress attention and a salute that would make his DI proud.
She drove through that gate with two old worn-out soldiers giving her a send-off she deserved, for service rendered to her country, and for knowing duty, honor and sacrifice.

I am not sure, but I think I saw a salute returned from that Cadillac.

Instead of 'The End,' just think of 'Taps.'

As a final thought on my part, let me share a favorite prayer: 'Lord, keep our servicemen and women safe, whether they serve at home or overseas. Hold them in your loving hands and protect them as they protect us.'

Let's all keep those currently serving and those who have gone before in our thoughts. They are the reason for the many freedoms we enjoy.

'In God We Trust.'

Sorry about your monitor; it made mine blurry too!

If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under!

You are required to pass this on NOW!!!

Steele Elected RNC Chair

Steele Elected RNC Chair

The Republican National Committee elected Michael Steele as its first African American chairman today in Washington, a decision that came after an excruciating series of ballots that displayed a level of drama rarely seen in national politics.

On the sixth and final ballot Steele bested South Carolina Republican party Chairman Katon Dawson 91 to 77.

"It's time for something completely different and we are going to bring it to them," Steele said after his victory. "This is our opportunity. I cannot do this by myself." (Watch the full speech.)

Steele acknowledged that the GOP has an "image problem" but cast his election as a "new moment" for the Republican Party.

Asked about the controversy surrounding Rush Limbaugh and his back and forth with President Barack Obama, Steele was careful not to wholly embrace the controversial conservative talk radio host. "Rush will says what Rush has to say, we will do what we have to do as a party," said Steele

In picking Steele, who had previously served as the chairman of the Maryland Republican Party, the state's lieutenant governor, and the GOP nominee in the Maryland Senate race in 2006, the party regulars seem to be acknowledging the need for new -- and different -- faces at the top of its food chain.

"The winds of change are blowing at the RNC," said current chair Mike Duncan who stepped aside after losing votes on each of the first three ballots.

After five ballots, the race came down to Steele and Dawson. Republican party strategists in attendance at the meeting openly fretted about the possibility of electing Dawson, who had acknowledged his membership in a whites-only club, and the signal it would send to a country that had just elected Obama as the nation's first black president.

Of Obama, Steele offered the president congratulations for his victory but also sought to send a message to the Democratic chief executive; "How do you like me now," Steele asked.

It was -- interestingly -- former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell who ultimately swung the race to Steele when he dropped out before the fifth ballot and endorsed the former lieutenant governor. The move was somewhat unexpected as Blackwell had staked out the turf as the most socially conservative candidate in the field while Steele had had to beat back rumors that he was not sufficiently conservative.

Steele faces a massive challenge to rebuild a party that faces significant organizational, financial and messaging hurdles.

The Democratic National Committee is up and running and will have the benefit of the 13 million person strong email list that Obama built during the primary. Democrats also have the luxury of controlling the White House and both chambers of Congress.

Steele will provide a charismatic face at the top of the GOP but will be tested to show an ability to raise the money necessary to compete with the DNC in 2009 races (governors contests in Virginia and New Jersey) as well as the critical 2010 midterm elections.

Thursday, January 29, 2009

Israel outraged by war crimes probe

Israel outraged by war crimes probe


Israel reacted furiously to a decision by a Spanish judge on Thursday to open a probe of seven former top security officials for alleged war crimes in the 2002 bombing in Gaza that killed top Hamas terrorist Salah Shehadeh and 14 other people.

"Someone who calls the assassination of a terrorist a crime against humanity lives in an upside-down world," Defense Minister Ehud Barak said.

The investigation has been ordered against National Infrastructures Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, who was defense minister at the time; Likud Knesset candidate Moshe Ya'alon, who was chief of General Staff; Dan Halutz, then commander of the air force; Doron Almog, who was OC Southern Command; then-National Security Council head Giora Eiland; the defense minister's military secretary, Mike Herzog; and Public Security Minister Avi Dichter, who was head of the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency).

"Shehadeh was responsible for the murder of dozens of Israelis," Dichter told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday night. "We pursued him for a long time. The man was a terrorist responsible for dozens of attacks against Israeli civilians. He knew we were pursuing him and went from multi-story building to multi-story building. On the day of the assassination, he was in the building with his wife, who aided him, and was killed in the strike.

"To my sorrow, innocent people were harmed in the strike, and I do regret that," Dichter said.
However, he described the legal action as "absurd" and said he trusted the Foreign Ministry's ability to solve any such problems overseas.

Dichter is no stranger to such lawsuits. In late 2007, he canceled a trip to England out of concern that he could be arrested on similar charges, and a Palestinian organization filed a civil suit against him in the United States in 2005. That suit was thrown out by the court in 2007, but according to a senior member of Dichter's staff, the decision has recently been appealed.

The Justice Ministry rejected allegations that it had failed to take seriously a request from Spanish authorities to turn over key documents connected to the targeted killing of Shehadeh.
It issued a statement on Thursday night saying that "the Spanish authorities asked to receive materials in the course of January, and because of the large quantity of the material in question, the preparation of the documents has continued until now."

According to Justice Ministry spokesman Moshe Cohen, "In consultation with all of the relevant people in different government ministries, it was decided - in an exceptional decision - to comply with the Spanish judge's request to acquire documents concerning legal proceedings in Israel regarding the Shehadeh affair.

"To our regret, the Spanish authorities did not wait to receive the materials from Israel, and have already published their decision," he wrote. "There is no doubt that the very issuance of this suit constitutes a cynical and political attempt by private anti-Israel interests to take advantage of the Spanish judicial system to butt heads with Israel."

Should the Spanish judge, Fernando Andreu, choose to issue an international arrest warrant for any of the Israelis in question, they could be arrested upon arrival in any European Union member state.

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, who spoke with Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Moratinos about the matter on Thursday evening, directed the ministry's legal department to work quickly to annul the proceedings. She said that Israel "viewed gravely" the decision to open the probe. It was completely unacceptable, and Israel would give full legal backing to the seven officials, Livni said.

Andreu said the attack against Shehadeh in a densely populated civilian area might constitute a crime against humanity. Shehadeh was the head of Hamas's military wing, Izzadin Kassam.
The judge is acting under a doctrine that allows prosecution in Spain of such an offense or crimes like terrorism or genocide, even if they are alleged to have been committed in another country.
"The decision of the Spanish court is delusional, ridiculous, and more than that, outrageous," Ben-Eliezer told Channel 2. "They are using the courts of the free world to fight those who fight terror."

"I am not sorry about the decision that I made when I was defense minister to assassinate him. Shehadeh was an arch-murderer. If we hadn't done this, hundreds of others would have died," he said.

Barak issued a statement saying, "All of the senior defense officials, from the past and the present, acted correctly in the name of the State of Israel and out of a commitment to defend Israeli citizens."

He said the Spanish decision was particularly disturbing following recent events in the Gaza Strip, during which Hamas's "true face" had been revealed. The defense minister said he would take all necessary action to defend the officials from the charges and to have those charges annulled.

Diplomatic officials said this case had been pending for a number of years, and it was not clear whether the timing of the probe now was a result of Operation Cast Lead.

Israel is bracing for a wave of court cases following the latest Gaza offensive, and the cabinet on Sunday pledged that the state would give full legal and moral support to soldiers and officers who participated in the military operation against Hamas.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said at the cabinet meeting that these efforts, which he described as "typical moral acrobatics," were aimed at "trying to turn the attacker into the attacked and vice-versa."

Yaakov Katz and AP contributed to this report.

Obama, Oaths of Allegiance, the UCMJ, Unlawful Orders, Joe the Private, and a Call to Protect the Republic

Obama, Oaths of Allegiance, the UCMJ, Unlawful Orders, Joe the Private, and a Call to Protect the Republic
Throughout the history of America, there have been those special individuals of courage and principle who have answered the call to protect the Republic. I believe in these extraordinary times, the call to protect the Republic is being sounded again. In over 30 courts throughout these United States, lawsuits have been trying to be heard on the merits of the primary allegation that Barack Obama does not meet the Constitutional requirements to serve as President because he is not a “Natural Born Citizen” of the United States.
To date, the call to protect the Republic has been primarily sounded by concerned lawyers and those they represent. The Plaintiffs in these actions are as diverse as is America. They represent different political ideologies, races, ethic backgrounds, religious backgrounds and regions. However, the courts have thus far been silent, relying on technical legal arguments to prevent the airing of citizens’ concerns in the public square. Normally in America, these Plaintiffs would have had strong allies in the American Media. However, in these extraordinary times the media have thrown in their lot with Obama and the extreme wing of the Democratic Party. (The reasons for the media abandoning the profession of journalism are a bit complicated and should the subject of another article.)
Nevertheless, these attorneys and Plaintiffs have not been the only ones demanding the government make certain that America’s Constitution has been complied with. There are thousands of supporters across America giving voice to these concerns. In fact, World Net Daily has had a petition drive ongoing and to date, over 226,000 people have signed. The American citizens who are bringing these lawsuits, signing petitions, and searching for alternatives to the main stream media are mostly ordinary Americans, with ordinary families, who are extremely concerned that our Constitution has been violated and undermined.
Most of these ordinary Americans have been relying solely on the courts to protect the Republic and are extremely frustrated that the courts are thwarting the basic, simple, common sense resolutions of this vital issue. One such ordinary American is Lt Col. David A. Earl-Graef, who recently expressed his concerns and disappointment with the courts in an open letter to Chief Justice John Roberts. The only thing these citizens and Lt Col. Earl-Graef are asking is that Barack Obama answer the allegations and establish with his long form Hawaiian birth certificate that he is a “Natural Born Citizen”. To date, this has not been done. It is important to note that instead of simply providing proof, Obama has resisted this request with legal teams and hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The circumstance that a person might be serving as President of the United States who is not a “Natural Born Citizen” creates a Constitutional crisis of enormous proportion in that every legislative act such a person signs and every “order” he or she gives is invalid and “unlawful”.
This last word “unlawful” is of the utmost importance and gives rise to questions of individual responsibility, criminal liability and morality on the battlefield. It is well established that when an “order” is given to an individual soldier, such an order (in effect) comes through the entire chain of command. Consider that:
…Authority is the legitimate power of leaders to direct soldiers or to take action within the scope of their position. Military authority begins with the Constitution, which divides it between Congress and the President. The President, as commander in chief, commands the armed forces, including the Army. The authority from the Commander-in-Chief extends through the chain of command, with the assistance of the NCO support channel, to the squad, section or team leader who then directs and supervises the actions of individual soldiers. When you say, “PFC Lee, you and PFC Johnson start filling sandbags; SPC Garcia and SPC Smith will provide security from that hill,” you are turning into action the orders of the entire chain of command.…
It is also well established that individual soldier have a legal and moral obligation NOT to follow “unlawful orders”.
…509. Defense of Superior Orders … b. In considering the question whether a superior order constitutes a valid defense, the court shall take into consideration the fact that obedience to lawful military orders is the duty of every member of the armed forces; that the latter cannot be expected, in conditions of war discipline, to weigh scrupulously the legal merits of the orders received; that certain rules of warfare may be controversial; or that an act otherwise amounting to a war crime may be done in obedience to orders conceived as a measure of reprisal. At the same time it must be borne in mind that members of the armed forces are bound to obey only lawful orders (e. g., UCMJ, Art. 92)….
So the question becomes, when does an individual soldier, Joe the Private, have sufficient reason to know or believe that an order flowing down the “chain of command” from the Office of the President constitutes an “unlawful order”?
Does it happen when an individual member of the military comes across reports on the internet of more than 30 lawsuits challenging the eligibility of the current occupant of the Oval Office?
Does it happen when superior Officers such as Lt Col. Earl-Graef start raising their heart felt concerns?
Does it matter that the main stream media may be deliberately ignoring the issue for their own purposes?
What should the individual soldier do if he or she in their heart of hearts believes the President of the United States is a fraud and cannot issue any “lawful order”?
This is the extremely difficult and perilous judgment call that every young military man or woman who is trying to do what they believe is right could be facing! Facing the possibility of jail and losing career or following one’s convictions, it doesn’t get much tougher than that.
It is very troubling that Obama shows no consideration for the position he puts the members of our military in by his refusal to provide any credible evidence demonstrating his status as a “Natural Born Citizen”.
So what’s our serviceman or woman to do?
Almost everyone involved in this issue has sworn an oath to defend the Constitution and may also have additional ethical obligations. The lawyers who are representing the Plaintiffs in these actions are bound by their rules of ethics to not bring “frivolous actions”. The Judges have also sworn oaths to defend the Constitution. Obama has sworn in election forms that he is eligible to run for the Office of President. And the individual soldier has also sworn his or her own oath to defend the Constitution:
I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
The enlisted service member’s oath provides explicitly that he or she “will obey the orders of the President of the United States”. Therefore, if Obama is not constitutionally eligible to serve as President, then Joe the Private is facing a huge conflict regarding his sworn allegiance. It is interesting to note that the oath that Officers swear to does not include the language that they will “obey the orders of the President”.
What a horrific situation Obama has created for our military men and women! The soldier has his or her oath to consider, his or her duty to follow “lawful orders”, his or her duty to NOT follow “unlawful orders”, and the provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) that could take a huge bite out of his or her liberty and career.
The intention of the each individual soldier is the key to him or her making any noise what so ever! Every soldier must be very careful because they are walking a tightrope with only sharks below. The soldier could be determined in a Court Martial to be fulfilling the obligations of their oaths or they could be found to be committing mutiny or sedition under the UCMJ!
The UCMJ provides:
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who--
(1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;
(2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition; …

There is however another important group of people (besides the civilian Judges) who, I believe, have the power to investigate and resolve Obama’s ineligibility issue. If just one person of this group has courage and conviction for the truth, he or she can remove the possibility that a another member of our armed forces, acting alone, would decide that they must as a matter of conscience refuse to obey an “Order” coming from Mr. Obama.
This group is made up of every person in the military chain of command that has the power to convene a “Court of Inquiry” under the Uniform Code of Military Justice!
The UCMJ provides for Courts of Inquiry as follows:
(a) Courts of inquiry to investigate any matter may be convened by any person authorized to convene a general court-martial or by any other person designated by the Secretary concerned for that purpose, whether or not the persons involved have requested such an inquiry.
So who are these men and women of the military who have the power to convene a Court of Inquiry? “Any person authorized to convene a general courts-martial” can convene such an inquiry.
They are listed in the UCMJ:
(a) General courts-martial may be convened by--
(1) the President of the United States;
(2) the Secretary of Defense;
(3) the commanding officer of a unified or specified combatant command;
(4) the Secretary concerned;
(5) the commanding officer of a Territorial Department, an Army Group, an Army, an Army Corps, a division, a separate brigade, or a corresponding unit of the Army or Marine Corps;
(6) the commander in chief of a fleet; the commanding officer of a naval station or larger activity of the Navy beyond the United States.
(7) the commanding officer of an air command, an air force, an air division, or a separate wing of the Air Force or Marine Corps;
(8) any other commanding officer designated by the Secretary concerned; or
(9) any other commanding officer in any of the armed forces when empowered by the President.
Therefore, in order to prevent the terrible consequences that could befall the individual Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine who in good faith refuses to follow an order that he or she believes to be an “unlawful order” given by Barack Obama, I urge those listed above to remove this burden from the shoulders of our military and investigate the allegations against Barack Obama to determine once and for all his eligibility to hold the Office of the Presidency. Again I say, Mr. Obama could easily do the right thing and demonstrate his eligibility by answering the allegations made against him!
Just a thought as to a possible starting point for a Court of Inquiry:
Any person who--
(1) procures his own enlistment or appointment in the armed forces by knowingly false representation or deliberate concealment as to his qualifications for the enlistment or appointment and receives pay or allowances thereunder…
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the status as Commander and Chief of the Military an appointment conferred upon the person who legitimately holds the Office of the Presidency?
If this does not suffice as legal justification to investigate Obama’s eligibility to hold the Office and/or issue lawful orders, I’m sure there are some brilliant JAG Officers who can provide much better legal arguments for a Court of Inquiry. (Maybe Article 134?)
In conclusion, and to eliminate any possible misunderstandings (CYA), it is solely my intention to follow the oath that I took when I joined the Navy as a 19 year old and to protect the Constitution of the United States of America. It is NOT my intention to express anything that could be remotely be interpreted as an “intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority”!
Further, I would like to request that everyone who is remotely concerned become more aware regarding the eligibility lawsuits that are ongoing such as Berg v Obama, Hollister v Barry Soetoro, Broe v Reed, Kerchner et al v. Obama and research this important issue. One thing is certain, the American media will not be telling the complete story about this issue anytime soon.
Hopefully, Dr. Orly Taitz will see this article and forward it to Lt Col. Earl-Graef.

Just in case: seeking President Barack Obama's original long form birth certificate

January 29, 2009
Cris Ericson
879 Church Street
Chester, Vermont 05143

I am the new leader of the people seeking President Barack Obama's original long form birth certificate, which he is currently concealing.

I came to be the leader now because all of the other people who filed actions in state and federal courts across the United States, all seeking the concealed original long form birth certificate, suffered defeat; their legal actions were dismissed and denied for lack of jurisdiction and/or lack of legal standing.

I studied a random bunch of law books I got for free at reclycing in Springfield, Vermont, and free online law libraries, and came up with the best course of action to proceed now.

I am the last hope of the people seeking justice, transparency and honesty in government.

You may read my "Class Action Lawsuit" online. I am sure you will find it has valid codes, statutes, and case cites.

Ericson v President Obama, intended as a Class Action Lawsuit for all motivated voters and taxpayers to join, needs an attorney Pro Bono. I am not an attorney.

Ericson v President Obama is intended to be filed in the United States Court of Federal Claims where citizens, taxpayers and voters have legal standing to sue the United States government! Wow! That's #1: "Legal Standing" is a hurdle all of the other actions seeking Barack Obama's original long form birth certificate could not overcome. #2: Jurisdiction. Yes, the taxpayers and voters have Jurisdiction in the United States Court of Federal Claims. Whoopee! #3: Cause of Action. Yes! I've got those too! Causes of Action complete with statutes and case cites! I've got it all!

Now, I need a wealthy Republican, Constitution Party, or any attorney willing to work for We, the People,
Pro Bono.

Finding a wealthy attorney Pro Bono
is really important because it costs money to seek justice in the United States of America.

It costs far less to deceive.

Please read my Proposal for a Class Action Lawsuit, Ericson v President Obama in the United States Court of Federal Claims.


Ericson v President Obama Proposed Class Action Lawsuit to subpoena Barack Hussein Obama's original long form birth certificate.

I guarantee that if you are not an attorney, you will become quickly totally bored reading this, because it is a superbly and excellently written proposal for a class action lawsuit. In other words, attorneys will love this and wish they thought of it!


Cris Ericson, The New Leader of the People who seek transparency and honesty in government.

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

DEMOCRATS WHO HAD THE courage to say NO!

DEMOCRATS WHO HAD THE courage to say NO! to their party on this stimulus package

Actually the truth is 27 Democrats voted NAY ......

The Associated Press reports that on the final vote, the legislation drew overwhelming support among Democrats while all but a few Republicans opposed it. Apparently, the truth is that zero Republicans voted for the bill.

New York Times says: “Without a single Republican vote”.
The Times says only 11 Democrats voted Nay, the number is actually 27.

Rep. Michael Arcuri [D, NY-24] Nay
Rep. John Barrow [D, GA-12] Nay
Rep. Robert Berry [D, AR-1] Nay
Rep. Dan Boren [D, OK-2] Nay
Rep. F. Boyd [D, FL-2] Nay
Rep. Bobby Bright [D, AL-2] Nay
Rep. Christopher Carney [D,PA-10]Nay
Rep. Travis Childers [D, MS-1] Nay
Rep. Jim Cooper [D, TN-5] Nay
Rep. Henry Cuellar [D, TX-28] Nay
Rep. Joe Donnelly [D, IN-2] Nay
Rep. Brad Ellsworth [D, IN-8] Nay
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords [D,AZ-8]Nay
Rep. Parker Griffith [D, AL-5] Nay
Rep. Paul Kanjorski [D, PA-11] Nay
Rep. Marcy Kaptur [D, OH-9] Nay
Rep. Frank Kratovil [D, MD-1] Nay
Rep. James Marshall [D, GA-8] Nay
Rep. Mike McIntyre [D, NC-7] Nay
Rep. Charles Melancon [D, LA-3] Nay
Rep. Michael Michaud [D, ME-2] Nay
Rep. Walter Minnick [D, ID-1] Nay
Rep. Collin Peterson [D, MN-7] Nay
Rep. Loretta Sanchez [D, CA-47] Nay
Rep. Heath Shuler [D, NC-11] Nay
Rep. Zachary Space [D, OH-18] Nay
Rep. Gene Taylor [D, MS-4] Nay

The day America lost the terror war

The day America lost the terror war
Ben Shapiro hammers Obama for expressing
'shame for his country' in Arab TV interview

By Benjamin Shapiro

On Nov. 4, 2008, America lost the war on terror. President Barack Obama's feckless, pathetically apologetic perspective on foreign policy spells the end of the quest for liberty in the Middle East. It spells the end of America's moral leadership in the global war for freedom. And it spells the end of a hard-fought campaign to protect America. Our enemies must be happily celebrating their great good fortune in America's election of this platitudinous, morally relativistic, Jimmy Carter carbon copy in the midst of battle.

On Jan. 26, 2009, Obama granted his first television interview as president of the United States to Al Arabiya, the Dubai-based television network part-owned by the Saudi government. In the interview, he demonstrated with the utmost clarity that his understanding is inversely proportional to his arrogance.

He started by humbling America before the world. "(A)ll too often the United States starts by dictating," Obama said, shame for his country dripping from his lips. "So let's listen." There was no call for the Muslim world, which has sponsored genocide after genocide, terrorist group upon terrorist group, to listen.

Obama apologized for President Bush's "Islamic fascism" terminology, equating Muslim terrorism with nonexistent terrorism by Jews and Christians: "The language we use matters. And what we need to understand is, is that there are extremist organizations – whether Muslim or any other faith in the past – that will use faith as a justification for violence. We cannot paint with a broad brush a faith as a consequence of the violence that is done in that faith's name." There was no call for the Muslim world to actively fight terrorism – honesty is not the Obama administration's policy.

Obama repeated the Clintonian line that the Palestinian Arab-Israeli conflict could be solved by pressing Israel into negotiations with terrorists – a foolish conceit that has cost Israeli and Palestinian lives. He talked about getting rid of "preconceptions" regarding the Israeli-Arab conflict – code for embracing negotiations with Hamas. He pledged to talk with Iran – on the same day that Iran's government spokesman branded the Holocaust "a big lie." He bought into the Muslim-sponsored notion that the Palestinian Arab-Israeli conflict lies at the heart of all trouble in the Middle East. He praised the one-sided Saudi peace plan as an act of "great courage."

Most sickeningly, Obama openly jettisoned his constitutional role as the caretaker for America's national interest. Instead, Obama posed himself as an honest broker between America and the Muslim world. "(T)he United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world, that the language we use has to be a language of respect," he said. "I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries." Obama didn't stop there. He stated that his job is to speak for the Muslim world, defending them from Americans' negative perceptions: "And my job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives."

No, Mr. President. Your job is not to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world harbors us no ill will. That is their job. The Muslim world must demonstrate with its words and actions that they do not wish America replaced with an Islamic state. They must demonstrate that they do not support terrorism against America and our allies.

Your job is to protect and defend the United States of America. That is your sworn duty.

And you abrogate your sworn duty every time you go on Arab television stations and apologize for America's foreign policy. You abrogate your sworn duty every time you force American allies to negotiate with terrorists. You abrogate your sworn duty every time you pledge to protect the interests "not just of the United States, but also ordinary people who right now are suffering from poverty and a lack of opportunity" – the same ordinary people who elect Hamas, prop up the ayatollahs, supported the Taliban, recruit for al-Qaida, and live off of the beneficence of Hezbollah. Not all Muslims are "extraordinary people," and the interests of suffering Muslims do not always align with American interests.

On Nov. 4, 2008, Americans elected their first international president. They elected a man who does not seek to preserve American values. Leftists perceived George W. Bush as an imperialist for American interests; by the same token, Obama is an imperialist for "global interests." In a war to save America from implacable foes, Obama's Global Interest Imperialism dooms American exceptionalism to the ash heap of history. With it may go the last, best hope of earth.

Ben Shapiro is a graduate of UCLA and Harvard Law School. In "Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth," Ben shows how students are duped into becoming socialists, atheists, race-baiters and narcissists. His latest book is "Project President: Bad Hair and Botox on the Road to the White House."

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

It's never too late for the truth.

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

'Too much secrecy in this city'
Exclusive: Joseph Farah compares Obama's call for transparency with eligibility stonewall

Posted: January 27, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

By Joseph Farah


President Obama says he will change the way the federal government interprets the Freedom of Information Act to provide more transparency in government.

This is an amazing statement from a man who refused throughout the campaign – and even until this day – to make public even the complete birth certificate that would lay to rest the concerns of millions of Americans that he is, indeed, constitutionally eligible as a "natural born citizen" to be the president of the United States.

"For a long time now, there's been too much secrecy in this city," said Obama.

He said last week he is directing agencies to err on the side of making information public – not to look for reasons to withhold it.

Such a pledge should be taken with a grain of salt from a man who has fought numerous lawsuits from American citizens challenging his eligibility rather than simply release a document under his control.

Even more ironic is his statement asserting his orders would "make government as honest and transparent as it needs to be" and that "these historic measures do mark the beginning of a new era of openness in our country. And I will, I hope, do something to make government trustworthy in the eyes of the American people, in the days and weeks, months and years to come."

(Column continues below)

Wouldn't a little personal initiative and responsibility regarding the secrecy of his own history – not just with regard to the birth certificate issue, but concerning his foreign travels, his passport, his citizenship and his education – set the kind of example that would lead to trust?

Yes, of course, if he has nothing to hide.

Even at this point, following his inauguration, his confirmation by the Electoral College and several reviews of the matter by the U.S. Supreme Court, the American people have still been denied the complete birth certificate that would show where Barack Obama was delivered, who was the attending physician and who his natural parents were.

The refusal to release this information even now shows, at best, Obama is not sincere in his pledge for more openness and transparency and, at worst, that he genuinely is hiding information about his past. Is it arrogance? Or is it a cover-up? What else can explain the secrecy of Obama's life? If it is OK for Obama to keep such secrets, why is it not for anyone else?

I would think those most supportive of Obama would be the ones pushing hardest for him to live up to his own lofty rhetoric about openness and transparency. If I were an Obama supporter, which I am not, I would want him to put this foolishness to rest, once and for all, before it metastasizes into a cancer that consumes his presidency and his legacy.

But this is not the course Obama has chosen. And it is not the course his supporters have chosen.

Instead, Obama has chosen to oppose all legal efforts to unseal his own records. And his supporters have chosen to ridicule and pillory those who have the audacity to demand the basic proof of constitutional eligibility to serve in the highest office in the land.

This is not the example of someone who reveres the Constitution of the United States. This is not the example of someone who just swore two oaths, one successful and the other unsuccessful, to uphold and defend it.

So how are we to believe Obama is sincere in his pledges for openness and transparency in government? Why should we accept those statements as true? Isn't Obama actually approving openness and transparency for others while excluding himself from the responsibility and accountability to the law and the people?

This fight is not over.

Obama may think it's over.

His supporters might believe they have secured the White House and the issue of eligibility is behind them.

But I am determined not to allow this matter to die.

If you agree and want to see the truth on this matter revealed, no matter the consequences, I urge you to sign the WND petition already signed by more than 215,000 still seeking the truth.

After all, it's never too late for the truth.

Just in case you haven't read it: “FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS“

None of the allegations have been addressed or refuted in a court of law.


“26. Since the beginning of the U.S. Constitution, in order to run for Office of the President, you must be a “natural born citizen” U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1.”

“36. Obama is a representative of the Democratic People. However, Obama must meet the Qualifications specified for the United States Office of the President, which he must be a “natural born” citizen. Additionally, Obama must be at least a “naturalized” citizen to hold his Office of U.S. Senator for Illinois. Unfortunately, Obama is not a “natural born” citizen, nor is he a “naturalized” citizen. Just to name one of the problems, Obama lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother married an Indonesian citizen, Lolo Soetoro who legally “acknowledged” Obama as his son in Indonesia and/or “adopted” Obama, which caused Obama to become a “natural” Indonesian citizen. Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro relocated herself and Obama to Indonesia wherein Obama’s mother naturalized in Indonesia. This is proven by Obama’s school record with the student’s name as “Barry Soetoro”, Father’s name: Lolo Soetoro, M.A., and Citizenship: Indonesia.

37. There appears to be no question that Defendant Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was a U.S. citizen. It is also undisputed, however, that his father, Barack Obama, Sr., was a citizen of Kenya. Obama’s parents, according to divorce records, were married on or about February 2, 1961.

38. Defendant Obama claims he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961 and it is uncertain in which hospital he claims to have been born. Obama’s grandmother on his father’s side, his half-brother and half-sister all claim Obama was born not in Hawaii but in Kenya. Reports reflect that Obama’s mother traveled to Kenya during her pregnancy; however, she was prevented from boarding a flight from Kenya to Hawaii at her late stage of pregnancy (which, apparently, was a normal restriction, to avoid births during a flight). By these reports, Stanley Ann Dunham Obama gave birth to Obama in Kenya, after which she flew home and registered Obama’s birth. There are records of a “registry of birth” for Obama, on or about August 8, 1961 in the public records office in Hawaii.

39. Upon investigation into the alleged birth of Obama in Honolulu, Hawaii, Obama’s birth is reported as occurring at two (2) separate hospitals, Kapiolani Hospital and Queens Hospital. The Rainbow Edition News Letter, November 2004 Edition, published by the Education Laboratory School did a several page article of an interview with Obama and his half-sister, Maya. The Rainbow Edition News Letter reports Obama was born August 4, 1961 at Queens Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii. More interesting in February 2008, Obama’s half-sister, Maya, was again interviewed in the Star Bulletin, and this time, Maya states Obama was born August 4, 1961 in Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women & Children.

40. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges a research team went to Mombassa, Kenya, and located a Certificate Registering the birth of Barack Obama, Jr. to his father, a Kenyan citizen and his mother, a U.S. citizen.

41. Even if Obama was, in fact, born in Hawaii, he lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother re-married and moved to Indonesia with her Indonesian husband. In or about 1965, when Obama was approximately four (4) years old, his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, married Lolo Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia, whom she had met at the Hawaii University, and moved to Indonesia with Obama. Obama lost his U.S. citizenship, when his mother married Lolo Soetoro, and took up citizenship of and residency in Indonesia. Loss of citizenship, in these circumstances, under U.S. law (as in effect in 1965) required that foreign citizenship be achieved through “application.” Such type of naturalization occurred, for example, when a person acquired a foreign nationality by marriage to a national of that country. Nationality Act of 1940, Section 317(b). A minor child follows the naturalization and citizenship status of their custodial parent. A further issue is presented that Obama’s Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, either signed an acknowledgement acknowledging Obama as his son or Lolo Soetoro adopted Obama, giving Obama natural Indonesia citizenship which explains the name Barry Soetoro and his citizenship listed as Indonesian.

42. Obama admits in his book, “Dreams from my father” Obama’s memoir
(autobiography), that after his mother and Lolo Soetoro were married, Lolo Soetoro left Hawaii rather suddenly and Obama and his mother spent months in preparation for their move to Indonesia. Obama admits when he arrived in Indonesia he had already been enrolled in an Indonesia school and his relatives were waiting to meet him and his mother. Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian State citizen, could not have enrolled Obama in school unless Lolo Soetoro signed an acknowledgement acknowledging Obama as his son, which had to be filed with the Government. Under Indonesian law, when a male acknowledges a child as his son, it deems the son, in this case Obama, as an Indonesian State citizen. Constitution of Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 62 of 1958 Law No. 12 of 2006 dated 1 Aug. 2006 concerning Citizenship of Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 9 of 1992 dated 31 Mar. 1992 concerning Immigration Affairs and Indonesian Civil Code (Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Perdata) (KUHPer) (Burgerlijk Wetboek voor Indonesie) states in pertinent part, State citizens of Indonesia include: (viii) children who are born outside of legal marriage from foreign State citizen mother who are acknowledged by father who is Indonesian State citizen as his children and that acknowledgment is made prior to children reaching 18 years of age or prior to marriage; Republic of Indonesia Constitution 1945, As amended by the First Amendment of 1999, the Second Amendment of 2000, the Third Amendment of 2001 and the Fourth Amendment of 2002, Chapter X, Citizens and Residents, Article 26 states, “(1) Citizens shall consist of indigenous Indonesian peoples and persons of foreign origin who have been legalized [sic] as citizens in accordance with law. (2) Residents shall consist of Indonesian citizens and foreign nationals living in Indonesia.”

43. Furthermore, under the Indonesian adoption law, once adopted by an Indonesian citizen, the adoption severs the child’s relationship to the birth parents, and the adopted child is given the same status as a natural child, Indonesian Constitution, Article 2. Thus, where Obama was actually born and what his mother’s citizenship status at the time of this birth is irrelevant.

44. The laws in Indonesia at the time of Obama’s arrival did not allow dual citizenship. If an Indonesian citizen married a foreigner, as in this case, Obama’s mother was required to renounce her U.S. citizenship and was sponsored by her Indonesian spouse. During this time, Indonesia was a Police State. The public schools did not allow foreign students, only citizens were allowed to attend as Indonesia was under strict rule and decreed a number of restrictions; therefore, in order for Obama to have attended school in Jakarta, which he did, he had to be a citizen of Indonesia, as the
citizenship status of enrolled students was verified with Government records.

45. Obama was enrolled by his parents in a public school, Fransiskus Assisi School, a public school, in Jakarta, Indonesia. Plaintiff has received copies of the school registration in which it clearly states Obama’s name as “Barry Soetoro,” and lists his citizenship as Indonesian. Obama’s father is listed as Lolo Soetoro, Obama’s date of birth and place of birth are listed as August 4, 1961 in Hawaii, and Obama’s Religion is listed as Islam. This document was verified by Inside Edition, whose reporter, Matt Meagher, took the actual footage of the school record. At the time Obama was registered the public schools obtained and verified the citizenship status and name of the student through the Indonesian Government. All Indonesian students were required to carry government identity cards, or Karty Tanda Pendudaks, as well as family card identification called a Kartu Keluarga. The Kartu Keluarga is a family card which bears the legal names and citizenship status of all family members.

46. Since Obama’s birth was legally acknowledged by Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian citizen, and/or Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, which the evidence supports, Obama became an Indonesian citizen and bears the status as an Indonesia natural child (natural-born). For this reason, Obama would have been required to file applications with the U. S. State Department and follow the legal procedures to become a naturalized citizen in the United States, when he returned from Indonesia. If Obama and/or his family failed to follow these procedures, then Obama is an illegal alien.

47. Regardless of whether Obama was officially adopted, (which required a Court process), by his Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, or his birth was acknowledged (which only required the signing of a governmental birth acknowledgement form), by Lolo Soetoro, one of which had to occur in order for Obama to have the name Barry Soetoro and his citizenship status listed as “Indonesian”, in either and/or both cases Obama’s name was required to be changed to the Indonesian father’s name, and Obama became a natural citizen of Indonesia. This is proven by the school records in Jakarta, Indonesia showing Obama’s name as Barry Soetoro and his citizenship as Indonesian. Again, the registration of a child in the public schools in Jakarta, Indonesia was verified with the Government Records on file with the Governmental Agencies.

48. The Indonesian citizenship law was designed to prevent apatride (stateless) or bipatride (dual citizenship). Indonesian regulations recognize neither apatride nor bipatride citizenship.

49. In addition, since Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship neither did the United States, Hague Convention of 1930.

50. In or about 1971, Obama’s mother sent Obama back to Hawaii. Obama was ten (10) years of age upon his return to Hawaii.

51. As a result of Obama’s Indonesia “natural” citizenship status, there is absolutely no way Obama could have ever regained U.S. “natural born” status, if he in fact ever held such. Obama could have only become naturalized if the proper paperwork was filed with the U.S. State Department, in which case, Obama would have received a Certification of Citizenship.

52. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges Obama was never naturalized in the United States after his return. Obama was ten (10) years old when he returned to Hawaii to live with his grandparents. Obama’s mother did not return with him, and therefore, unable to apply for citizenship of Obama in the United States. If citizenship of Obama had ever been applied for, Obama would have a Certification of Citizenship.

53. Furthermore, Obama traveled to Indonesia, Pakistan and Southern India in 1981. The relations between Pakistan and India were extremely tense and Pakistan was in turmoil and under martial law. The country was filled with Afghan refugees; and Pakistan’s Islamist-leaning Interservices Intelligence Agency (ISI) had begun to provide arms to the Afghan mujahideen and to assist the process of recruiting radicalized Muslim men–jihadists–from around the world to fight against the Soviet Union. Pakistan was so dangerous that it was on the State Department’s travel ban list for US Citizens. Non-Muslim visitors were not welcome unless sponsored by their embassy for official business. A Muslim citizen of Indonesia traveling on an Indonesian passport would have success entering Indonesia, Pakistan and India. Therefore, it is believed Obama traveled on his Indonesian passport entering the Countries. Indonesian passports require renewal every five (5) years. At the time of Obama’s travels to Indonesia, Pakistan and India, Obama was twenty (20) years old. If Obama would have been a U.S. citizen, which he was not, 8 USC §1481(a)(2) provides loss of nationality by native born citizens upon “taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state…after having
attained the age of eighteen years”, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §1401(a)(1). Since Lolo Soetoro legally acknowledged Obama as his son and/or adopted Obama, Obama was a “natural” citizen of Indonesia, as proven by Obama’s school record.

54. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges Obama stated his citizenship as a “Kenya Citizen” when he applied for and was accepted at Columbia University. Obama has refused to release any records from Occidental College, Columbia University, Harvard Law School and any of his medical records.

55. Plaintiffs as well as many other democratic American citizens have requested proof of Obama’s citizenship status, however to no avail. Obama has promised to be an open and honest candidate, however, refuses to remove any doubts from Plaintiff’s and all the other democratic minds and prove his eligibility to serve as President of the United States.”

“62. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) does not perform background checks and/or verify their eligibility on our Candidates to hold Office. According to the FBI, once a candidate is voted into Office of Congress, they are members of Congress and therefore they are given a Secret Clearance, again, without any type of background check and/or verification processes performed.”

“66. Plaintiff has attempted to obtain the verification and proof requested herein by way of requests, filing this action, Admissions and Request for Production of Documents served upon Defendants September 15, 2008 and by Subpoenas served upon agencies who could supply the documentation to prove Obama’s citizenship status. To date, Plaintiff has not received anything. Plaintiff has received five (5) letters from agencies that were served with subpoenas claiming they need Obama’s signatures to comply and/or the confidentiality of the documents were protected from disclosure to third parties under 5 U.S. C. § 552. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552(a) allows for the disclosure of documents. If the documents contain confidential information, the Agency is required to redact the confidential part, e.g. social security number.”

“72. Plaintiff is requesting through this lawsuit an Order for Obama, the DNC, the FEC, the U.S. Senate, Commission on Rules and Administration and the Pennsylvania Department of State, Bureau of Commissions, Elections and Legislation to immediately turn over to Plaintiff the following documents:

(a) A certified copy of Obama’s “vault” (original long version) birth
(b) All reissued and sealed birth certificates of Obama;
(c) A certified copy of Obama’s Certification of Citizenship;
(d) A certified copy of Obama’s Oath of Allegiance taken upon age of
majority; and
(e) Certified copies of Obama’s Admission forms for Occidental College,
Columbia University and Harvard Law School.”
“75. Obama does not and has not been eligible to be constituted a United States “natural born” citizen and has failed to obtain and/or maintain “naturalized” citizenship status.

76. Obama, if born in Kenya would have made him a citizen of Kenya. Furthermore, because of the 1940 Naturalization Act, June 1952, Obama’s mother would have had to be nineteen (19) in order for Obama to be a “natural born” United States citizen. Obama’s mother was only eighteen (1 when she had Obama and therefore was not old enough to meet the residency requirements under our laws at the time of Obama’s birth and be able to register her son’s birth as a “natural born” citizen.

77. Even if Obama would have been able to be registered as a U.S. “natural born” citizen in Hawaii, which was not legally permissible, he lost his citizenship in the United States when his mother married Lolo Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia, and became a naturalized citizen in Indonesia and set up residency in Indonesia with her new husband. Minor’s follow their custodial parent’s citizenship status.

78. Moreover, Obama’s Indonesian step father, Lolo Soetoro, signed a Government acknowledgement form acknowledging Obama as his son and/or legally adopted Obama, either of which changed Obama’s citizenship status to a “natural” citizen of Indonesia. Thus, Obama could have only obtained Naturalized citizenship status in the United States, if in fact he and/or his family filed the proper immigration paperwork after his return to the United States from Indonesia.

79. Obama’s Indonesian citizenship status is proven on his school record with a public school in Jakarta Indonesia, which he attended. Obama’s school record clearly states his name Barry Soetoro, his citizenship, Indonesian, his religion Islam. This information was verified by the public schools in Jakarta upon registration of the student with the Indonesian Government. Indonesia did not allow foreign students to attend their schools and Indonesia Immigration Officials and the Police frequently visited the schools to ensure the students attending were all Indonesian citizens pursuant to the laws.

80. Students attending the public school system in Jakarta Indonesia at the time Obama attended had to wear and/or carry with them identification cards, again which were verified with the Governments records in Indonesia. The student’s identification cards displayed their citizenship number, their legal name, their parents names, etc. The identification cards had to match the student’s school enrollment information.

81. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges Obama stated his citizenship as Kenyan on his College Admission forms to Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard Law School.”

“102. Obama was born in Mombosa, Kenya, and his mother was not old enough to pass on U.S. “natural born” citizenship status to Obama, United States of America v. Cervantes-Nava, 281 F.3d 501 (2002), Drozd v. I.N.S., 155 F.3d 81, 85-88 (2d Cir.1998).

103. Additionally, Obama lost any “naturalized” citizenship status when he b e c a m e a “natural” citizen of Indonesia. Obama’s mother married Lolo Soetoro an Indonesian Citizen in or about 1964/1965. Lolo Soetoro acknowledged Obama as his son and/or adopted Obama thus changing his citizenship status to a “natural” citizen of Indonesia. Under Indonesian law, when a male acknowledges a child as his son, it deems the son, in this case Obama, as an Indonesian State citizen. Constitution of Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 62 of 1958 Law No. 12 of 2006 dated 1 Aug. 2006
concerning Citizenship of Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 9 of 1992 dated 31 Mar. 1992 concerning Immigration Affairs and Indonesian Civil Code (Kitab Undangundang Hukum Perdata) (KUHPer) (Burgerlijk Wetboek voor Indonesie). Republic of Indonesia Constitution 1945, as amended by the First Amendment of 1999, the Second Amendment of 2000, the Third Amendment of 2001 and the Fourth Amendment of 2002, Chapter X, Citizens and Residents, Article 26 states “(1) Citizens shall consist of indigenous Indonesian peoples and persons of foreign origin who have been legalized as citizens in accordance with law. (2) Residents shall consist of Indonesian citizens and foreign nationals living in Indonesia.” Obama was a “natural” citizen of Indonesia and not a foreign national, as proven by his Indonesian school registration.”

“134. Obama further committed Fraud upon Plaintiff and the American people by falsifying information on his Illinois State Bar Registration and Public Disciplinary Record. Obama stated on his Application to the State Bar of Illinois, as proven by the Illinois State Bar Registration and Disciplinary Record, stating he never used any other names. Obama signed his application/registration for the Illinois State Bar under the penalty of perjury knowing the information to be false. The fact of the matter is
Obama used the name Barry Soetoro in Indonesia and was registered as a citizen of Indonesia on his school records. Obama further used the name Barry Obama and it is further believed Obama used the name Barack and/or Barry Dunham.

135. Obama attempted to defraud Plaintiff and the American people by allowing an altered and forged Hawaii Certification of Live Birth (COLB) to be placed on his campaign website. Obama was well aware the Government issued COLB was altered and forged as the original document was in the name of Maya Kasandra Soetoro born in 1970. Maya Kassandra Soetoro’s Obama’s half sister who was born in Indonesia and her birth was later registered in Hawaii. The altered and forged COLB is still on
O b a m a ’ s c a m p a i g n w e b s i t e l o c a t e d a t

136. Furthermore, Obama traveled to Indonesia, Pakistan and Southern India in 1981. The relations between Pakistan and India were extremely tense and Pakistan was in turmoil and under martial law. The country was filled with Afghan refugees; and Pakistan’s Islamist-leaning Interservices Intelligence Agency (ISI) had begun to provide arms to the Afghan mujahideen and to assist the process of recruiting radicalized Muslim men–jihadists–from around the world to fight against the Soviet Union. Pakistan was so dangerous that it was on the State Department’s travel ban list for US Citizens. Non-Muslim visitors were not welcome unless sponsored by their embassy for official business. A Muslim citizen of Indonesia traveling on an
Indonesian passport would have success entering Indonesia, Pakistan and India. Therefore, it is believed Obama traveled on his Indonesian passport entering the Countries. Indonesian passports require renewal every five (5) years. At the time of Obama’s travels to Indonesia, Pakistan and India, Obama was twenty (20) years old. If Obama would have been a U.S. citizen, which he was not, 8 USC §1481(a)(2) provides loss of nationality by native born citizens upon “taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state…after having attained the age of eighteen years”, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §1401(a)(1). More importantly, in order to obtain an Indonesian Passport, you had to be an Indonesian citizen. Since Lolo Soetoro legally acknowledged Obama as his son and/or adopted Obama, Obama was a “natural” citizen of Indonesia, as proven by Obama’s school record.”

“168. Obama promises on his website to End Deceptive Voting Practices. “Obama states he will sign into law his legislation that establishes harsh penalties for those who have engaged in voter fraud and provide voters who have been misinformed with accurate and full information so they can vote.” Obama has made the promises however, has been dishonest regarding his citizenship status and has refused to prove his citizenship status so Plaintiff and other voter’s can be well educated into our Presidential candidate.

169. Obama states on his webpage at “I want to campaign the same way I govern, which is to respond directly and forcefully w i t h the truth” ~ Barack Obama, 11/08/07. Unfortunately, this is not true, Obama has not been honest about his citizenship and he has refused to provide proof of his citizenship status. Instead, Obama and his campaign placed an image on Obama’s website purporting to be an original Certification of Live Birth (COLB) of Obama’s from Hawaii. It was later determined the COLB on turned out to be an altered and forged COLB.”

Signs and Wonders in Week One of the Obama Era

Signs and Wonders in Week One of the Obama Era
By J.R. Dunn

Last week I enjoyed the honor of having my essay on "Bush and the Bush Haters" featured on both Democratic Underground and Daily Kos. Glancing over the comments (along with those in a similar vein on RealClearPolitics) I saw that with few exceptions, they were the standard run of viciousness, nastiness, and obscenity that we've grown used to from the left in recent years. But there was another quality too, one that took me a little while to identify. What struck me at last was this: the left are not acting like winners.

People basking in a long-sought victory -- a victory that they can bank on -- behave in a certain way. There's a sense of exhilaration, of smugness, of tolerant condescension for the losers. But there's none of that in any of the hardcore left-wing comments. No arrogance, no lofty amusement, but something else entirely, something that can only be characterized as a sense of near-hysteria crossed with frustration. It's an impression of deep insecurity, of people afraid that their triumph is ephemeral and is going to be snatched away from them. In their moment of victory, the American left is no less than desperate.

What have they got to be worried about? They've got a president with a solid, if not resounding victory. With a popularity rating of nearly 70%. A man with control of both houses of Congress, and the world effectively at his feet. A man confident enough to insult the opposition party to their faces while demanding their cooperation. What can possibility taint the victory of Barack Obama?

For starters, let's take a look at Obama's first public effort -- his inauguration. As democratic ceremonials, inaugurations are supposed to be a little ragged around the edges. They're not "coronations" comprised of rituals of a millennium's standing and timed to the last second, much as the European papers like to make the comparison. Like political conventions, they're supposed to carry some of the air of frontiersmen dancing on the tables with the triple-X jug going from hand to hand. But I doubt that even Andrew Jackson or Teddy Roosevelt at their rowdiest ever foresaw an inauguration like this one.

* First there's the oath, the fumble that's fated to go into the books. The Dems and their media pets have blamed this on Chief Justice Roberts, with a dismissive air, as if Roberts is a known halfwit long noted for such gaffes. In fact, the video clearly shows Obama running over Roberts' presentation. A minor error, and one that might even have been charming if not for the characteristically vicious Democratic response. Obama later repeated the oath to make certain he was covered, a pretty sharp move for a guy who never got around to releasing a legible copy of his birth certificate.

*The purple ticket fiasco must have sent a nice sharp tingle of relief through Obama and everybody else involved. Something on the order of three to five thousand spectators became stuck in a tunnel going beneath the Mall, evidently because no one was manning the gate leading to their section. (We don't yet have a complete explanation. D.C. authorities answered with a claim that it never happened. We may as well get used to this.) The crowd was stuck for over three hours, and miraculously, not a toe was trod during that period, an outcome that at least one spectator attributed to O's beneficent spirit.

Now, this is the latest example of the mythic Obama luck in action. Crowds in tunnels are about as touchy as so much plutonium. Even the most stable individual will begin to feel trapped after a few minutes in such a situation, and all that is needed is one or two claustrophobes or neurotics to set off a stampede. This is exactly the kind of situation that causes mass deaths in Mecca during the Hajj year after year. Nothing of the sort occurred this time around, but I'm a little leery of the fact that every move that the Big O makes seems to be predicated on luck, aren't you?

*According to the NY Post's trustworthy and credible Page Six, Mariah Carey is all in a huff over her seating assignment. Evidently, she thought she'd be on the platform, if not in the pres's lap, and went ballistic when she discovered that she'd have to sit with senators and suchlike trash. Now, it's true that she is a diva, and what are divas for but to throw hissy fits? But it seems to me a no-brainer that Obama would in some way want to acknowledge another successful individual of mixed race -- perhaps by making a personal greeting or something similar. This has to be marked as a missed opportunity. Bad staff work on this one.

*Another such slip occurred when Obama failed to appear at the Salute to Heroes Inaugural Ball, an event celebrating the country's Medal of Honor winners. Surely, this could not have been intentional -- it's what happens when you overdo the festivities and have too many things going on at once. But all the same, Obama is the first president to skip the ball since its establishment in 1953. Not good.

*The indispensable Newsbusters gives us a related incident that went unmentioned in every other media outlet. It seems that a promoter named Dante Hayes skipped town after failing to make the arrangements for a promised Veterans Ball, leaving high and dry the hotel, the scheduled bands and performers, and "17 to 25 beauty queens", which must be some kind of record. The event was intended to raise up to $10 million for veteran's causes. How much of that Hayes made off with is uncertain.

Now -- doesn't anyone do a check on these people? Are there no such things as deposits or bonds? This may be a first -- I'm not certain I've ever heard of the like occurring at any previous inauguration. Again, lousy organizational work, and an embarrassing precedent in a week in which O has chosen to hard-pedal ethics.

*Another underreported story involves the response to Obama's making a point of saluting atheists in the line, "We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers." A number of pastors, largely from black churches, have chosen to protest. It's difficult to grasp how somebody who was raked so badly and repeatedly concerning religion during the campaign would eagerly stick a foot into that bonfire once again, but that's what he did. It's also a bad move to alienate one of your most faithful followings, particularly since one clergyman, Rev. Cecil Blye, took the opportunity to give a well-aimed kick at O's abortion policy.

*And finally we have the market's spectacular kamikaze dive right in the middle of the celebration. This is easily explicable: Obama was supposed to come out and sprinkle fairy dust over the economy, ask everyone to believe real hard, and things would become all better again. For some reason this failed to occur, and Wall Street decided to take a brody.

It's difficult to see, lacking an easy supply of fairy dust, how Obama could have avoided this. But it does underline something that has been overlooked throughout the current slump: the fallacy of the Economic Man argument. Human beings are not economic robots mindlessly following ironclad laws. They are, in Isaiah Berlin's acute formulation, "Kettles that watch themselves come to a boil". Most of the problems of today's economy aren't economic at all, but functions of mass psychology. We'd be far better off if people like Bernanke, Greenspan, and Obama himself weren't continually quoted about how bad things are and how much worse they'll get, if reporters who insist on using the verb "deteriorate" were treated the same as the Iraqi shoe guy, and if the president's entire economic staff were given copies of Canetti's Crowds and Power and Mackay's Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds.

All this is nonsense, my fans at DU and Kos will insist. (Or, as one modern Cicero put it, "batshit crazy whining".) A load of trivial incidents strung together at random that mean absolutely nothing. But in truth these things matter far more than we think they do. In 1916, the Emperor Karl of Austria-Hungary was leaving his palace for his coronation when the dynasty's two-headed eagle symbol fell clattering to the pavement. Two years later, the Hapsburg Empire was history, and Karl was just another Charley trying to get by amid the ruins of Europe. We were reminded this week by David Warren that, "The liberal mind -- now fully restored to power in the United States -- is in love with symbolic gestures."

Symbols cut both ways, whether the Dems like it or not, and the fact that we've just been through the most messed-up inauguration on record does not bode well for the American Moses.

Obama got through his "perfect campaign" (if we overlook Joe the Plumber, the birth certificate, and the Berlin Speech among other incidents), and the "flawless transition". (Putting to the side Bill Richardson, Blago, and Timothy Geithner) But eventually, despite the media's best efforts, his gaffes are going to catch up with him. (Particularly if he continues pulling things like last week's staring contest in the White House press room -- Mussolini used to do that too.) People are going to begin asking, where is the flawless superman we voted for, where is the miracle worker, where is man with an answer for everything?

Several months ago, I wrote a piece for AT defining Barack Obama as a flake. People have asked me since, do I still believe that?

As the lady said: you betcha.

It's going to be a great four years.

J.R. Dunn is consulting editor of American Thinker.

Saturday, January 24, 2009

New Sheriff Obama

Click to see full image

Study: Cleaner air adds 5 months to US life span

Study: Cleaner air adds 5 months to US life span

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Cleaner air over the past two decades has added nearly five months to average life expectancy in the United States, according to a federally funded study. Researchers said it is the first study to show that reducing air pollution translates into longer lives.

Between 1978 and 2001, Americans' average life span increased almost three years to 77, and as much as 4.8 months of that can be attributed to cleaner air, researchers from Brigham Young University and Harvard School of Public Health reported in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine.

Some experts not connected with the study called the gain dramatic.

"It shows that our efforts as a country to control air pollution have been well worth the expense," said Dr. Joel Kaufman, a University of Washington expert on environmental health.

Scientists have long known that the grit in polluted air, or particulates, can lodge deep in the lungs and raise the risk of lung disease, heart attacks and strokes. The grit — made of dust, soot and various chemicals — comes from factories, power plants and diesel-powered vehicles.

In 1970, Congress passed a revised Clean Air Act that gave the Environmental Protection Agency the power to set and enforce national standards to protect people from particulate matter, carbon monoxide and other pollutants.

The law is widely credited with improving the nation's air quality through such things as catalytic converters on cars and scrubbers at new factories.

For the study, scientists used government data to track particulate pollution levels over two decades in 51 U.S. cities. They compared these changes to life expectancies calculated from death records and census data. They adjusted the results to take into account other things that might affect life expectancy, such as smoking habits, income, education and migration.

On average, particulate matter levels fell from 21 micrograms per cubic meter of air to 14 micrograms per cubic meter in the cities studied. At the same time, Americans lived an average 2.72 years longer.

"We saw that communities that had larger reductions in air pollution on average had larger increases in life expectancies," said the study's lead author, C. Arden Pope III, a Brigham Young epidemiologist.

Pittsburgh and Buffalo, N.Y., which made the most progress cleaning up their air, saw life spans increase by about 10 months. Los Angeles, Indianapolis and St. Louis were among the cities that saw gains in life expectancy of around five months.

The study was partly funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and EPA.

"This finding provides direct confirmation of the population health benefits of mitigating air pollution," Daniel Krewski, who does pollution research at the University of Ottawa in Canada, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

In a statement, the EPA said such studies provide critical information that can help the agency set standards on particulates. EPA data show that average particulate levels nationally have fallen 11 percent since 2000.

Last year, government researchers reported that U.S. life expectancy has surpassed 78 years for the first time. They attributed the increase to falling mortality rates for nine of the 15 leading causes of death, including heart disease, cancer, accidents and diabetes.

On the Net:
New England Journal:

Friday, January 23, 2009

Ankeny v. Daniels: Indiana Eligibility Case Update

Comment from Liz:


A lawsuit is pending in Indiana, which was filed December 9 by Kruse and Ankeny versus the Governor of Indiana, the DNC and the RNC. The defendants filed for more time (to scheme and plot and connive) to submit their documents. This time was given, and they are required to respond by January 31, 2009.

The judge, Judge Dreyer, has not dismissed the plaintiffs. He seems to be treating Kruse and Ankeny as actual legal citizens with a legitimate concern. I have to pinch myself, could this be true? It is very refreshing, to say the least, in this Through the Looking Glass world of politics and courts.

This very nicely written lawsuit states the Governor is the top law officer of the state of Indiana, and it is his duty to certify the votes, and to verify the qualifications of all candidates on a ballot in Indiana in upholding the laws of Indiana and the US Constitution, before submitting them for final count in Washington. Let us keep an eye on Indiana....where the law still seems to exist, with a true judge as we heard about growing up, a true court, like in To Kill a Mockingbird, and true citizens like in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

We have to train ourselves, to learn how to deal with the likes of Obama and Ayers, by studying Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky, where Obama trained and led Alinsky workshops, and learned to talk the way people want to hear to get their cooperation, and then do the exact opposite. A King of Lies and Deceit. The end justifies the means, nothing is sacred. For example, we must "sacrifice and be good citizens, ready to suffer" as he sunbathes and surfs in Hawaii. Please keep an eye on Indiana. And Pray.
Ankeny v. Daniels: Indiana Eligibility Case Update
Submitted by Phil

As originally covered here, Steve Ankeny and Bill Kruse are currently Plaintiffs in a case against Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels and the Democrat and Republican National Committees challenging that these Defendants had not upheld the Constitution when they certified the results of the election.

I have recently received word that the Cause number is 49D100812PL055511. Originally filed on December 9, 2008. On December 16, 2008, the Defendants apparently filed a motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond (a phrase that’s pretty self-explanatory; the Defendants wanted more time in which to respond).

When the story was originally reported in the press on December 25, 2008, the Governor and Judge had the following to say:

Jane Jankowski, spokeswoman for Daniels, confirmed the office had received a copy of the suit.
“We don’t have a comment,” she said Wednesday.

Judge David Dreyer, who will hear the case, said he could not talk about the specifics of the lawsuit.
“This is a very free country,” he said, “and these parties will be given the full consideration and respect that all parties will get.”

At this time, while the case is still pending, there is no set court date for another hearing; presumably, a date would be scheduled once the additional time for Defendant response has been exhausted.

Update: The docket summary can be viewed here using the Cause number. Be aware that there are fees associated with viewing the details of the case.

Update: Defendants have until January 31 to respond.


Thursday, January 22, 2009

Headlines From 4 Years Ago and Now

Headlines From 4 Years Ago:

"Republicans spending $42 million on inauguration while troops Die in unarmored Humvees"

"Bush extravagance exceeds any reason during tough economic times"

"Fat cats get their $42 million inauguration party, Ordinary Americans get the shaft"

Headlines Today:

"Historic Obama Inauguration will cost only $120 million"

"Obama Spends $120 million on inauguration; America Needs A Big Party"

"Everyman Obama shows America how to celebrate"

"Citibank executives contribute $8 million to Obama Inauguration"
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Anonymous said...
This blog was started to give people a source of information they can trust. I almost never make the mistake of including scams, false rumors, or poorly researched items. I encourage readers to alert me if they spot an anomaly. It will be quickly corrected.--------------------------Greetings, I saw what you wrote there and thought it an admirable thing to say-to be seeking the truth regardless of which end of the spectrum it may come from. I was linked this site by someone who was discussing the veracity of this email.To my knowledge none of the claimed headlines of today can be traced back to actual headlines. Sentiments, perhaps, but not any headlines that I can find. I will agree that it would seem that some of the headlines of years ago seem to have been true, but these more recient ones seem to be made from whole cloth. I will go further and submit that the media seems to have shown biases, but this email does not prove it-it seems to be it's own biased opinion by someone which is now being passed around as fact. I guess it helps to prove that the media is not the only one with biases.Lastly, there seems to be some dispute as to the actually cost when comparing inagurations of four years past versus this recent one. As far as the Citibank donations, it may or may not be true as I understand donations are commonly made by private individuals-the email being passed around and quoted in this blog seems to suggest this is something uncommon or improper when it is not yet clear whether it is or is not.
January 30, 2009 11:39 AM

Sam Sewell said...
Thanks for the heads up! I should establish a "bounty" payment for readers who find inaccuracies.I have moved your comment to the foot of the article. Granted, it may not be "false" but it sure is less than accurate.

Thanks again!