Monday, June 29, 2009

Hawaii paper turns down ad probing Obama's birth


WND Exclusive

BORN IN THE USA?



Star-Bulletin publisher rejects full-page, full-rate display 'because it is political'




© 2009 WorldNetDaily


WASHINGTON – In the latest effort to obtain information that could settle the controversy over Barack Obama's eligibility for office as a "natural born citizen," WND Editor and Chief Executive Officer Joseph Farah attempted to buy a full-page ad in a Honolulu daily newspaper soliciting assistance in finding documentary evidence of his birth in the city Aug. 4, 1961, as he claims in his autobiography.


Despite offering the full rate of $7,168.50 plus taxes for a full-page, color ad on page 2 of the news section of the Honolulu Star-Bulletin next Monday, the copy was rejected – the latest turndown by a growing list of media companies that won't touch the birth certificate issue even for money.

Sunday, June 28, 2009

Are You on the President’s Enemies List?

by Gary Bauer
Posted on Human Events 04/17/2009


Last week, Barack Obama’s message to the world was: “the United States is not and never will be at war with Islam.” This week, Barack Obama’s Department of Homeland Security’s message to conservatives was: the United States may soon be at war with you.


According to a new report emanating from DHS, it’s no longer Islamic terrorism — or “man-caused terrorism” in the new DHS parlance — that we have to fear most, but small government, anti-tax, pro-life, pro-gun, anti-illegal immigration, pro-military conservatives. In other words, most of the country.


The DHS report’s title is, “Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” That’s a mouthful. Right-wing. Extremism. Fueling. Resurgence. Radicalization. The threat is made out to be so sinister and so imminent — it’s enough to make you want to jump into bed and pull the covers over your head.


The report warns of potential terrorist acts from “groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority” as well as “groups and individuals that are dedicated a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”


Particularly galling is the report’s lumping together of racists and Americans who take a conservative stance on issues like marriage and the sanctity of life. The assumption seems to be that racist and pro-life views spring from the same mindset. In truth, though, it’s the abortion industry that disproportionately targets black babies and whose largest member, Planned Parenthood, has overtly racist roots.


Potential domestic terrorists are a big concern of the Obama administration. Actual ones aren’t. A year ago Barack Obama and his allies were pooh-poohing his relationship with unrepentant domestic terrorist William Ayers. Obama brushed off the controversy surrounding Ayers, trying to portray him as just a “guy who lives in my neighborhood,” even though he was co-founder of the violent radical leftwing organization the Weather Underground, which conducted a campaign of bombing public buildings, resulting in real deaths.


The report was issued by the Office of Intelligence and Analysis within DHS. With a name like that you’d think the report would include some data, evidence, references — something. But it has very little of any of that. It’s full of abstractions, speculation and out-dated anecdotes of isolated acts of violence. As the report states, DHS has no “specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence.”


We have become accustomed to authoritarian regimes in places like China, Burma and Cuba being so afraid of their own people that they see the greatest threat to national security as coming from within. It’s alarming to see inklings of that same mindset from America’s leaders.


If the Department of Homeland Security is serious about cracking down on organized violence, it should look to the Left. The vast majority of instances of political violence occurring over the last decade or so have been committed by leftwing groups.


DHS would do well to investigate the anarchists and communists who stormed the streets of Minneapolis-St. Paul during last year’s Republican National Convention, or the radical animal rights groups that bomb medical labs and threaten university researchers with violence. And it should not forget about the homosexual activists who attacked churches after voters passed Proposition 8 to defend traditional marriage in California.


The report’s most offensive intimation is that our heroes returning from the battlefield are susceptible to “recruitment and radicalization” by other rightwing extremists if they are “disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war…” Would that the Feds placed as much emphasis on combating Muslim radicalization in American prisons and mosques.


The DHS report is sure to reinforce the beliefs of many on the Left. Chris Matthews recently called pro-life advocates “terrorists,” and Rosie O’Donnell once blurted that “Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America…” For this sort of thinking to become policy for a major executive branch department is outrageous.


Obama likes to compare himself to Lincoln, FDR and JFK. But so far he more closely resembles Richard Nixon in one important way. Nixon had his “Enemies List,” whose purpose was to determine, as Nixon White House Counsel John Dean described it bluntly, “how we can use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies.”


Like Nixon, Obama has signaled that he will not let opposition to his agenda go unpunished. For Rush and conservative talk radio, there’s the Fairness Doctrine. For gun owners and small government enthusiasts, it’s a DHS official knocking at your door.


Whatever happened to the Obama who claimed during the campaign that he wanted to bring us all together? Nixon never claimed to be a unifier; Obama’s election depended on the idea that he was one.


By issuing this report, DHS betrays an understanding of how radical Obama’s policies are — so radical that they might set off a violent response from disgruntled citizens. But it also betrays an ignorance of the nature of those who fall into the categories described in the report.


Scores of millions of Americans are coming to realize that the country they once knew is quickly being destroyed. Understandably, they are upset and want to take action. But they won’t resort to violence, in part because they know that in a democracy change will come when enough citizens are informed about what’s going on and vote accordingly.


That’s the point of the Tea Parties. Nobody believes Obama or his allies will be much swayed by the outpouring of concern and anger evident at these rallies. But the rallies do help to educate the public about how radical Obama’s agenda is. And they help conservatives blow off a little steam and unite in solidarity around a common cause. What’s so threatening about that?

Out of Context

Thomas Sowell :: Townhall.com Columnist





In Washington, the clearer a statement is, the more certain it is to be followed by a "clarification" when people realize what was said. The clearly racist comments made by Judge Sonia Sotomayor on the Berkeley campus in 2001 have forced the spinmasters to resort to their last-ditch excuse, that it was "taken out of context."

*** Special Offer ***


If that line is used during Judge Sotomayor's Senate confirmation hearings, someone should ask her to explain just what those words mean when taken in context.


What could such statements possibly mean-- in any context-- other than the new and fashionable racism of our time, rather than the old-fashioned racism of earlier times? Racism has never done this country any good, and it needs to be fought against, not put under new management for different groups.


Looked at in the context of Judge Sotomayor's voting to dismiss the appeal of white firefighters who were denied the promotions they had earned by passing an exam, because not enough minorities passed that exam to create "diversity," her words in Berkeley seem to match her actions on the judicial bench in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals all too well.


The Supreme Court of the United States thought that case was important enough to hear it, even though the three-judge panel on which Judge Sotomayor served gave it short shrift in less than a page. Apparently the famous "empathy" that President Obama says a judge should have does not apply to white males in Judge Sotomayor's court.


The very idea that a judge's "life experiences" should influence judicial decisions is as absurd as it is dangerous.


It is dangerous because citizens are supposed to obey the law, which means they must know what the law is in advance-- and nobody can know in advance what the "life experiences" of whatever judge they might appear before will happen to be.


It is absurd because it flies in the face of the facts. It was a fellow Puerto Rican judge on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals-- Jose Cabranes-- who rebuked his judicial colleagues for the cavalier way they dismissed the white firefighters' case.

Saturday, June 27, 2009

For sale on eBay: Obama's 'Kenyan birth certificate'


WND Exclusive

BORN IN THE USA?



Seller claims Mombasa document 'certified copy'


By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


With dozens of lawsuits filed over access to Barack Obama's certified long-form birth certificate, many more lawyers working on his behalf to keep it secret and the validity of the U.S. Constitution hanging in the balance, guess where a "certified copy" of the original Mombasa "document" has been found?


On eBay.


Item No. 160344928067, at least as of today, is described as "a certified copy of President Barack Obama's Kenyan Birth Certificate."


The seller, identified by the user name " colmado_naranja," states, "President Barack Hussein Obama II was born in The Coast Provincial Hospital at Mombasa in Kenya at 7:24 PM on August 4th, 1961."



eBay offer for Obama's Kenyan birth certificate


The suspicion that Coast Provincial is, in fact, Obama's birth hospital is not new, with the subject having been discussed on both Internet blogs and forums already.


But the seller, who according to the eBay rankings has completed dozens of transactions on the behemoth auction site without difficulties, said this is the real deal.


The seller, who did not respond to a WND request for an interview, said online he was traveling in Kenya and repeatedly heard stories that Obama actually was born in Kenya.





"Kenyans were amused at how gullible Americans could be when it came to obvious things like the fact that Kenyans overtly admit to Barack Jr's Kenyan birth, yet the Americans continue to believe that they know better," the seller writes.


"I delved further and found that a birth certificate was on file at The Coast Provincial General Hospital at Mombasa," said the seller, who claims the certificate is in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.


"I know several American expats that reside in Kenya. I asked the three that I could reach if they were aware of President Barack Obama's Kenyan birth. All three said that they were most obviously aware of his Kenyan birth. I was shocked. They went to further say that they weren't much concerned with it, after all they'd left the U.S. to start a new life abroad and didn't have much interest in what was taking place in the States. Besides, they said, who would believe them anyway?


"Along with my Congolese brother Andylenny (brother in heart, not blood) and a 1993 BMW with only one working door I was off to Mombasa to get myself a copy (certified I hoped) of Barack Jr's birth certificate," the seller reported.


Actual details of how the "certificate" was obtained are not reported.

Throw the Bums Out

David Limbaugh :: Townhall.com Columnist

By David Limbaugh




Here they go again -- our faithful representatives in Washington, that is. They're about to pass, without reading its 1,200-plus pages, an incredibly expensive and destructive cap and trade bill, which has little prayer of accomplishing what it sets out to accomplish but satisfies their urgent need to pay homage to their liberal ideology and secular humanist worldview.



Do you remember when Barack Obama was forced to give an answer to justify his advocacy of a capital gains tax increase in view of such taxes' history of actually decreasing revenues? The revenue reductions are worth it because it's a matter of "fairness," he said. Spread the misery. Likewise, with cap and trade, Obama and his congressional cohorts will wreak untold destruction on the economy and get little benefit in return.


I'm not exaggerating here. Doesn't it make sense that before enacting legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the purpose of reducing man-made global warming, Congress would investigate whether significant man-made global warming is occurring (as opposed to watching Al Gore's propaganda film and simply declaring, by fiat, that scientists have reached a consensus on the issue when they clearly have not)?


And if, after a thorough and balanced inquiry, they determine that it is occurring, shouldn't they next examine whether their proposed legislative remedy is likely to significantly ameliorate the problem?


But they not only have not conducted a bona fide examination of the man-made warming issue but also have not attempted to examine, in any remotely scientific way, how much their proposed bill would reduce global warming (assuming it exists to the extent they contend) or whether any such reductions would make any difference at all to humanity's short- or long-term health or happiness or anything else.


All of this would be outrageous enough if there were no economic costs associated with their proposal. But in fact, the costs would be astronomical and way beyond the calculations they are presenting -- fraudulently -- to the American people to stunt the opposition they'd encounter if the truth were revealed.


The truth is that there is no crisis, and all the hysteria they're generating is solely for the purpose of ramrodding this odious bill through Congress before the public realizes it has, once again, been duped and betrayed.

Obama implores Senate to pass climate bill

By Charles Babington




Hours after the House passed landmark legislation meant to curb greenhouse gas emissions and create an energy-efficient economy, President Barack Obama on Saturday urged senators to show courage and follow suit.


The sharply debated bill's fate is unclear in the Senate, and Obama used his weekly radio and Internet address to ratchet up pressure on the 100-seat chamber.


"My call to every senator, as well as to every American, is this," he said. "We cannot be afraid of the future. And we must not be prisoners of the past. Don't believe the misinformation out there that suggests there is somehow a contradiction between investing in clean energy and economic growth."


Obama said the bill would create jobs, make renewable energy profitable and decrease America's dependence on foreign oil.


"It will spur the development of low-carbon sources of energy _ everything from wind, solar and geothermal power to safer nuclear energy and cleaner coal," he said.


House Democratic leaders said the bill helped accomplish one of Obama's campaign promises and would make the U.S. a leader in international efforts to address climate change when negotiations take place in Copenhagen later this year.


"We passed transformational legislation, which will take us into the future," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., after the 219-212 vote.


"For some it was a very difficult vote because the entrenched agents of the status quo were out there full force, jamming the lines in their districts and here, and they withstood that," Pelosi said.


The vote marked the first time either house of Congress has passed legislation to curb global warming gases. The legislation, totaling about 1,200 pages, would require the U.S. to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and by 83 percent by mid-century.


Success will be tougher in the Senate. Majority Leader Harry Reid says he wants to take up the legislation by the fall. Sixty 60 votes will be needed to overcome any Republican filibuster.


The "razor-thin vote in the House spells doom in the Senate," said Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., the top Republican on the Senate's environment panel.


Reid, D-Nev., was more optimistic.


"The bill is not perfect, but it is a good product for the Senate," Reid said. "Working with the president and his team, I am hopeful that the Senate will be able to debate and pass bipartisan and comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation this fall."


Supporters and opponents agreed that the legislation would lead to higher energy costs. But they disagreed on the impact on consumers.


Democrats pointed to two reports _ one from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the other from the Environmental Protection Agency _ that suggested average increases would be limited after tax credits and rebates were taken into account. The CBO estimated the bill would cost an average household $175 a year, the EPA $80 to $110 a year. But Republicans and industry groups say the real figure would much higher.


The White House and congressional Democrats argued the bill would create millions of green jobs as the nation shifts to greater reliance on renewable energy sources such as wind and solar and development of more fuel-efficient vehicles _ and away from use of fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal.


It will "make our nation the world leader on clean energy jobs and technology," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who negotiated deals with dozens of lawmakers in recent weeks to broaden the bill's support.

Republicans saw it differently.


This "amounts to the largest tax increase in American history under the guise of climate change," declared Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind.


In the Republicans' weekly radio and Internet address, House GOP leader John Boehner of Ohio said, "By imposing a tax on every American who drives a car or flips on a light switch, this plan will drive up the prices for food, gasoline and electricity."


But Obama said the measure would cost the average American about the price of a postage stamp per day.


"It is paid for by the polluters who currently emit dangerous carbon emissions," the president said. "It provides assistance to businesses and families as they make the gradual transition to clean energy technologies."


In California alone, Obama said, 3,000 people will be employed to build a new solar plant that will create 1,000 permanent jobs.

___

Associated Press writers Dina Cappiello and H. Josef Hebert contributed to this report.

The Climate Change Climate Change

The number of skeptics is swelling everywhere.


Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change legislation.


If you haven't heard of this politician, it's because he's a member of the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming.


[POTOMAC WATCH]
Associated Press

Steve Fielding


Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.


In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap-and-trade program.


The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)


The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.


Credit for Australia's own era of renewed enlightenment goes to Dr. Ian Plimer, a well-known Australian geologist. Earlier this year he published "Heaven and Earth," a damning critique of the "evidence" underpinning man-made global warming. The book is already in its fifth printing. So compelling is it that Paul Sheehan, a noted Australian columnist -- and ardent global warming believer -- in April humbly pronounced it "an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence." Australian polls have shown a sharp uptick in public skepticism; the press is back to questioning scientific dogma; blogs are having a field day.


The rise in skepticism also came as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, elected like Mr. Obama on promises to combat global warming, was attempting his own emissions-reduction scheme. His administration was forced to delay the implementation of the program until at least 2011, just to get the legislation through Australia's House. The Senate was not so easily swayed.


Mr. Fielding, a crucial vote on the bill, was so alarmed by the renewed science debate that he made a fact-finding trip to the U.S., attending the Heartland Institute's annual conference for climate skeptics. He also visited with Joseph Aldy, Mr. Obama's special assistant on energy and the environment, where he challenged the Obama team to address his doubts. They apparently didn't.


This week Mr. Fielding issued a statement: He would not be voting for the bill. He would not risk job losses on "unconvincing green science." The bill is set to founder as the Australian parliament breaks for the winter.


Republicans in the U.S. have, in recent years, turned ever more to the cost arguments against climate legislation. That's made sense in light of the economic crisis. If Speaker Nancy Pelosi fails to push through her bill, it will be because rural and Blue Dog Democrats fret about the economic ramifications. Yet if the rest of the world is any indication, now might be the time for U.S. politicians to re-engage on the science. One thing for sure: They won't be alone.


Write to kim@wsj.com

The Cap and Tax Fiction

Democrats off-loading economics to pass climate change bill.


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has put cap-and-trade legislation on a forced march through the House, and the bill may get a full vote as early as Friday. It looks as if the Democrats will have to destroy the discipline of economics to get it done.


Despite House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman's many payoffs to Members, rural and Blue Dog Democrats remain wary of voting for a bill that will impose crushing costs on their home-district businesses and consumers. The leadership's solution to this problem is to simply claim the bill defies the laws of economics.


Their gambit got a boost this week, when the Congressional Budget Office did an analysis of what has come to be known as the Waxman-Markey bill. According to the CBO, the climate legislation would cost the average household only $175 a year by 2020. Edward Markey, Mr. Waxman's co-author, instantly set to crowing that the cost of upending the entire energy economy would be no more than a postage stamp a day for the average household. Amazing. A closer look at the CBO analysis finds that it contains so many caveats as to render it useless.


[Review & Outlook]
Associated Press

Henry Waxman


For starters, the CBO estimate is a one-year snapshot of taxes that will extend to infinity. Under a cap-and-trade system, government sets a cap on the total amount of carbon that can be emitted nationally; companies then buy or sell permits to emit CO2. The cap gets cranked down over time to reduce total carbon emissions.


To get support for his bill, Mr. Waxman was forced to water down the cap in early years to please rural Democrats, and then severely ratchet it up in later years to please liberal Democrats. The CBO's analysis looks solely at the year 2020, before most of the tough restrictions kick in. As the cap is tightened and companies are stripped of initial opportunities to "offset" their emissions, the price of permits will skyrocket beyond the CBO estimate of $28 per ton of carbon. The corporate costs of buying these expensive permits will be passed to consumers.


The biggest doozy in the CBO analysis was its extraordinary decision to look only at the day-to-day costs of operating a trading program, rather than the wider consequences energy restriction would have on the economy. The CBO acknowledges this in a footnote: "The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap."


The hit to GDP is the real threat in this bill. The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. These higher prices will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars. Consumers will cut back on spending, which in turn will cut back on production, which results in fewer jobs created or higher unemployment. Some companies will instead move their operations overseas, with the same result.


When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill's restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035.


Note also that the CBO analysis is an average for the country as a whole. It doesn't take into account the fact that certain regions and populations will be more severely hit than others -- manufacturing states more than service states; coal producing states more than states that rely on hydro or natural gas. Low-income Americans, who devote more of their disposable income to energy, have more to lose than high-income families.


Even as Democrats have promised that this cap-and-trade legislation won't pinch wallets, behind the scenes they've acknowledged the energy price tsunami that is coming. During the brief few days in which the bill was debated in the House Energy Committee, Republicans offered three amendments: one to suspend the program if gas hit $5 a gallon; one to suspend the program if electricity prices rose 10% over 2009; and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15%. Democrats defeated all of them.


The reality is that cost estimates for climate legislation are as unreliable as the models predicting climate change. What comes out of the computer is a function of what politicians type in. A better indicator might be what other countries are already experiencing. Britain's Taxpayer Alliance estimates the average family there is paying nearly $1,300 a year in green taxes for carbon-cutting programs in effect only a few years.


Americans should know that those Members who vote for this climate bill are voting for what is likely to be the biggest tax in American history. Even Democrats can't repeal that reality.

Friday, June 26, 2009

Judge: Obama eligibility dispute is 'serious'


WND Exclusive

BORN IN THE USA?


Says case will be expedited when representation lined up


By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


A judge hearing one of the cases challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to be president has taken the unusual step of describing the dispute as a serious constitutional issue and further has begun adding letters of comment from the public to the court record.


Word of the action by U.S. Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider in Camden, N.J., comes from attorney Mario Apuzzo, who is handling the Kerchner vs. Obama case.


Apuzzo filed his lawsuit in January on behalf of Charles F. Kerchner Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr. Named as defendants are 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.


The case 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."





The Constitution 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."


Get the Whistleblower magazine, called "YOUR PAPERS, PLEASE? Why dozens of lawsuits and millions of Americans want Barack Obama to prove he's constitutionally qualified to be president."


"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," the case explained.


"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.

Apuzzo told WND that while the judge recently granted the government extra time to line up defense counsel for the named defendants, his ruling described the issue as a serious constitutional question.


"Plaintiffs' complaint raises significant issues necessitating that the named defendants engage competent counsel to represent their interests. Given the high ranking positions of the defendants, the decision as to who will represent them in this case is not simple and straightforward," the judge said.


But as soon as attorneys are lined up, "the case will proceed expeditiously," he said.


The case has attracted numerous public comments directed at and delivered to the judge, who has started adding them to the case file, Apuzzo noted.


"It's unbelievable," he said. "The court put the letters on Pacer."


Pacer is a fee-based court website through which interested parties can research cases and their documentation.


"This is really strange," said the attorney, noting that judges typically do not accept or even acknowledge public commentary on cases that are pending before them.


"The point is the letters are there in the docket," he said.


WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."


Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, 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.


Further, others question his citizenship by virtue of his attendance in Indonesian schools during his childhood and question on what passport did he travel to Pakistan three decades ago.


Adding fuel to the fire is Obama's persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers and the appointment of myriad lawyers to defend against all requests for his documentation. While his supporters cite an online version of a "Certification of Live Birth" from Hawaii as his birth verification, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.


The ultimate questions remain unaddressed to date: Is Obama a natural born citizen, and, if so, why hasn't documentation been provided? And, of course, if he is not, what does it mean to the 2008 election or the U.S. Constitution if it is revealed that there has been a violation?


And the answer could take only minutes: authorization from the president to Hawaiian officials to release his documentation.


Apuzzo, on his website, says the issue "is of utmost national importance."


A state official, Hawaiian Health Director Chiyome Fukino, said, "I, and Dr. Alvin Onaka have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures." But officials have rejected requests for access, saying Obama would have to authorize any 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 foreign birth in Hawaii?


Obama's half-sister, Maya Soetoro, has named two different Hawaii hospitals where Obama could have been born.


While an Obama spokesman one time called the allegations "garbage," the president and his team have withheld other comments. But here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama's eligibility:


  • New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn't properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.

  • Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg has three cases pending, including Berg vs. Obama in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a separate Berg vs. Obama which is under seal at the U.S. District Court level and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, (now dismissed) brought on behalf of a retired military member who could be facing recall to active duty by Obama.

  • 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 lawyer 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.

  • Also in Ohio, there was the Greenberg v. Brunner case which ended when the judge threatened to assess all case costs against the plaintiff.

  • 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. She also has brought forward several other cases and has conducted several public campaigns to generate awareness of the issue.

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 Cohen vs. Obama.

  • In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Obama Administration Pushes CRC Ratification

UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)


Dear Friend of Parental Rights,


Monday in a Harlem middle school, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice told a group of 120 students that administration officials are actively discussing “when and how it might be possible to join” (that is, ratify) the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). As before, she also communicated what a disgrace it is that the U.S. would stand with only Somalia against such a widely-accepted treaty.


This is the first direct public statement by the Obama administration that it will seek ratification of the UN CRC.


In my 30 years of political involvement, I have learned to recognize this as what is called a “trial balloon.” Like in World War I trench warfare, our opponents have “sent up a balloon” to see if it will draw fire. If things remain quiet, they will proceed with their plans to push for ratification of the CRC in the U.S. Senate.


To discourage them from doing so, we need to make sure that our voices are heard with unmistakable clarity. We must let the Obama administration know that we oppose this anti-family, anti-American treaty.


Here’s what we need you all to do:


1. Call the White House comments line at 202-456-1111. Tell them you heard the administration wants to ratify the CRC, and you strongly oppose this giving away of U.S. sovereignty to the UN. Also keep in mind that this treaty gives the government jurisdiction to override any decision made by any parent if the government thinks that a better decision can be made—even if there is no proof of any harm.


2. Call Ambassador Susan Rice’s office at the United Nations. Tell her that you want her to represent the United States to the world rather than trying to get the United States to go along with international law initiated by the UN. The US Mission at the United Nations can be reached at 212-415-4000 (press 6 to leave your message). This number has been disconnected through our efforts. You can also contact the Public Diplomacy Office at 212-415-4050. We are no longer urging calls to the U.S. office at the United Nations.


3. Contact your Senators and urge them to oppose ratification of this treaty. (Find your Senators’ contact information by typing your zip code into the box here.) Ask them also to defeat it once and for all by cosponsoring SJRes 16 – the Parental Rights Amendment.


It is very important that we speak up right now. Please call before you close this email!


Sincerely,


Michael Farris

Cap-and-Tax Hits the Floor This Friday


By Michele Bachmann

It appears the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade energy tax will be on the House floor for a vote this Friday. This legislation is an economic time bomb for our nation's already struggling economy and despite Democrats’ best attempts to frame it as a necessary measure to stop global warming, cap-and-trade is merely a gigantic tax and huge revenue booster for our federal government to allow them to keep spending and fund more government programs.

No matter which analysis of this bill you look at, it means higher costs for all Americans. The CBO predicts that the rise in prices would hit low-income households the hardest as these homes spend a larger fraction of their income on energy needs compared to those with higher incomes. It will especially impact those Americans living in Midwest states who get most of their energy from coal-fired utilities and have large manufacturing sectors.

One Minnesota company speaking up against this cap-and-tax bill is Holiday Stationstores, headquartered in Bloomington, MN. They have serious concerns about the low carbon fuel standard in this bill and its effects on the Upper Midwest.

They shared their concerns in a letter to Minnesota Congressman Collin Peterson, Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, at the time this bill was reviewed by his committee:


"…Minnesota has among the cleanest burning fuels in the United States. However, Minnesota and a number of other Midwest states also rely heavily on transportation fuels that – while cleaner – are considered by some to have a large carbon footprint.



“The concept of a low carbon fuel standard itself is especially problematic for Midwest states. Unlike California, which produces much of its own crude, the Midwest relies on crude from Canada.... In Minnesota, for example, more than 80 percent of the state's crude supply comes from Canada. Although it's plentiful, Canadian crude is typically denser and requires more energy to produce than lighter and sweeter crudes. This makes it arguably more carbon intensive than crude derived from places like the Middle East.
"

The ones paying the price for this shortsighted bill are the businesses like Holiday Superstores who will be hit just for staying in business. And even worse, it's you and me who will ultimately feel the pain through skyrocketing energy costs.

This plan is wrong in its premise and in its execution. With our economy struggling as it is right now, how can we afford to raise energy costs? To educate yourself on what cap-and-tax really means for you and your family, check out what the Heritage Foundation has to offer.

Barney Frank; the Underwriter

The Wall Street Journal


REVIEW & OUTLOOK

Telling Fannie Mae to take more credit risk. Now there's an idea.


Back when the housing mania was taking off, Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank famously said he wanted Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to "roll the dice" in the name of affordable housing. That didn't turn out so well, but Mr. Frank has since only accumulated more power. And now he is returning to the scene of the calamity -- with your money. He and New York Representative Anthony Weiner have sent a letter to the heads of Fannie and Freddie exhorting them to lower lending standards for condo buyers.


You read that right. After two years of telling us how lax lending standards drove up the market and led to loans that should never have been made, Mr. Frank wants Fannie and Freddie to take more risk in condo developments with high percentages of unsold units, high delinquency rates or high concentrations of ownership within the development.


[Review & Outlook]
Associated Press


Fannie and Freddie have restricted loans to condo buyers in these situations because they represent a red flag that the developments -- many of which were planned and built at the height of the housing bubble -- may face financial trouble down the road. But never mind all that. Messrs. Frank and Weiner think, in all their wisdom and years of experience underwriting mortgages, that the new rules "may be too onerous."


And in a display of the wit for which Mr. Frank is famous, the letter writers slyly point out that higher lending standards won't reduce taxpayer exposure to bad loans because the Federal Housing Administration has even lower standards for condos. "While the underlying goal may be to reduce taxpayer exposure relating to the current conservatorship of the GSEs [government sponsored entities], such a goal would not have such an effect if it merely results in a shifting of loans from the GSEs to the FHA." Tougher lending standards will merely shift market share from one government program to another, so what's the point in being cautious?


Fannie and Freddie have already lost tens of billions of dollars betting on the mortgage market -- with that bill being handed to taxpayers. They face still more losses going forward, because in the wake of their nationalization last year their new "mission" has become to do whatever it takes to prop up the housing market. The last thing they need is lawmakers like Mr. Frank, who did so much to lay the groundwork for their collapse, telling them to play faster and looser with their lending standards.


Fannie and Freddie have always been political creatures under the best circumstances. But we don't remember anyone electing Mr. Frank underwriter-in-chief of the United States.

EPA's own research expert 'shut up' on climate change


WND Exclusive

HEAT OF THE MOMENT



Government analyst silenced after he critiques CO2 findings

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


Environmental Protection Agency officials have silenced one of their own senior researchers after the 38-year employee issued an internal critique of the EPA's climate change position.

Alan Carlin, senior operations research analyst at the EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics, or NCEE, submitted his research on the agency's greenhouse gases endangerment findings and offered a fundamental critique on the EPA's approach to combating CO2 emissions. But officials refused to share his conclusion in an open internal discussion, claiming his research would have "a very negative impact on our office."


His study was barred from circulation within the EPA and was never disclosed to the public for political reasons, according to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, or CEI, a group that has accessed four internal e-mails on the subject.


CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman told WND, "His boss basically told him, 'No, I'm not going to send your study further up. It's going to stay within this bureau.'"


A March 12 e-mail to Carlin warned him not to have "any direct communication with anyone outside NCEE on endangerment."


Carlin, a researcher who earned his doctorate in economics from Massachusetts Institute of Technology and an undergraduate degree in physics from California Institute of Technology, informed officials that two-thirds of his references were from peer-reviewed publications and defended his inclusion of new research on the topic.


"It is also my view that the critical attribute of good science is its correspondence to observable data rather than where it appears in the technical literature," he wrote. "I believe my comments are valid, significant and contain references to significant new research … They are significant because they present information critical to justification (or lack thereof) for the proposed [greenhouse gas] endangerment finding."


After nearly one week of discussion, NCEE Director Al McGartland informed Carlin on March 17 that he would not include the research in the internal EPA discussion.


"Alan, I decided not to forward your comments," he wrote. "… The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. … I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office."

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

If you thought Obama stole from you already, hold on to your seats...

between the lines Joseph Farah



'Global warming 101'



© 2009

Now that Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress have straightened out the automobile industry, solved the banking problems, ended the housing mess, reversed the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and have begun the process on providing universal health care, they are setting their sights on saving the planet from the ravages of "man-made, catastrophic global warming."


How are they going to do it?


The same way they solved all the other problems – by stealing more wealth and freedom from you, your children, your grandchildren and your great-grandchildren.


However, there is one difference between the issue of "climate change" and all the others.


All the other problems actually had at least some basis in reality. In other words, there really were some problems associated with the automobile industry, the banks, housing, the economy and health care. I would suggest to you that the very people designing the "solutions" were responsible for creating those messes. And I would also suggest to you that their "solutions" are actually only going to make matters worse.


Is Al Gore being disingenuous? Read the truth about climate change in "Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed"


But, at least, we can all agree that there were some issues needing to be addressed – if not by Washington, by someone.


That is not the case at all with so-called "global warming

."


In this case, the very crisis itself has been manufactured out of whole cloth for the express purpose of redistributing wealth, inhibiting freedom and empowering government beyond our wildest imaginations.


You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand this. In fact, it helps if you are not an employee of NASA – because NASA has a vested interest in exploiting the "global warming" myth.


But while banking and car-making and the economy and health care are all tough issues for ordinary, untrained people to understand, the weather is most definitely not.


Let's face it – farmers can predict the weather as well as most meteorologists. With a homemade barometer, a thermometer and an understanding of cloud formations, I've trained my 9-year-old daughter to do as good a job at predicting the weather as the local weather professionals.


Most of us live in climates where the temperature range can easily top 40 degrees in a 24-hour period. Did you ever think about that? It's not unusual to have temperatures rise 40 degrees or more from night to day. In some climates, the range can be much higher – in one day!


Over the course of a week, you can see much more significant changes in temperature.


Over the course of a month, you will witness even greater changes.


And, of course, over a 365-day period, you will see temperature changes that can easily top 100 degrees. Again, far more in some places – like New York, Chicago, Boston, Minneapolis, Denver and so forth.

Obama to Iran: Let Them Eat Ice Cream

Ann Coulter :: Townhall.com Columnist
by Ann Coulter







On Iran, President Obama is worse than Hamlet. He's Colin Powell, waiting to see who wins before picking a side.


Last week, massive protests roiled Iran in response to an apparently fraudulent presidential election, in which nutcase Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was declared the winner within two hours of the polls closing. (ACORN must be involved.)


Special offer: Ann Coulter's book free when you subscribe to Townhall Magazine


Obama responded by boldly declaring that the difference between the loon Ahmadinejad and his reformist challenger, Mir Hossein Mousavi, "may not be as great as advertised."


Maybe the thousands of dissenters risking their lives protesting on the streets of Tehran are doing so because they liked Mousavi's answer to the "boxers or briefs" question better than Ahmadinejad's.


Then, in a manly rebuke to the cheating mullahs, Obama said: "You've seen in Iran some initial reaction from the supreme leader" -- peace be upon him -- "that indicates he understands the Iranian people have deep concerns about the election."


Did FDR give speeches referring to Adolf Hilter as "Herr Fuhrer"? What's with Obama?


Even the French condemned the Iranian government's "brutal" reaction to the protesters -- and the French have tanks with one speed in forward and five speeds in reverse.


You might be a scaredy-cat if ... the president of France is talking tougher than you are.


More than a week ago, French president Nicolas Sarkozy said: "The ruling power claims to have won the elections ... if that were true, we must ask why they find it necessary to imprison their opponents and repress them with such violence."


But liberals rushed to assure us that Obama's weak-kneed response to the Iranian uprising and the consequent brutal crackdown was a brilliant foreign policy move. (They also proclaimed his admission that he still smokes "lion-hearted" and "statesmanlike.")


As our own Supreme Leader B. Hussein Obama (peace be upon him) explained, "It's not productive given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations to be seen as meddling."


You see, if the president of the United States condemned election fraud in Iran, much less put in a kind word for the presidential candidate who is not crazy, it would somehow crush the spirit of the protesters when they discovered, to their horror, that the Great Satan was on their side. (It also wouldn't do much for Al Franken in Minnesota.)


Liberals hate America, so they assume everyone else does, too.


So when a beautiful Iranian woman, Neda Agha Soltan, was shot dead in the streets of Iran during a protest on Saturday and a video of her death ricocheted around the World Wide Web, Obama valiantly responded by ... going out for an ice cream cone. (Masterful!)


Commenting on a woman's cold-blooded murder in the streets of Tehran, like the murder of babies, is evidently above Obama's "pay grade."


If it were true that a U.S. president should stay neutral between freedom-loving Iranian students and their oppressors, then why is Obama speaking in support of the protesters now? Are liberals no longer worried about the parade of horribles they claimed would ensue if the U.S. president condemned the mullahs?

American Jews fund anti-Israel organizations


WND Exclusive

FROM WND'S JERUSALEM BUREAU



Groups work with Palestinian Authority, promote Iran nukes

By Samuel Sokol and David Bedein


A U.S. organization has been receiving money from perhaps unsuspecting Jewish donors to support blatantly anti-Israel groups.


American Jews wishing to donate money to Israeli causes routinely utilize local city Jewish federations as a middleman. Hundreds of millions of dollars per year are sent to Jewish federations across the country with the expectation contributions will be used to aid worthy causes in Israel.


Many U.S. Jewish federations as well as individual Jewish donors give to the New Israel Fund, or NIF, a Washington, D.C.-based foundation dedicated to fostering social change and progressive causes in Israel.


Is Israel aleady done for? Find out in Aaron Klein's "The Late Great State of Israel"


The NIF budget comes from a combination of donors. These include the Ford Foundation, grant organizations such as the Jacob and Hilda Blaustein Foundation and the Andrea and Charles Bronfman Philanthropies, as well as various Jewish communal federations such as the Jewish Federation in New York, the Durham-Chapel Hill Federation and the Jewish Federation of Grand Rapids.


However, while many of the programs run by the NIF are considered laudable in the pro-Israel community, such as work the group does with economically disadvantaged Ethiopian immigrants, the flagship grantees of the NIF are Israeli-Arab nongovernmental organizations that openly and unabashedly dedicate themselves to removing the Jewish character of the state of Israel.