by Michael Savage
How President Obama is destroying America from within -- and what we must do to stop him
Michael Savage is not one to mince words -- that's what's made him one of the most popular talk-radio hosts in America, and a four-time New York Times bestselling author to boot. Now, in his latest blockbuster, Trickle Up Poverty: Stopping Obama's Attack on Our Borders, Economy, and Security, Savage . . .well, savages President Barack Obama for everything he's doing to destroy our country from within. But unlike other books on Obama, Savage shows you specifically and in detail the numerous ways that Obama's policies affect you, your family, and the nation. Moreover, he goes beyond pointing out the problems Obama has created to offer a solid set of solutions.
"Barack Hussein Obama is tearing down everything that was built before this man was even born," writes Savage in his Preface. "Mark my words: History will show that Obama the Destroyer-in-Chief is impoverishing the middle class with taxation, regulation, and a desecration of our cherished freedoms. Moreover, as I will demonstrate in this book, Barack Obama is a naked Marxist-Leninist whose sole ambition in life is to transform America into the USSA: The United Socialist States of America."
For Savage, poverty is more than just an economic issue. As he sees it, Obama is destroying the country by creating a poverty of the body, mind, and spirit that impoverishes how we think, feel, and view ourselves as a people, while robbing our personal freedoms and bankrupting our clout as the leader of the world. Trickle Up Poverty shows how Obama is circumventing the Constitution to push through his radical agenda -- and, most important, how we can restore our country to the power and prestige that Barack Obama and his corrupt and degenerate "czars" are trying to destroy.
In Trickle Up Poverty, Michael Savage reveals:
* Impoverishing the Middle Class: How Obama's confiscatory taxes, the socializing of our health-care system, and other legislative initiatives are taking away our earnings and our power to choose how we live our lives and putting it in the hands of corrupt and pro-Socialist cohorts
* Erasing Our Border with Mexico: How the Homeland Security department that can't shoot straight is gutting the Constitution in the name of protecting illegal aliens when it should be focusing on keeping out the terrorists and drug dealers
* Defunding the Military and Putting Our Troops in Harm's Way: How Obama's beatnik policy of taking apart our nuclear arsenal and destroying NASA, while implementing PC Rules of Engagement that don't allow our troops to protect themselves, is dangerously weakening our security and ending our military dominance
* Lining the Pockets of His Wall Street Buddies: How, while our 401(k)'s suffer, Obama and his Wall Street heavy contributors are creating their own legislation that is driving down stock prices while allowing his biggest campaign contributors to make trillions of dollars
* Propagandizing the Media: How Obama's administration has systematically overrun the media, once a forum for free speech, in a hostile takeover with threats and false promises that serve only to pull the wool over the sheeple's eyes
* Ignoring the Tea Party—the Voice of the People: How Obama is blatantly disregarding, and even suppressing, the fastest-growing collective voice in the nation right now -- while his Union-Crony Purple Shirts have shown up at town-hall meetings and peaceful protests to intimidate and antagonize the democratic process
* Obama the Pan-Leninist: How Obama dreams of becoming the leader not of the free world, but the regulated world, in which everything from speech to health care to energy is controlled by a world government which he leads
And make no mistake, warns Savage: Unlike previous presidents who consulted with Congress seeking its cooperation to implement new initiatives, Obama operates as if his wishes are the law of the land. "As you'll see in this book, Barack Obama uses any means necessary -- including circumventing the Constitution -- to get his way. Why? He's living in a dream world acting as if his wishes are the sole determinant for the future of America."
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Political Judges
by Thomas Sowell
Results of the recent elections showed that growing numbers of Americans are fed up with "public servants" who act as if they are public masters. This went beyond the usual objections to particular policies. It was the fact that policies were crammed down our throats, whether we liked them or not. In fact, laws were passed so fast that nobody had time to read them.
Whether these policies were good, bad or indifferent, the way they were imposed represented a more fundamental threat to the very principles of a self-governing people established by the Constitution of the United States.
Arrogant politicians who do this are dismantling the Constitution piecemeal-- which is to say, they are dismantling America.
The voters struck back, as they had to, if we are to keep the freedoms that define this country. The Constitution cannot protect us unless we protect the Constitution, by getting rid of those who circumvent it or disregard it.
The same thing applies to judges. The runaway arrogance that politicians get when they have huge majorities in Congress is a more or less common arrogance among federal judges with lifetime tenure or state judges who are seldom defeated in elections to confirm their appointments to the bench.
It was a surprise to many-- and a shock to media liberals-- when three judges on Iowa's Supreme Court were voted off that court in the same recent elections in which a lot of politicians were also sent packing.
These judges had taken it upon themselves to rule that the voters of Iowa did not have the right to block attempts to change the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples. Here again, the particular issue-- so-called "gay marriage"-- was not as fundamental as the question of depriving the voting public of their right to decide what kinds of laws they want to live under.
That is ultimately a question of deciding what kind of country this is to be-- one ruled by "we the people" or one where the notions of an arrogant elite are to be imposed, whether the people agree or not.
Those who believe in gay marriage are free to vote for it. But, when they lose that vote, it is not the role of judges to nullify the vote and legislate from the bench. Judges who become politicians in robes often lie like politicians as well, claiming that they are just applying the Constitution, when they are in fact exercising powers that the Constitution never gave them.
If they are going to act like politicians, then they should be voted out like politicians.
Media liberals, who like what liberal judges do, spring to their defense. The media spin is that judges were voted off the bench because of "unpopular" decisions and that this threatens judicial "independence."
Results of the recent elections showed that growing numbers of Americans are fed up with "public servants" who act as if they are public masters. This went beyond the usual objections to particular policies. It was the fact that policies were crammed down our throats, whether we liked them or not. In fact, laws were passed so fast that nobody had time to read them.
Whether these policies were good, bad or indifferent, the way they were imposed represented a more fundamental threat to the very principles of a self-governing people established by the Constitution of the United States.
Arrogant politicians who do this are dismantling the Constitution piecemeal-- which is to say, they are dismantling America.
The voters struck back, as they had to, if we are to keep the freedoms that define this country. The Constitution cannot protect us unless we protect the Constitution, by getting rid of those who circumvent it or disregard it.
The same thing applies to judges. The runaway arrogance that politicians get when they have huge majorities in Congress is a more or less common arrogance among federal judges with lifetime tenure or state judges who are seldom defeated in elections to confirm their appointments to the bench.
It was a surprise to many-- and a shock to media liberals-- when three judges on Iowa's Supreme Court were voted off that court in the same recent elections in which a lot of politicians were also sent packing.
These judges had taken it upon themselves to rule that the voters of Iowa did not have the right to block attempts to change the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples. Here again, the particular issue-- so-called "gay marriage"-- was not as fundamental as the question of depriving the voting public of their right to decide what kinds of laws they want to live under.
That is ultimately a question of deciding what kind of country this is to be-- one ruled by "we the people" or one where the notions of an arrogant elite are to be imposed, whether the people agree or not.
Those who believe in gay marriage are free to vote for it. But, when they lose that vote, it is not the role of judges to nullify the vote and legislate from the bench. Judges who become politicians in robes often lie like politicians as well, claiming that they are just applying the Constitution, when they are in fact exercising powers that the Constitution never gave them.
If they are going to act like politicians, then they should be voted out like politicians.
Media liberals, who like what liberal judges do, spring to their defense. The media spin is that judges were voted off the bench because of "unpopular" decisions and that this threatens judicial "independence."
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
The "Gridlock" Bogeyman
by Thomas Sowell
Whenever the party that controls the White House does not also control Capitol Hill, political pundits worry that there will be "gridlock" in Washington, so that the government cannot solve the nation's problems.
Almost never is that fear based on what actually happens when there is divided government, compared to what happens when one party has a monopoly of both legislative and executive branches.
The last time the federal government had a budget surplus, instead of its usual deficits, there was divided government. That was when the Republicans controlled the House of Representatives, where all spending bills originate, and Bill Clinton was in the White House. The media called it "the Clinton surplus."
By the same token, some of the worst laws ever passed were passed when one party had overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress, as well as being led by their own President of the United States. ObamaCare is a product of the kind of arrogance that so much power breeds.
It was the same story back in the famous "first hundred days" of the New Deal in 1933. The National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 clamped down on the American economy the kind of pervasive government control seldom seen outside of totalitarian countries.
It was the ObamaCare of its time, but covering industries right down to local dry cleaners. One man was sent to jail for charging less than the government-specified price for pressing a suit of clothes. This typified the mindset of the New Deal.
Fortunately, the Supreme Court eventually declared the National Industrial Recovery Act unconstitutional. But, before that happened, the N.I.R.A. probably did more to prevent the economy from recovering from the Great Depression than any other law or policy. Even liberal icon John Maynard Keynes said at the time that the N.I.R.A. "probably impedes recovery."
You cannot tell what effect a law or policy will have by what politicians call it, whether they label it a "recovery" program or a "stimulus" program.
Those who fear gridlock in Washington today implicitly assume that government actions are needed to "solve" the economy's "problems." That assumption has been so pervasive over the past 80 years that many people fail to realize that the republic existed for nearly twice that long before the federal government intervened to get the economy out of a recession or depression.
During all that time, no depression ever lasted even half as long as the Great Depression of the 1930s, when first President Hoover and then President Roosevelt intervened.
For most of the history of this country, there was no Federal Reserve System, which was established in 1914 to prevent bank failures and the bad effects of large expansions or contractions of the supply of money and credit. But bank failures in the 1930s exceeded anything ever seen before the Fed was established. So did the contraction of money and credit during the Great Depression.
The seductive notion that some Big Daddy in Washington can solve our problems for us-- whether healing the sick, preventing poverty or "growing the economy"-- is encouraged by politicians for obvious reasons, and the media echo the idea.
Both in Washington and in the media, there is virtually zero interest in comparing what actually happens when the federal government intervenes in the economy and when it does not.
More than a century and a half of ignoring downturns in the economy never produced a depression as deep or as long as the 1930s depression, with its many federal interventions, first under Herbert Hoover and then under Franklin D. Roosevelt.
The unemployment rate was 6.3 percent when the first big intervention took place, during the Hoover administration. It later peaked at 25 percent, but its fluctuations were always in double digits throughout the 1930s, as FDR tried one thing after another. As late as the spring of 1939, nearly a decade after the stock market crash of 1929, unemployment hit 20 percent again.
It is not a matter of faith that a market economy can recover on its own. It is a matter of faith that politicians speed recovery. But there is no way that Barack Obama is going to stop intervening in the economy unless he gets stopped. Only gridlock can do that.
_______
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of The Housing Boom and Bust.
Whenever the party that controls the White House does not also control Capitol Hill, political pundits worry that there will be "gridlock" in Washington, so that the government cannot solve the nation's problems.
Almost never is that fear based on what actually happens when there is divided government, compared to what happens when one party has a monopoly of both legislative and executive branches.
The last time the federal government had a budget surplus, instead of its usual deficits, there was divided government. That was when the Republicans controlled the House of Representatives, where all spending bills originate, and Bill Clinton was in the White House. The media called it "the Clinton surplus."
By the same token, some of the worst laws ever passed were passed when one party had overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress, as well as being led by their own President of the United States. ObamaCare is a product of the kind of arrogance that so much power breeds.
It was the same story back in the famous "first hundred days" of the New Deal in 1933. The National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 clamped down on the American economy the kind of pervasive government control seldom seen outside of totalitarian countries.
It was the ObamaCare of its time, but covering industries right down to local dry cleaners. One man was sent to jail for charging less than the government-specified price for pressing a suit of clothes. This typified the mindset of the New Deal.
Fortunately, the Supreme Court eventually declared the National Industrial Recovery Act unconstitutional. But, before that happened, the N.I.R.A. probably did more to prevent the economy from recovering from the Great Depression than any other law or policy. Even liberal icon John Maynard Keynes said at the time that the N.I.R.A. "probably impedes recovery."
You cannot tell what effect a law or policy will have by what politicians call it, whether they label it a "recovery" program or a "stimulus" program.
Those who fear gridlock in Washington today implicitly assume that government actions are needed to "solve" the economy's "problems." That assumption has been so pervasive over the past 80 years that many people fail to realize that the republic existed for nearly twice that long before the federal government intervened to get the economy out of a recession or depression.
During all that time, no depression ever lasted even half as long as the Great Depression of the 1930s, when first President Hoover and then President Roosevelt intervened.
For most of the history of this country, there was no Federal Reserve System, which was established in 1914 to prevent bank failures and the bad effects of large expansions or contractions of the supply of money and credit. But bank failures in the 1930s exceeded anything ever seen before the Fed was established. So did the contraction of money and credit during the Great Depression.
The seductive notion that some Big Daddy in Washington can solve our problems for us-- whether healing the sick, preventing poverty or "growing the economy"-- is encouraged by politicians for obvious reasons, and the media echo the idea.
Both in Washington and in the media, there is virtually zero interest in comparing what actually happens when the federal government intervenes in the economy and when it does not.
More than a century and a half of ignoring downturns in the economy never produced a depression as deep or as long as the 1930s depression, with its many federal interventions, first under Herbert Hoover and then under Franklin D. Roosevelt.
The unemployment rate was 6.3 percent when the first big intervention took place, during the Hoover administration. It later peaked at 25 percent, but its fluctuations were always in double digits throughout the 1930s, as FDR tried one thing after another. As late as the spring of 1939, nearly a decade after the stock market crash of 1929, unemployment hit 20 percent again.
It is not a matter of faith that a market economy can recover on its own. It is a matter of faith that politicians speed recovery. But there is no way that Barack Obama is going to stop intervening in the economy unless he gets stopped. Only gridlock can do that.
_______
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of The Housing Boom and Bust.
Congress report concedes Obama eligibility unvetted
BORN IN THE USA?
'There is no specific federal agency' to review candidates for federal office
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
A congressional document posted on the Internet confirms no one – not Congress, not the states and not election officials – bothered to check Barack Obama's eligibility to be president, and that status remains undocumented to this day.
It's because state and federal law did not require anyone in Congress or elsewhere to check to see if Obama was a "natural born Citizen" under the meaning of Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, according the document.
The analysis by the Congressional Research Service, a research arm of the U.S. Congress, openly admits no one in the federal government, including Congress, ever asked to see Obama's long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate. It explains no one was required to do so.
Get the free, in-depth special report on eligibility that could bring an end to Obama's presidency
Technically, the CRS is a public policy research arm of the United States Congress that is organized as a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress; the CRS works exclusively for members of Congress, congressional committees and congressional staff in an advisory capacity, answering questions.
The CRS memorandum, published and distributed to congressional offices April 3, 2009, was written to explain to senators and member of the House how they could answer constituents who were demanding to see Obama's birth certificate.
Authored by Jack Maskell, the legislative attorney in the American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service, the document was a memorandum written for the subject "Qualifications for the Office of President of the United States and Legal Challenges to the Eligibility of a Candidate"
It can be viewed and downloaded on Scribd.com.
Maskell confirmed to WND that the document is authentic.
He explained he wrote it only for distribution to congressional offices, not for public distribution, and it was not posted on any of the CRS report sites where the public might have been able to find it.
He suggested one of the congressional offices that got the report facilitated its release, and it ended up posted on the Internet.
Maskell told WND he wrote it because so many members of Congress were getting questions from constituents about the issue, and they wanted to know how to respond. It would explain why so many mailed and e-mailed responses to constituents on the issue of eligibility sound just alike.
The CRS begins the memo by stating the problem:
"Many of the inquiries have questioned why then-Senator, and now President, Obama has not had to produce an original, so-called 'long' version of a 'birth certificate' from the State of Hawaii, how federal candidates are 'vetted' for qualifications generally, and have asked for an assessment of the various allegations and claims of non-eligibility st at us."
In other words, senators and members of the House could not explain why nobody ever saw Obama's long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate, and they needed a ready answer to give angry constituents who were writing, faxing and telephoning their offices for an answer.
The second full paragraph of the CRS memo must be read in its entirety to understand fully the circumstance that allowed a candidate for whom documentation was concealed from the public to be elected and sworn in as president.
It states:
"Concerning the production or release of an original birth certificate, it should be noted that there is no federal law, regulation, rule, guideline, or requirement that a candidate for federal office produce his or her original birth certificate, or a certified copy of the record of live birth, to any official of the United States government; nor is there a requirement for federal candidates to publicly release such personal record or documentation. Furthermore, there is no specific federal agency or office that 'vets' candidates for federal office as to qualifications or eligibility prior to return."
What the CRS admits is that Obama got a pass from Congress and the federal government as a whole on his birth qualifications under Article 2, Section 1. Nobody in Congress or the federal government sought to look for Obama's certified long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate, because no law or regulation required them to look.
After the document was written, nobody in Congress could claim that Congress or anyone else in the federal government had reviewed Obama's birth certificate or determined Obama was eligible to be president. It simply did not happen.
A screen capture of the document's first page, including the key second paragraph, confirms the conclusion:
The CRS memo also admits that federal elections are administered under state law, a circumstance apparent to lawyers but sometimes complicated for others.
The relevant paragraph:
"The mechanics of elections of federal officials within the several states are administered under state law. The quadrennial presidential election, although required since 1845 to be held on the same day in each state is, in an administrative and operational sense, fifty-one separate elections in the states and the District of Columbia for presidential electors. States generally control, within the applicable constitutional parameters, the administrative issues, questions, and mechanisms of ballot placement and ballot access."
The next key point is that like federal law, neither do state laws require anyone to examine the birth qualifications of presidential candidates.
The states may have discretionary authority to question a candidate's eligibility to run for federal office, but there is no requirement in state law to do so, not when it comes to looking at birth records.
Once more, the memo makes this plain:
"In Keyes v. Bowen, the California Supreme Court discussed a suit against the secretary of state that challenged President Obama's eligibility and the California electoral votes for [the] finding that: 'Petitioners have not identified any authority requiring the secretary of state to make an inquiry into or demand detailed proof of citizenship from presidential candidates,' and thus mandamus (a writ of mandate) was not granted. However, although no 'ministerial duty' or mandatory requirement exists to support a mandamus action, there may still exist discretionary authority in such elections official."
A writ of mandamus in this case brought by Ambassador Alan Keyes would have involved a court order being issued by the secretary of state in California demanding Obama produce his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate to get his name on California's presidential ballot in 2008.
What the CRS is saying is that since there was no state law demanding Obama show his birth certificate, the court could not demand he do so. It was entirely up to the California secretary of state who had discretion to ask for the document or not ask for the document, depending upon what the California secretary of state, a Democrat for this election cycle, wanted to do.
The CRS's conclusion is that Obama could refuse to show his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate because no state or federal law required him reveal it.
The report said, therefore, Obama could release exactly what information he chose.
"Despite the absence of any formal administrative or legal requirement or oversight at the federal level, or specific state requirement to produce a birth certificate for ballot placement, it may be noted here briefly that the only 'official' documentation or record that has been presented in the matter of President Obama's eligibility has been an official, certified copy of the record of live birth released by the Obama campaign in June of 2008, as an apparent effort by then-candidate Obama to address rumors and innuendos concerning the place of his birth."
The result is that Obama could choose exactly what information – and in what format – he wanted released. He chose the computer-generated Certification of Live Birth, a form from the state of Hawaii that officials there have provided to those not born in the state, to document his eligibility.
The CRS also makes it clear that if the birth requirements of the Constitution are to be taken seriously, new laws at the state and federal levels will be needed to institutionalize government procedures requiring president candidates to come forward with their eligibility documentation.
WND has reported on a multitude of legal and other challenges to Obama's eligibility that arose even before his election.
The claims are that Obama does not meet the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural born citizen." The lawsuits have asserted he either was not born in Hawaii as he claims or was a dual citizen because of his father's British citizenship at the time of his birth.
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."
However, none of the cases filed to date has been successful in reaching the plateau of legal discovery, so that information about Obama's birth could be obtained.
Besides Obama's actual birth documentation, the still-concealed documentation for him includes kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.
Several states already have begun working on various requirements for candidates to document their eligibility, and one proposal remains pending at the federal level.
'There is no specific federal agency' to review candidates for federal office
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
A congressional document posted on the Internet confirms no one – not Congress, not the states and not election officials – bothered to check Barack Obama's eligibility to be president, and that status remains undocumented to this day.
It's because state and federal law did not require anyone in Congress or elsewhere to check to see if Obama was a "natural born Citizen" under the meaning of Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, according the document.
The analysis by the Congressional Research Service, a research arm of the U.S. Congress, openly admits no one in the federal government, including Congress, ever asked to see Obama's long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate. It explains no one was required to do so.
Get the free, in-depth special report on eligibility that could bring an end to Obama's presidency
Technically, the CRS is a public policy research arm of the United States Congress that is organized as a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress; the CRS works exclusively for members of Congress, congressional committees and congressional staff in an advisory capacity, answering questions.
The CRS memorandum, published and distributed to congressional offices April 3, 2009, was written to explain to senators and member of the House how they could answer constituents who were demanding to see Obama's birth certificate.
Authored by Jack Maskell, the legislative attorney in the American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service, the document was a memorandum written for the subject "Qualifications for the Office of President of the United States and Legal Challenges to the Eligibility of a Candidate"
It can be viewed and downloaded on Scribd.com.
Maskell confirmed to WND that the document is authentic.
He explained he wrote it only for distribution to congressional offices, not for public distribution, and it was not posted on any of the CRS report sites where the public might have been able to find it.
He suggested one of the congressional offices that got the report facilitated its release, and it ended up posted on the Internet.
Maskell told WND he wrote it because so many members of Congress were getting questions from constituents about the issue, and they wanted to know how to respond. It would explain why so many mailed and e-mailed responses to constituents on the issue of eligibility sound just alike.
The CRS begins the memo by stating the problem:
"Many of the inquiries have questioned why then-Senator, and now President, Obama has not had to produce an original, so-called 'long' version of a 'birth certificate' from the State of Hawaii, how federal candidates are 'vetted' for qualifications generally, and have asked for an assessment of the various allegations and claims of non-eligibility st at us."
In other words, senators and members of the House could not explain why nobody ever saw Obama's long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate, and they needed a ready answer to give angry constituents who were writing, faxing and telephoning their offices for an answer.
The second full paragraph of the CRS memo must be read in its entirety to understand fully the circumstance that allowed a candidate for whom documentation was concealed from the public to be elected and sworn in as president.
It states:
"Concerning the production or release of an original birth certificate, it should be noted that there is no federal law, regulation, rule, guideline, or requirement that a candidate for federal office produce his or her original birth certificate, or a certified copy of the record of live birth, to any official of the United States government; nor is there a requirement for federal candidates to publicly release such personal record or documentation. Furthermore, there is no specific federal agency or office that 'vets' candidates for federal office as to qualifications or eligibility prior to return."
What the CRS admits is that Obama got a pass from Congress and the federal government as a whole on his birth qualifications under Article 2, Section 1. Nobody in Congress or the federal government sought to look for Obama's certified long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate, because no law or regulation required them to look.
After the document was written, nobody in Congress could claim that Congress or anyone else in the federal government had reviewed Obama's birth certificate or determined Obama was eligible to be president. It simply did not happen.
A screen capture of the document's first page, including the key second paragraph, confirms the conclusion:
The CRS memo also admits that federal elections are administered under state law, a circumstance apparent to lawyers but sometimes complicated for others.
The relevant paragraph:
"The mechanics of elections of federal officials within the several states are administered under state law. The quadrennial presidential election, although required since 1845 to be held on the same day in each state is, in an administrative and operational sense, fifty-one separate elections in the states and the District of Columbia for presidential electors. States generally control, within the applicable constitutional parameters, the administrative issues, questions, and mechanisms of ballot placement and ballot access."
The next key point is that like federal law, neither do state laws require anyone to examine the birth qualifications of presidential candidates.
The states may have discretionary authority to question a candidate's eligibility to run for federal office, but there is no requirement in state law to do so, not when it comes to looking at birth records.
Once more, the memo makes this plain:
"In Keyes v. Bowen, the California Supreme Court discussed a suit against the secretary of state that challenged President Obama's eligibility and the California electoral votes for [the] finding that: 'Petitioners have not identified any authority requiring the secretary of state to make an inquiry into or demand detailed proof of citizenship from presidential candidates,' and thus mandamus (a writ of mandate) was not granted. However, although no 'ministerial duty' or mandatory requirement exists to support a mandamus action, there may still exist discretionary authority in such elections official."
A writ of mandamus in this case brought by Ambassador Alan Keyes would have involved a court order being issued by the secretary of state in California demanding Obama produce his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate to get his name on California's presidential ballot in 2008.
What the CRS is saying is that since there was no state law demanding Obama show his birth certificate, the court could not demand he do so. It was entirely up to the California secretary of state who had discretion to ask for the document or not ask for the document, depending upon what the California secretary of state, a Democrat for this election cycle, wanted to do.
The CRS's conclusion is that Obama could refuse to show his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate because no state or federal law required him reveal it.
The report said, therefore, Obama could release exactly what information he chose.
"Despite the absence of any formal administrative or legal requirement or oversight at the federal level, or specific state requirement to produce a birth certificate for ballot placement, it may be noted here briefly that the only 'official' documentation or record that has been presented in the matter of President Obama's eligibility has been an official, certified copy of the record of live birth released by the Obama campaign in June of 2008, as an apparent effort by then-candidate Obama to address rumors and innuendos concerning the place of his birth."
The result is that Obama could choose exactly what information – and in what format – he wanted released. He chose the computer-generated Certification of Live Birth, a form from the state of Hawaii that officials there have provided to those not born in the state, to document his eligibility.
The CRS also makes it clear that if the birth requirements of the Constitution are to be taken seriously, new laws at the state and federal levels will be needed to institutionalize government procedures requiring president candidates to come forward with their eligibility documentation.
WND has reported on a multitude of legal and other challenges to Obama's eligibility that arose even before his election.
The claims are that Obama does not meet the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural born citizen." The lawsuits have asserted he either was not born in Hawaii as he claims or was a dual citizen because of his father's British citizenship at the time of his birth.
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."
However, none of the cases filed to date has been successful in reaching the plateau of legal discovery, so that information about Obama's birth could be obtained.
Besides Obama's actual birth documentation, the still-concealed documentation for him includes kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.
Several states already have begun working on various requirements for candidates to document their eligibility, and one proposal remains pending at the federal level.
Monday, November 8, 2010
ObamaCare Repeal Gains at the Polls
by Deroy Murdock
NEW YORK — Democrats cannot spin Tuesday’s election as an anti-incumbent exercise. Rather, it was Washington, D.C.’s biggest mid-term shift in party power since 1938. At this writing, no sitting Republican senator and only two GOP House members lost re-election. Meanwhile, two Senate and 49 House Democrats — including the Armed Services, Budget, and Transportation Committee chairmen— will clear their desks and go home. (Several tight tallies could shift those numbers.) The American people gagged on government — gargantuan, profligate, and pugilistic — especially in its domestic quintessence: ObamaCare. Calls to repeal the Democrats’ wheezing contraption grew louder Tuesday.
Voters shunned the few Democrats who shouted their support for ObamaCare. Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Representatives Tom Perriello of Virginia and North Dakota’s Earl Pomeroy were the only incumbent contenders who waved their ObamaCare pom-poms. Voters sacked the trio.
Conversely, Governor Joe Manchin (D – West Virginia) seemed trapped in Charleston until he said this in mid-October: ObamaCare “needs to have a lot of it repealed. If you can’t fix that, repeal the whole thing.” His numbers rose, and he won.
President Obama told journalists Wednesday, “I think we would be misreading the election if we thought the American people for the next two years want us to relitigate the arguments of the last two years.” Actually, on this issue, that is precisely what a near-majority of Americans desires.
According to national exit polls, 48 percent of voters surveyed want Congress to repeal ObamaCare. While 31 percent (supposedly fans of really-big government) want ObamaCare expanded, only 16 percent would leave it untouched. ObamaCare is an unwanted orphan — hated by the Right, unloved by the Left, and yawned at by the middle.
“Among Democrats who favored repeal, 36 percent voted for Republicans,” veteran Democrat pollster Patrick Caddell explained on Fox News Channel on Wednesday. “Among independents who favored repeal, 86 to 9 [percent] voted Republican.” Caddell added: “In my lifetime, this is the first time my party will have less than 200 seats in the House. [GOP: 239; Democrat: 186; Disputed: 10] Healthcare is a major thing….The American people found this a crime against democracy. I have been saying this since March. They wanted repeal. And this issue is going to go on and on, and he [Obama] seems absolutely tone deaf to understand this.”
Among the states, 55 percent of Arizona’s voters and 65 percent of Oklahoma’s approved propositions to quash ObamaCare’s individual mandate to possess health insurance. While 55 percent of Colorado voters spurned similar language Tuesday, 71 percent of Missouri’s electorate endorsed an anti-mandate proposal last August 3.
The GOP’s conquest of 19 previously Democrat state-representative chambers, 10 full legislatures, and 11 governorships gives state-level Republicans brand-new opportunities to hammer ObamaCare. GOP control of the most state-legislative seats since 1928 could spawn fresh anti-ObamaCare lawsuits beyond the 21 that states have filed.
After voting to repeal ObamaCare, the GOP House should convene hearings to showcase how this 2,801-page grotesque already hikes costs, boots Americans from their insurance plans, and spreads confusion among businesses. The Democratic Senate presumably would kill any such repeal bill. And President Obama likely would veto any bid to liquidate his hideous baby.
“If Senate liberals or the president block repeal, conservatives must do everything in their power to defund and delay ObamaCare’s implementation until 2012, when they can elect a conservative president and more Senate conservatives,” says Michael Needham, CEO of Heritage for America, a leading pro-repeal organization.
Oddly enough, ObamaCare has performed a worthy clinical purpose. Barely seven-months-old, this monstrosity has been a $2.5 trillion inoculation against future outbreaks of U.S. socialism. Over unanimous Republican opposition and the contrary screams of the American people, Democrats injected the electorate with the ObamaCare needle, insisting that it would ease their pain. Instead, it triggered Tuesday’s dramatic side effects. But ObamaCare seemingly has vaccinated Americans against future charlatans who soothingly promise free unicorns and rainbows that are nothing but mirrors and gases.
Mr. Murdock, a New York-based commentator to HUMAN EVENTS, is a columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University.
NEW YORK — Democrats cannot spin Tuesday’s election as an anti-incumbent exercise. Rather, it was Washington, D.C.’s biggest mid-term shift in party power since 1938. At this writing, no sitting Republican senator and only two GOP House members lost re-election. Meanwhile, two Senate and 49 House Democrats — including the Armed Services, Budget, and Transportation Committee chairmen— will clear their desks and go home. (Several tight tallies could shift those numbers.) The American people gagged on government — gargantuan, profligate, and pugilistic — especially in its domestic quintessence: ObamaCare. Calls to repeal the Democrats’ wheezing contraption grew louder Tuesday.
Voters shunned the few Democrats who shouted their support for ObamaCare. Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Representatives Tom Perriello of Virginia and North Dakota’s Earl Pomeroy were the only incumbent contenders who waved their ObamaCare pom-poms. Voters sacked the trio.
Conversely, Governor Joe Manchin (D – West Virginia) seemed trapped in Charleston until he said this in mid-October: ObamaCare “needs to have a lot of it repealed. If you can’t fix that, repeal the whole thing.” His numbers rose, and he won.
President Obama told journalists Wednesday, “I think we would be misreading the election if we thought the American people for the next two years want us to relitigate the arguments of the last two years.” Actually, on this issue, that is precisely what a near-majority of Americans desires.
According to national exit polls, 48 percent of voters surveyed want Congress to repeal ObamaCare. While 31 percent (supposedly fans of really-big government) want ObamaCare expanded, only 16 percent would leave it untouched. ObamaCare is an unwanted orphan — hated by the Right, unloved by the Left, and yawned at by the middle.
“Among Democrats who favored repeal, 36 percent voted for Republicans,” veteran Democrat pollster Patrick Caddell explained on Fox News Channel on Wednesday. “Among independents who favored repeal, 86 to 9 [percent] voted Republican.” Caddell added: “In my lifetime, this is the first time my party will have less than 200 seats in the House. [GOP: 239; Democrat: 186; Disputed: 10] Healthcare is a major thing….The American people found this a crime against democracy. I have been saying this since March. They wanted repeal. And this issue is going to go on and on, and he [Obama] seems absolutely tone deaf to understand this.”
Among the states, 55 percent of Arizona’s voters and 65 percent of Oklahoma’s approved propositions to quash ObamaCare’s individual mandate to possess health insurance. While 55 percent of Colorado voters spurned similar language Tuesday, 71 percent of Missouri’s electorate endorsed an anti-mandate proposal last August 3.
The GOP’s conquest of 19 previously Democrat state-representative chambers, 10 full legislatures, and 11 governorships gives state-level Republicans brand-new opportunities to hammer ObamaCare. GOP control of the most state-legislative seats since 1928 could spawn fresh anti-ObamaCare lawsuits beyond the 21 that states have filed.
After voting to repeal ObamaCare, the GOP House should convene hearings to showcase how this 2,801-page grotesque already hikes costs, boots Americans from their insurance plans, and spreads confusion among businesses. The Democratic Senate presumably would kill any such repeal bill. And President Obama likely would veto any bid to liquidate his hideous baby.
“If Senate liberals or the president block repeal, conservatives must do everything in their power to defund and delay ObamaCare’s implementation until 2012, when they can elect a conservative president and more Senate conservatives,” says Michael Needham, CEO of Heritage for America, a leading pro-repeal organization.
Oddly enough, ObamaCare has performed a worthy clinical purpose. Barely seven-months-old, this monstrosity has been a $2.5 trillion inoculation against future outbreaks of U.S. socialism. Over unanimous Republican opposition and the contrary screams of the American people, Democrats injected the electorate with the ObamaCare needle, insisting that it would ease their pain. Instead, it triggered Tuesday’s dramatic side effects. But ObamaCare seemingly has vaccinated Americans against future charlatans who soothingly promise free unicorns and rainbows that are nothing but mirrors and gases.
Mr. Murdock, a New York-based commentator to HUMAN EVENTS, is a columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Olbermann backed co-chair of 'Marxist-socialist' bloc
MEDIA MATTERS
Congressional group wants to remove socialism's stigma in eyes of Americans
By Aaron Klein
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
NEW YORK – One of three Democrats financially backed by MSNBC host Keith Olbermann is the co-chairman of a Marxist/socialist-founded bloc in Congress.
Olbermann made donations of $2,400 each – the legal limit – to three Democrats: U.S. Senate candidate from Kentucky Jack Conway, who eventually lost to Republican Rand Paul; U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz.; and U.S. Rep Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz.
The donations were uncovered by Politico, which reported that Olbermann had financially backed the three Democratic candidates, despite a company policy that forbids an anchor from doing so without prior approval of the president of NBC News. The policy specifically states concern that an employee making such contributions may "jeopardize his or her standing as an impartial journalist" and "may create the appearance of a conflict of interest."
Today, MSNBC President Phil Griffin announced Olbermann had been suspended over the violation.
"I became aware of Keith's political contributions late last night," Griffin stated. "Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay."
Grijalva is co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which boasts more than 80 members.
WND reported the caucus was founded by the Democratic Socialists of America, or DSA, and remains close to the group.
Demonstrating the close relationship between the DSA and the Progressive Caucus, two weeks ago WND reported the Democratic chairman of the powerful House Judiciary Committee was caught on tape meeting with DSA leaders to discuss how the group could cooperate to strengthen President Obama and advance their "one-world" plans.
Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., who has a long history with the DSA, was recorded promoting a "one-world" government while asking the socialist group to organize against the war in Afghanistan and in support of Obama's policies.
Conyers was a special guest at a two-day convention in Detroit in March 1982 that resulted in the formation of DSA.
Conyers has spoken at numerous DSA events, including at the socialist group's national dinner in 2008, where he was the keynote.
Conyers was one of 13 founders of the Congressional Black Caucus, which long has promoted far-left causes. He is the most prominent lawmaker lobbying to free Mumia Abu-Jamal, the convicted murderer of a Philadelphia police officer. He has advocated on behalf of the Marxist Nicaraguan Sandinista dictatorship and has called for the U.S. to end its sanctions against Fidel Castro's communist regime.
As WND was first to report, the DSA has been linked closely to the Democratic Party's Progressive Caucus.
Until November 2002, the website of the Progressive Caucus was hosted by the DSA. Following news reports that drew attention to the congressional website being hosted by the socialist organization, the list of CPC names was moved to the website of Sen. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., an avowed socialist, and eventually to its own site.
The Democratic Socialists of America's chief organizing goal is to work within the Democratic Party and remove the stigma attached to "socialism" in the eyes of most Americans.
"Stress our Democratic Party strategy and electoral work," explains an organizing document of the DSA. "The Democratic Party is something the public understands, and association with it takes the edge off. Stressing our Democratic Party work will establish some distance from the radical subculture and help integrate you to the milieu of the young liberals."
Nevertheless, as WND reported, the goal of the DSA never has been deeply hidden. Prior to the cleanup of its website in 1999, the DSA included a song list featuring "The Internationale," the worldwide anthem of communism and socialism.
Another song on the site was "Red Revolution," sung to the tune of "Red Robin." The lyrics went: "When the Red Revolution brings its solution along, along, there'll be no more lootin' when we start shootin' that Wall Street throng."
Another song removed after WND's expose was "Are You Sleeping, Bourgeoisie?" The lyrics went: "Are you sleeping? Are you sleeping? Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie. And when the revolution comes, we'll kill you all with knives and guns, Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie."
Obama connected to socialist group
Top Democratic Socialists of America members have been closely linked for years to Obama.
Obama himself spoke at a forum organized by the group at the University of Chicago in early 1996 called "Employment and Survival in UrbanAmerica."
Quentin Young, considered the father of the U.S. single-payer health-care movement, is a longtime Democratic Socialists of America activist. Young has had a relationship with Obama, particularly in the 1990s, when he reportedly advised Obama on health care.
Young reportedly was present at a 1995 meeting at the home of former Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers, who was said to have launched Obama's political career.
Young has been active in Chicago socialist circles and was previously accused of membership in a communist group. In 1992, Chicago's branch of the Democratic Socialists of America awarded Young, a member, with their highest honor – the Debs Award.
In a 2008 article in the official Communist Party USA magazine, Young noted Obama previously expressed support for a single-payer universal health-care program, although he later waffled when asked about his position.
As an Illinois state senator representing a mostly black district on the South Side of Chicago, Obama publicly supported universal health care. He also co-sponsored the Bernardin Amendment, which did not pass but would have amended the Illinois State Constitution to add health care to the list of basic rights for residents.
Meanwhile, Obama spoke at the March 29, 1998, memorial service for Chicago Democratic Socialists of America member Saul Mendelson.
Timuel Black, a member activist, mediated political disputes on behalf of Obama in the 1990s and was reportedly involved in Obama's campaign committee during his successful 2004 Senate race.
Longtime member and activist Arnold Wolf was a member of "Rabbis for Obama" and has held fundraisers in his home for Obama, including a function in 1995 that was aimed at introducing Obama to the Hyde Park activist community.
Eliseo Medina, international executive vice president of the Service Employees International Union, has been honored by Democratic Socialists ofAmerica. During the most recent presidential campaign, Medina served on Obama's National Latino Advisory Council.
WND reported Medina, speaking at a 2009 Washington, D.C., conference, declared granting citizenship to millions of illegal aliens would expand the progressive electorate and help ensure a progressive governing coalition for the long term.
Congressional group wants to remove socialism's stigma in eyes of Americans
By Aaron Klein
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
NEW YORK – One of three Democrats financially backed by MSNBC host Keith Olbermann is the co-chairman of a Marxist/socialist-founded bloc in Congress.
Olbermann made donations of $2,400 each – the legal limit – to three Democrats: U.S. Senate candidate from Kentucky Jack Conway, who eventually lost to Republican Rand Paul; U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz.; and U.S. Rep Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz.
The donations were uncovered by Politico, which reported that Olbermann had financially backed the three Democratic candidates, despite a company policy that forbids an anchor from doing so without prior approval of the president of NBC News. The policy specifically states concern that an employee making such contributions may "jeopardize his or her standing as an impartial journalist" and "may create the appearance of a conflict of interest."
Today, MSNBC President Phil Griffin announced Olbermann had been suspended over the violation.
"I became aware of Keith's political contributions late last night," Griffin stated. "Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay."
Grijalva is co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which boasts more than 80 members.
WND reported the caucus was founded by the Democratic Socialists of America, or DSA, and remains close to the group.
Demonstrating the close relationship between the DSA and the Progressive Caucus, two weeks ago WND reported the Democratic chairman of the powerful House Judiciary Committee was caught on tape meeting with DSA leaders to discuss how the group could cooperate to strengthen President Obama and advance their "one-world" plans.
Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., who has a long history with the DSA, was recorded promoting a "one-world" government while asking the socialist group to organize against the war in Afghanistan and in support of Obama's policies.
Conyers was a special guest at a two-day convention in Detroit in March 1982 that resulted in the formation of DSA.
Conyers has spoken at numerous DSA events, including at the socialist group's national dinner in 2008, where he was the keynote.
Conyers was one of 13 founders of the Congressional Black Caucus, which long has promoted far-left causes. He is the most prominent lawmaker lobbying to free Mumia Abu-Jamal, the convicted murderer of a Philadelphia police officer. He has advocated on behalf of the Marxist Nicaraguan Sandinista dictatorship and has called for the U.S. to end its sanctions against Fidel Castro's communist regime.
As WND was first to report, the DSA has been linked closely to the Democratic Party's Progressive Caucus.
Until November 2002, the website of the Progressive Caucus was hosted by the DSA. Following news reports that drew attention to the congressional website being hosted by the socialist organization, the list of CPC names was moved to the website of Sen. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., an avowed socialist, and eventually to its own site.
The Democratic Socialists of America's chief organizing goal is to work within the Democratic Party and remove the stigma attached to "socialism" in the eyes of most Americans.
"Stress our Democratic Party strategy and electoral work," explains an organizing document of the DSA. "The Democratic Party is something the public understands, and association with it takes the edge off. Stressing our Democratic Party work will establish some distance from the radical subculture and help integrate you to the milieu of the young liberals."
Nevertheless, as WND reported, the goal of the DSA never has been deeply hidden. Prior to the cleanup of its website in 1999, the DSA included a song list featuring "The Internationale," the worldwide anthem of communism and socialism.
Another song on the site was "Red Revolution," sung to the tune of "Red Robin." The lyrics went: "When the Red Revolution brings its solution along, along, there'll be no more lootin' when we start shootin' that Wall Street throng."
Another song removed after WND's expose was "Are You Sleeping, Bourgeoisie?" The lyrics went: "Are you sleeping? Are you sleeping? Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie. And when the revolution comes, we'll kill you all with knives and guns, Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie."
Obama connected to socialist group
Top Democratic Socialists of America members have been closely linked for years to Obama.
Obama himself spoke at a forum organized by the group at the University of Chicago in early 1996 called "Employment and Survival in UrbanAmerica."
Quentin Young, considered the father of the U.S. single-payer health-care movement, is a longtime Democratic Socialists of America activist. Young has had a relationship with Obama, particularly in the 1990s, when he reportedly advised Obama on health care.
Young reportedly was present at a 1995 meeting at the home of former Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers, who was said to have launched Obama's political career.
Young has been active in Chicago socialist circles and was previously accused of membership in a communist group. In 1992, Chicago's branch of the Democratic Socialists of America awarded Young, a member, with their highest honor – the Debs Award.
In a 2008 article in the official Communist Party USA magazine, Young noted Obama previously expressed support for a single-payer universal health-care program, although he later waffled when asked about his position.
As an Illinois state senator representing a mostly black district on the South Side of Chicago, Obama publicly supported universal health care. He also co-sponsored the Bernardin Amendment, which did not pass but would have amended the Illinois State Constitution to add health care to the list of basic rights for residents.
Meanwhile, Obama spoke at the March 29, 1998, memorial service for Chicago Democratic Socialists of America member Saul Mendelson.
Timuel Black, a member activist, mediated political disputes on behalf of Obama in the 1990s and was reportedly involved in Obama's campaign committee during his successful 2004 Senate race.
Longtime member and activist Arnold Wolf was a member of "Rabbis for Obama" and has held fundraisers in his home for Obama, including a function in 1995 that was aimed at introducing Obama to the Hyde Park activist community.
Eliseo Medina, international executive vice president of the Service Employees International Union, has been honored by Democratic Socialists ofAmerica. During the most recent presidential campaign, Medina served on Obama's National Latino Advisory Council.
WND reported Medina, speaking at a 2009 Washington, D.C., conference, declared granting citizenship to millions of illegal aliens would expand the progressive electorate and help ensure a progressive governing coalition for the long term.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)