Monday, October 19, 2009

Update: Legal Challenges to Obama Eligibility Continue

Despite lengthy Deptartment of Justice pleas to dismiss the Barnett v Obama case earlier this month, US Federal District Court Judge David Carter decided to “take the matter under submission.” Talk about blowing the wind out of Obama’s sails.

Succintly countering the Obama legal team’s argument that no court has the jurisdiction to rule on Obama’s eligibility to serve as President, heretofore the dominating argument in all other cases challenging Obama’s eligibility, and that the only way to remove Obama is impeachment or to trigger the 25th Amendment, United States Justice Foundation attorney Gary Kreeps sagely and persuasively asserted that both the impeachment statutes and the 25th Amendment assumed a “sitting President”, but that if Obama is ineligible to serve as President, then “he could not be, and never was, a sitting President”, thus rendering those removal remedies inapplicable and clearly leaving jurisdiction to the courts. Lucidity and logic don’t get much better than that, and Judge Carter is listening.

Though technical issues of jurisdiction and standing have plagued eligibility cases in the past, for the first time, a case challenging Obama's eligibility may actually have a chance of a hearing on the merits of the suit itself. And during the hearing on October 5th, Judge Carter actually advised plaintiffs that "if I rule against you on standing, I would suggest ways to address that issue in the future", to me an amazingly constructive and encouraging comment from the bench.

If DOJ’s dismissal motion is overcome, discovery pleadings would follow seeking Obama’s birth certificate, college records, passport files, adoption papers and Selective Service files, etc. all in an effort to determine his eligibility once and for all. And if, in the coming days, plaintiffs can, in fact, defeat the DOJ motion to dismiss, Judge Carter has already set a January 26, 2010 trial date.

Another case well worth monitoring is Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress which is being brilliantly pled by attorney Mario Apuzzo. Too much to get into right now, but I will try to keep you posted of significant developments.

Why the serious and lingering doubts about Obama’s constitutional eligibility? In short, per Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, to be eligible to be President/Commander-in-Chief, Obama must be a “natural born citizen” within the context, meaning and intent of the Presidential Clause--not a “native born US Citizen”, not a “US Citizen”, not a “US National”, not a "Naturalized Citizen". (Take note, Bobby Jindal.) Demonstrably, Obama was born a British subject (dual citizenship), and, demonstrably, his father was not a US Citizen nor even an immigrant (Non-Immigrant Student Visa). Thus, by definition, Obama is NOT a “natural born citizen”. Pretty straightforward stuff, I'd say. But, the hot legal potato sizzles and only unencumbered and equitable judicial review can properly resolve this momentous Constititional issue for the country.

Keep your fingers crossed for a judicial breakthrough and timely adjudication.

Progressives, aka Democratic Socialists: the Enemy Within

Ever wonder just who’s behind the curtains pulling the levers of power in D.C.? Me too. So, I did a little checking and this, in a nutshell, is what I’ve come up with.

Too often we differentiate our so-called representatives as either Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative. But, that clearly misses the mark entirely. Afterall, there are liberal Republicans (RINOs) and conservative Democrats (Blue Dogs) proposing and voting for or against legislation affecting our lives. Then there are the self-described “moderates” on both sides of the aisle who represent…well...themselves and their political careers, not unlike the majority of their colleagues in congress as well.

But, political party labels aside, who are really the movers and shakers among them who effectively dominate the legislative agenda and, in turn, “we the people”?

The Progressives! To my way of thinking, Democrats in name only (DINOs), a party unto themselves and their own uniquely alien ideological agenda, are a power unto themselves.

Founded in 1991 by Reps Dellums (D-CA), Lane (D-IL), DeFazio (D-OR), Waters (D-CA) and Bernie Sanders (D-VT, the latter now a Senator and the only openly Socialist serving in Congress), and publicly feigning Democratic Party allegiance, the 82 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, aka DINOs, at one time openly espoused Socialism and publicly advocated the agenda of the Democratic Socialists of America.

No longer affirming their affiliation with or loyalty to the DSA, the caucus roster was scrubbed from the DSA website circa 2000. In their “Elections Statement 2000”, the DSA website noted that “DSA recognizes that some insurgent politicians representing labor, environmentalists, gays and lesbians, and communities of color may choose to run under Democratic auspices…” Love the term “insurgent”. It’s so…counter-revolutionary. So… frappe. So...in. And, hey, why expose your true ideology to public scrutiny, huh?

Unquestionably, the once venerable Democratic Party, of which I was once a proud member, has demonstrably moved very far left. For all practical purposes, its mainstream is now dominated by those whom the Dems themselves had once derisively labeled “fringe” and “extreme”.

The Progressive Caucus is comprised of well-positioned power brokers in DC whose essentially uncontested rule continues to influence the course of our republic. In shameless pursuit of socialist/collectivist goals, their legislative agenda is relentlessly aimed at effectively transforming the meaning and relevance of the Constitution itself. In short, folks, the Progressive Caucus is a clear and present danger to all Americans of every political stripe who value the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

In the Caucus statement of purpose, check for yourself some of the code words which reveal their real political ideology and purpose:

“The Progressive Caucus is organized around the principles of social and economic justice...which represent the interests of all people, not just the wealthy and powerful.

…Our people-based agenda extends from job creation to job training, to economic conversion, to single payer healthcare reform, to environmental reform and to women’s rights.

Now that the cold war is over, this nation’s budget and overall priorities must reflect that reality. We support further cuts in outdated and unnecessary military spending, a more progressive tax system in which wealthy taxpayers and corporations contribute their fair share, and a substantial increase in social programs for low and middle-income American families."

To accomplish their collectivist goals, their legislative initiatives are invariably aimed at media control (to achieve “fairness”, of course); controlled education (to shape a collective viewpoint); the watering down of free speech (to eliminate a free flow of opinions and to shut down debate); disarmament (to eliminate the possibility of armed revolt); legalization of same-sex marriage; living wage laws; increasing welfare spending (to buy votes and quell political resistance); and global governance. And this is but a smattering of the insanely sophomoric, elitist and dangerous ambitions of the Caucus and of both their minions and unwitting enablers on both sides of the aisle.

In 2005, the Caucus drafted its “Progressive Promise” document (I call it their “manifesto”) advocating, among other things, socialized medicine, radical environmentalism, redistribution of wealth, higher taxes, reductions in the government’s intelligence gathering capabilities, debt relief for poor countries, and, of course, the precipitous withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. The rationale for pursuing these socialist aims? “To re-build US alliances, restore international respect for American power and influence, and to reaffirm our nation’s constructive engagement in the United Nations and other multilateral organizations.” Sound eerily like Obama’s globalist and socialist pitch, huh? You betcha’ it does.

Just so you know who the enemy within really is, as of 10/11/2009, the following members of Congress were declared members of the congressional Progressive Caucus. “Former member” Nancy Pelosi is not a declared member. Also not included are Sen. Brown (D-FL), Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) who, by virtue of their now being Senators, are no longer members of the House Progressive Caucus:

Neil Abercrombie (D-HI)
Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
Xavier Becerra (D-CA)
Earl Blumenauer (D-OR)
Bob Brady (D-PA) Chairman, House Administration Committee
Michael Capuano (D-MA)
Andre Carson (C-IN)
Donna Christensen (Virgin Islands)
Judy Chu (D-CA)
Yvette Clarke (D-NY)
William “Lacy” Clay (D-MO)
Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO)
Steve Cohen (D-TN)
John Conyers (D-MI) Chairman, House Judiciary Committee
Elijah Cummings (D-MD)
Danny Davis (D-IL)
Peter DeFazio (D-OR)
Rosa DeLauro
Donna Edwards (D-MD)
Keith Ellison (D-MN)
Sam Farr (D-CA)
Chaka Fattah (D-PA)
Bob Filner (D-CA)
Barney Frank (D-MA) Chairman, House Financial Services Committee
Marcia Fudge (D-OH)
Alan Grayson (D-FL)
Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) Co-Chair of Caucus
Luis Gutierrez (D-IL)
John Hall (D-NY)
Phil Hare (D-IL)
Alcee Hastings (D-FL)
Maurice Hinchey (D-NY)
Mazie Horono (D-HI)
Michael Honda (D-CA)
Jesse Jackson, Jr.
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX)
Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX)
Hank Johnson (D-GA)
Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)
Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-MI)
Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)
Dave Loebsack (D-IA)
Barbara Lee (D-CA), Chairwoman, Congressional Black Caucus
John Lewis (D-GA)
Ben Lujan (D_NM)
Carolyn Maloney (D-NY)
Ed Markey (D-MA)
Eric Massa (D-NY)
Jim McDermott (D-WA)
James P. McGovern (D-MA)
George Miller (D-CA) Chairman, House Education & Labor Committee
Glenn Moore (D-WI)
Jim Moran (D-VA)
Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)
Eleanor Holmes Norton (District of Columbia)
John Oliver (D-MA)
Frank Pallone (D-NJ)
Ed Pastor (D-AZ)
Donald Payne (D-NJ)
Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE (left caucus when elected
Minority Leader. Sure.)
Chellie Pingree (D-ME)
Jared Polis (D-CO)
Charles Rangel (D-NY) Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee
Laura Richardson (D-CA)
Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA)
Bobby Rush (D-IL)
Linda Sanchez (D-CA)
Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)
Jose Serrano (D-NY)
Louise Slaughter (D-NY) Chairwoman, House Rules Committee
Pete Stark (D-CA)
Bennie Thompson (D-MS) Chairman, House Homeland Security Committee
John Tierney (D-MA)
Nydia Velazquez (D-NY) Chairwoman, House Small Business Committee
Maxine Waters (D-CA)
Diane Watson (D-CA)
Mel Watt (D-NC)
Henry Waxman (D-CA) Chairman, House Energy & Commerce Committee
Peter Welch (D-VT)
Robert Wexler (D-FL)
Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) Co-Chair Caucus

Supporting the efforts of the Progressive Caucus are such charming liberal organizations as the Institute for Policy Studies, MoveOn.org, ACLU, Peace Action, Americans for Democratic Action, Progressive Democrats of America, NAACP, League of United Latin American Citizens, Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, National Council of La Raza, Hip Hop Caucus, etc. Don’t these names just positively ooze of patriotism and traditional American values? Just gives me goose bumps all over.

So, watch out, folks. These guys are in charge of 11 of twenty standing congressional committees. And they’re playing for keeps. Our opinions are absolutely irrelevant. And the list above doesn't even include a number of Senators, some of whom while not members, are most certainly cut from the same neo-Marxist cloth. You can name them faster than I can type them.

As Norman Thomas, Socialist Party of America, observed circa 1925, "The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing what happened."

LET'S NOT LET THEM GET AWAY WITH IT. When the time comes, I urge you to volunteer to knock on doors to deny office to any Progressive politician. If they appear on the membership list of the Democratic Socialists of America, they DON'T belong in a government of the people, by the people and for the people.