Search This Blog

Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Obama's Economy: Sunshine and Roses at Last!

Yup! Not to worry, folks. Obamaland's economy is on the upswing!

By Obama's objective estimates, the economy of the People's Democratic Socialist Republic of America is on an upward trajectory. We've so much to crow about! Wowee! Break out the champagne!!! There's light at the end of the tunnel!!! Whoopee!!!

Regaling us with assurances that since his takeover in 2009 millions of jobs have been "saved" and the number of "created" jobs has been steadily increasing, the breathlessly exuberant Obamabot spinmeisters have been deftly persuading the essentially walking dead among us that Obama's profligate Keynesian top-to-bottom big government approach to recovery is working just splendidly. I mean, come on, folks. You'd have to be a hopelessly partisan dolt not to see the truth and join in the celebration.

Ah...just one tiny wrinkle in Obama's rosy take on the economy: it's ummitigated drivel. A lie!

This week, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that the budget deficit for 2012 wil hit $1.08T, the jobless rate for 2012 will climb to 8.9%, and in 2013 the unemployment rate will soar to 9.2%.

But, don't let that get you down. The gloom-and-doomers are always raining on our parade. I mean, come on. Whom do you trust? The CBO or Obama? Obviously, the CBO folks are vile racists in the bag for the GOP. Conspiracists, each and every one. They can't be trusted.

And let's not forget Obama's winning toothy smile, his impeccable teleprompter skills and his engaging, polished manner. Afterall, let's remember that Obama wants nothing more than to make sure everyone equally shares in this country's bounty. No filthy rich, no poor. Like, what could possibly be wrong with that?

The only sensible way forward is for us to "collectively" and faithfully put our trust, our hopes, our lives and our fortunes in Obama's hands. He'll take care of us.

Monday, January 30, 2012

Obama Ineligibility: Salient Points to Keep in Mind

Going forward--and without getting too deeply into the weeds--it is important to keep the following points clearly in mind:

Per existing constitutional law, to be eligible for President or VP one must be a natural born citizen, meaning that, at a minimum, one must have been born of two US Citizen parents. As Obama's purported father was not a US Citizen, Obama is ineligible to serve as President. (Primary references: Art II, Sec 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution; unanimous opinion in Minor v Happersett -1875 regarding the definition of natural born citizen; et. al. cases)

1. Judge Malihi will rule on either Feb 1st or 2nd on whether or not the evidence of Obama's ineligibility presented at the hearing on January 26th is sufficient to warrant his recommending to the GA Secretary of State, Brian Kemp, to keep Obama's name off the state ballot. (Having spoken with plaintiff attorney Carl Swensson today, there is the highest confidence that both Malihi and Kemp will, in fact, rule against Obama, and such a ruling would establish a solid legal precedent for similar lawsuits to go forward around the country.)

2. If Sec. of State Kemp does, in fact, decide on Feb 2nd to keep Obama's name off the ballot, Obama could appeal the action to the US Supreme Court.

3. If Obama does appeal the Secretary's action, the evidence of ineligibility presented at the January 26th hearing would need to be contested in court by Obama. This means he would need to present authoritative documentation to effectively refute that ineligibility evidence already on the record, something Obama and his attorneys have doggedly avoided.

4. If the Supreme Court does review the case, and if Obama loses, his eligibility to hold the office of President, his entire administration, and all laws and executive orders issued under his signature, and his Supreme Court appointees will be  rendered retroactively illegitmate, null and void.  (For this reason alone, the sense of the plaintiff attorneys is that Obama will NOT appeal the GA decision. By not contesting the GA decision, Obama will be denied Georgia's 17 electoral votes in November, electoral votes he most likely wouldn't have won anyway in a "red" state.)

5. With the Georgia ruling as solid legal precedent, judges around the country will be compelled to hear ineligibility suits in their states as well. (Currently, there are at least 6 similar suits underway around the country--AZ, IL, NH, NC, TN, AL. And with a Georgia judgement against Obama, the number would likely grow.)

Note: It is speculated that Obama might opt to either ignore any and all state rulings on his ineligibility (unless the aggregate electoral votes denied him around the country are too large in number for him to prevail in an election), or he would resign before November in favor of another Democratic candidate. (A Hillary Clinton candidacy has been seriously and publicly pushed by Democratic apparatchiks.) There has also been speculation about a desperate Obama's imposing martial law, but it is generally believed that military and police forces would not cooperate. (Napolitano's Homeland Security has already branded veterans as "potential terrorists", so even Obama understands that the vast majority of vets would not support such an extra-constitutional action.) Not yet fully fleshed out is when criminal actions would be brought against those persons in the Democratic hierarchy who may have knowingly been a party to this fraud. Also not yet fully thrashed out are the nature and extent of likely felony charges against Obama for, at the minimum, birth certificate, social security and other ID fraud.

Keep your ear to the ground. This historical drama has only begun.

Sunday, January 29, 2012

Are All Conservatives Willing to Defend the Constitution?

Not on your life!

Mr. Carl Swensson, one of the plaintiff attorneys at the 1/26/12 Obama eligibility hearing in Atlanta, reported that none other than conservative radio talk show host Neal Boortz "berated" the hearing, calling both GA Sec. of State Kemp and Judge Malihi "backwoods hicks who are going to initiate a race war."

So far, I haven't been able to confirm if it was Boortz who leveled this attack, or if one of his guests did, but in an interview with Pastor James David Manning ( on January 27th, Mr. Swensson attributed the derisive comment and scare-mongering to Neal Boortz himself. Go to YouTube to view the interview for yourselves (

Tragically, I understand conservative icon, Eric Erickson, also cavalierly disparaged the proceedings in Atlanta.

When so-called conservatives either fear or are demonstrably unwilling to defend the Constitution and, instead, attack those who do with dire predictions of gloom and doom, in this case "race wars", this Republic is more than merely teetering on the brink. It's no longer on life support. It's in a coma.

I don't know what scares me more, the threat I see, that being Obama and his neo-Marxist minions, or the vipers slithering silently within our own ranks. Let me hasten to answer my own question: I fear the elusive snake in the grass more, and so too should we all.

“When the people rise in masses in behalf of the Union and the liberties of their country, truly may it be said, “The gates of hell shall not prevail against them." - Abraham Lincoln

01/30/12 UPDATE:

I tried reaching Neal Boortz this morning. Was only able to speak to his screener who told me that "he knew nothing about it." I also scoured the audio archives of his radio show and couldn't find anything. So, I'm thinking it was caller, not Neal Boortz himself, who derisively characterized Kemp and Malihi as "backwoods hicks."

I then emailed Pastor Manning who, at the end of his show, repeated what may have been an  erroneous attribution to Neal Boortz for those words. Awaiting a reply.

I then called Carl Swensson who actually took the call. He readily admitted that his report was second hand and that he couldn't verify if, in fact, Neal Boortz had made that statement. We spoke for 10 minutes and I have to tell you he is one of the most sincere, soft-spoken, genuinely patriotic and evenhanded men with whom I've ever had the pleasure of speaking. Not once did I detect anything but thoroughly authentic humility.

I extended my heartfelt thanks to him for his "heroism", likening him to the Founders who were also on the outs with their friends for their principled stand. He was a tad forlorn by the "friends" who had abandoned him, but, like the Founders, he is determined to "walk the walk" and to do the right thing in order to restore our country to greatness. He described his experience as very humbling and more than once thanked me and others who have called and donated to the effort for their encouragement and support, without which his lonely struggle would be much more difficult, both procedurally and personally.

I ask that you please go to his website ( and send a much-needed donation to the cause. A phonecall to buoy his spirits might be helpful as well (678-438-6138).

He is a man of stellar character and grace. Simply a great American.

As for the words attributed to Boortz, I can do no more. Still can't absolutely determine one way or the other if Neal made that statement, or, as said, if a caller did. If I hear anything, I will add a clarifying update to this post.

Saturday, January 28, 2012

Newt Must Climb Out of the Muck & Mire to WIN !!!

Newt must return to the straight and narrow. He should do what he does best: talk straight and substantively, and stick to the facts and to solutions alone.

No ad hominems, no more silly, often specious, boneheaded, wasteful and self-destructive attack ads which Romney, who has desperately committed his last six years to winning the prize, has shown over and over again he is able to deflect or, to Newt's chagrin,  altogether neutralize. In short, Newt's endorsing inaccuracies, exaggerations and mischaraterizations about Romney or any other candidate brings Newt down to the level of unprincipled political pit viper, surely an unenviable place to be if one aspires to a loftier purpose. He needs to listen to his heart and head, not his "political consultants".

Newt should unwaveringly zero in on Romney's political record, his stated policy positions, and not upon easily refutable political ads. A guy can't run away from his rancid liberal record or his words--especially if the record and his words are accurate and fully in context. Yes, I know PACs are independent of the candidates, but, plainly and simply, candidates DO have influence over the PAC ads' overall content, quality and focus and we all know it.

Because I'm convinced Newt is a commonsense solutions-driven man whom both the Democrat and GOP establishments loathe--a surefire testiment to his more conservative cred--I'm a Newt supporter. Yes, like us all he has blemishes, no doubt, but he's fearless and, for me, has convincingly evolved away from some questionable political positions he himself has errantly espoused in the past like elements of cap and trade, bailouts and health mandates.

That said, when he is pigeonholed about those faulty positions he needs to fearlessly and unabashedly explain why he espoused those positions then and what learning experiences have caused him to change his mind.  Doing this will blunt the attacks from conservatives, RINO Romney, Romney supporters and GOP establishment types alike, and, what's most important, doing so will earn the admiration and support of an ever-expanding voter base thirsting for a return to fearless integrity in DC.

Short of cash and and hamstrung with a lousy ground game going forward, Newt must be the Newt I had always thought he was: a straight shooter unafraid and firmly committed to returning to small government, fully reinvigorating free enterprise, and restoring constitutional order and individual liberty.

There is a reason bonafide conservatives like Laffer, Watts, Norris, Sowell and, yes, Palin, support him. Now it's entirely up to Newt not to disappoint us or the country.

Newt needs to reset the tone before it's too late.

Friday, January 27, 2012

FINALLY: Evidence of Obama INeligibility Under Court Review!!!!!

Further to my previous post, good news, America!

For some time now, I have deliberately avoided discussing the eligibility issue. Why? With so many legal developments on so many fronts, it was simply too daunting to keep up with, and the dead ends and disappointments were so painful. I also believed that, in time, the truth would have its day in court. And so it has! live streamed the court proceedings which took place on January 26th. Though the audio was often garbled and unintelligible, I watched and listened with a mixture of foreboding and vindication and monitored what few authoritative after action reports I could find on the internet.

In a fairly packed court on January 26th, the OSAH court in Atlanta was gravelled to order by Judge Malihi @9:33AM. Having been informed on January 25th by Obama's attorney, Michael Jablonski, that neither Obama not his attorney would appear at the hearing, in a pre-hearing with plaintiff attorneys Taitz, Hatfield and Irion, Judge Malihi signaled he would enter a "default judgement" against Obama. Delighted but cautious, plaintiff attorneys requested that for the first time ever the actual evidence of Obama's ineligibility be entered into the record. Judge Malihi agreed and allowed for a relatively speedy hearing (aprox 2 hrs).

Note: this is the first time a court has allowed arguments and evidence on the merits of the controversy over Obama's eligibility. Heretofore, the evidence was never allowed to see the light of day by sitting judges. And this: only matters of law--not the evidence itself--may be appealed. Clearly, the Obama machine stumbled big time when it arrogantly failed to appear. Since they didn't take the time to refute the arguments, the evidence is, for all practical purposes, unassailable--the evidence presented at the hearing cannot now be disputed later on appeal. A major victory!!!

With the help of expert witnesses flown in from all over the country, the attorneys cogently, calmly, substantively, albeit hurriedly, discussed the constitutional meaning of "natural born citizen" (relying upon an amicus brief from Leo Donofrio and an analysis of the 1875 Minor v Happersett ruling on the subject), the illegitimacy of Obama's Birth Certificate, and Obama's fraudulent use of a Social Security number assigned to a deceased person born in 1890.

Following the testimony and presentation of evidence, Judge Malihi ordered all attorneys to file briefs and a summary of "facts and points of law" to him by February 5th. At that time, he will review the evidence and, per Georgia law, render a "recommendation" to the Georgia Sec. of State as to whether or not Obama's name should appear on the Georgia presidential ballot in 2012.

From all reports, Mr. Kemp, Sec. of State, has agreed that he will act in accordance with the Judge's recommendation. Of course, how soon after his review of the evidence and facts of law on February 5th Judge Malihi will actually submit a recommendation to Mr. Kemp uncertain. In any event, my hope is that his decision will, at long last, be just and timely. And at this juncture, and despite a possibly vengeful Obama whose ruthless sycophants are capable of considerable mischief, there is nothing to persuade me that the judge will be anything but judicious, forthright and fair. He is to be roundly commended for his unprecedented courage and integrity, and I urge all readers to contact him thank him for his extraordinary service.

Note: I scoured the internet for evidence of media coverage of this seminal development. Except for Druge and American Thinker, NADA. I was able to view one telecast of an Atlanta WST-TV newscast about the hearing, but, true to form, it pooh-poohed the hearing and erroneously reported that plaintiffs were trying to prove once again that Obama is not a "US Citizen". Another insidious example of the media's willful ignorance or calculated dissembling, or both. Notable too was the disturbing silence of "we're watching out for you" O'Reilly and "question with boldness" Beck. Hiding under their beds, to be sure. Frauds!

I cannot overstate how monumentally important this hearing has been. Evidence of Obama's ineligibility is now part of the judicial record and cannot be expunged or otherwise ignored.

Finally, and on a more sobering note, what my abiding concern is the possibly tumultuous effect this will have on the country. Can we properly manage a painful constitutional crisis of this magnitude and all the legal and political ramifications such a crisis will surely entail? Will ruthless remedies be relied upon by darker forces at work to nullify this historic turn of events? Frankly, I am no longer sure that most Americans--and most certainly not our entrenched political elite--are up to the challenge of peacefully, fearlessly and properly restoring constitutional order. But, come what may, we can all be proud and buoyed by the fact that the Constitution and the Rule of Law won a resounding victory yesterday. Now let's pray that Judge Malihi and Sec. of State Kemp do their jobs judiciously and forthrightly.

Stay tuned. I would strongly suggest your monitoring Citizen Wells, TalkWisdom, and the Post and Email for authoritative and credible analyses and updates.

God Bless America! And God Bless those few Americans who refused to surrender in the face of derision, threats and lies. Let's keep on marching forward to a better day for America!

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Georgia Court Subpoenas Obama

Despite years of court hearings which disallowed a discussion of the actual evidence of whether or not Obama is constitutionally eligible to serve as President, and despite unending and costly legal obstructionism on the part of Obama's legal team to deny a proper vetting of Obama's eligibility, the so-called "birther movement" may soon be vindicated for its perseverance. Either he is not eligible, or his father of  record was not his real father at all.

For years, millions of concerned Americans have maintained that Barack Obama is not a "natural born citizen" and that, in accordance with Art II, Sec 1, para 5 (Presidential Clause), he is, therefore, ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States. (For more substantive analysis of this constitutional issue, please refer to other posts on this and other sites.)

The founders believed that only "natural born citizens", i.e. persons born of two US Citizen parents, are eligible to be President or Vice President. Since Obama confirmed that his father, Obama Sr, was a Kenyan national--not a US Citizen--many Americans have, of course, seriously questioned his constitutinal eligibility to serve as President, often referring to him as the "putative President", the "Usurper-in-Chief", etc, and condemning those on both the left and right who have so derisively belittled and cavalierly dismissed the "birthers" for their justifiable concerns. (Note: Minor v Happersett (1875) corroborated the founders understanding of what constitutes a "natural born citizen" and Obama doesn't fit that definition. So, were these justices screwy conspiracists as well?)

On Thursday, January 26th, a Georgia Court has subpoened Obama to prove why he is eligible to be on Georgia's 2012 presidential ballot. For those with at least a modicum of interest in this proceeding, go to or for gavel to gavel coverage beginning 9:00 AM. For Obama sycophants and willful disbelievers, it will be, at the very least, mildly entertaining.

For my part, and pending irrefutably authoritative documentation that Obama is, in fact and without reservation, fully qualified to serve as President, I have asked our Secretary of State, Mr. Perales, in Albany, NY to disallow Obama's name on the 2012 NYS presidential ballot. Copy of the email and letter below:

January 26, 2012

 TO: Mr. Cesar A. Perales
       Secretary of State
       NY Department of State
       99 Washington Avenue 
       1 Commerce Plaza (6th Floor)
       Albany, NY 12231

FROM: (my name and address)

Re: NYS 2012 Presidential Ballot

Dear Mr. Secretary:

Unless he can prove that both his parents were U.S. Citizens at the time of his birth, I respectfully request that Barack Obama be removed from the 2012 presidential ballot in NYS.

Per Article II, Sec 1, para 5, aka the “Presidential Clause”, of the U.S. Constitution, because he is not a “natural born citizen” of the United States, Barack Obama does not meet the Presidential eligibility requirement to be a presidential contender.

The founders understood "natural born citizen" to mean a person born of two US Citizen parents, and an 1875 Supreme Court ruling (Minor v Happersett) clearly corroborated that understanding.

By his own admission, Barack Obama's Kenyan father, Barack Obama Sr, was Kenyan national on a student visa to the United States. He was clearly not a US Citizen. 

As our founding fathers intended, it is the States which are empowered, and which are duty-bound, to determine the eligibility of presidential candidates in accordance with both US and State constitutional law.

Again, I ask that you carefully examine Barack Obama’s eligibility against the requirements of the law, and that unless he authoritatively substantiates his eligibility with irrefutable evidence that he qualifies as a “natural born citizen” under the law, that his name be removed from the presidential ballot in 2012.

I would appreciate a response from you as to your views and intentions in this extremely important matter.


James P. Delaney
NYS and US Citizen

Call me a crank, a wild-eyed conspiracist, a ninny, a blinded partisan. Whatever floats your boat. But, let's get to the bottom of this seminal issue once and for all. It's time to settle this fairly, squarely and authoritatively. Let's stop all the hand-wringing, misinformation, ignorance, obstructionism, derision, conspiracy of silence, bitterness and, yes, fear. The Constitution--or what's left of it--is FAR FAR more important than our benign neglect or fear of censure and embarrassment. In truth, our just going along to get along and the apparently widespread and insidious desire on the part of many not to rock the boat are, without question, utterly unredeeming, unpatriotic and cowardly.

Dare we do the right thing anymore? Or has that too been bred out of us. Let's insist upon full disclosure. The dishonesty and obstruction of justice have gone on long enough.

Thursday, January 12, 2012

Recess Appointments Conundrum

This is a brief follow-up to my 1/8/12 post entitled Obama AGAIN Violates the Constitution.

POST SCRIPT: On 01/12/12, I contacted Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's office regarding his position on this matter. And while his position is at variance with highly credible sources such as ACLJ (American Cntr for Law & Justice), here's what went down today:

While McConnell too is deeply frustrated by this unprecedented circumvention of Senate rules--rules which had been successfully applied by Sen. Reid in 2007 to block Bush appointments--whether or not Obama's action was, in the strictest sense of word, unconstitutional, is questionable. While Obama did violate long accepted and honored "proforma session" Senate rules, technically speaking he probably didn't violate the Constitution. Thus, a law suit is probably out of the question.

What McConnell's spokeswoman did confirm is that funding for both the Consumer Bureau and the NLRB has already been authorized, and that only a special act of Congress, which most likely would not pass muster in the Democratic-controlled Senate, could withhold that funding. She also confirmed that since these appointments were, in the view of the President, "recess appointments", a formal confirmation process wasn't required, rendering the appointments a fait accompli.

So, we are, in effect, stuck with a presidential breach of trust--again!

Upshot: going forward, and thanks to the hypocrisy and double-standards of the Democrats, the heretofore generally accepted "proforma session" procedure will never again be relied upon by either party to prevent recess appointments. A new, ugly precedent has been established by the ruthless left, and on Capitol Hill both honor and and integrity are, indeed, on life support.

Lesson learned: compromising with libs is suicidal; trusting a lib is delusional.

(For a detailed legal analysis of this issue, go to "recess appointments, ACLJ")

[Postscript 1/25/13: a 3-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals/DC ruled three of Obama's "recess appointments" to the NLRB unconstitutional. Other Obama appointments also under challenge. The wheels of justice spin ever so slowly. In typical arrogant fashion, the White House dubbed the ruling "novel and unprecedented". Will Obama ignore the ruling? Stay tuned.]

Sunday, January 8, 2012

Obama AGAIN Violates the Constitution

"If Congress won't act, I will!"

And with those imperious words, last week Comrade Obama again circumvented Congress and violated the Constitution. By announcing four "recess appointments" while Congress was in proforma session--NOT in recess--Obama blatantly violated his oath of office and committed an impeachable offense.

To Obama, a hard-boiled, narcissistic Statist, the ends always justify the means, our obsolete Constitution and pesky Rule of Law be damned. The litany of Executive usurpations since he took office in 2009 is, to say the very least, breathtaking, and the relentless advancement of his "fundamental transformation of the United States of America" remains very much on course. Frankly, I shudder in anticipation of what other breaches of trust await us before Inauguration Day 2013.

When I heard about this abuse of power, and after fully reviewing the matter, I immediately telephoned Speaker Boehner's office urging the Speaker to warn the President that he should either immediately withdraw the appointments or face impeachment. While the spokesman acknowledged the receipt of many similar calls on this matter, I sensed a decided lack of urgency on his part. Reminding him that Boehner's oath of office to uphold the Constitution should take priority over party politics,  I courteously and firmly repeated my concern and my request for action. He assured me that a written reply from Speaker Boehner would be forthcoming. At that point, I identified myself as a member of the Monroe County Republican Committee, and indicated to him that the Speaker's reply would be shared with my fellow Committee members.

I also emailed my Democratic representative urging her to either co-sponsor or introduce Articles of Impeachment, and requested a reply as to what, if any, actions she planned to take.

Coupled with a request that my fellow committee members also register their concern with Speaker Boehner, I provided the Committee with a copy of my email communications with both Boehner Rep. Hochul.

Following these communications, I quickly submitted the following editorial to the local Democrat & Chronicle:

"In the sole interest of advancing his political fortunes, last week the President arrogantly circumvented Congress and flouted the Constitution.  

To many of us, this latest example of executive usurpation lays bare a particularly troubling pattern of Presidential disdain for the Constitution and the Rule of Law.
Against the advice of his own Justice Department, the President illegally named four “recess appointments”, three to the National Labor Relations Board and one to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, this while Congress was in proforma session—an unprecedented and clearly impeachable abuse of power.

Particularly distressing too was the shameless and reckless chorus of approval for this brazen breach of trust from many of his political allies.
How many more blatant Executive violations of the Constitution and the Rule of Law will be tolerated by Congress and so cavalierly ignored by the media? For better or for worse, that’s the burning question which afflicts an increasingly irritated and distrustful electorate.  

On November 6th, let’s pray fidelity to the Constitution and the Rule of Law is restored."

While I hope my actions are productive, I am still awaiting evidence of actions taken by Boehner, my representative and my Committee colleagues. My fear is that if Congress believes no one cares or no one is watching, this insidious mischief will be ignored with impunity.

At the next GOP Committee meeting, I will enquire of the membership as to any actions taken by them. And if no action was taken, I will resign. When my own political associates become part of the problem--become witting or unwitting parties to the Constitution's subversion--then that party can no longer avail itself of my support or service, and I will promptly register as a member of the Conservative Party.

I don't know what else I can do. And while I am hoping for the best, recent experience has taught me to expect the worse.

"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves." Edward R. Murrow

"An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others." James Madison, Federalist No 48.

"Those who refuse to participate in politics shall be governed by their inferiors." PLATO

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." Thomas Jefferson

"Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act." Deitrich Bonhoeffer

"If the respresentatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense." Alexander Hamilton