Search This Blog

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Obama's Economic Razzle-Dazzle

Sadly, but not surprisingly, the Administration’s recent rosey economic statistics are simply f-r-a-u-d-u-l-e-n-t.

In January 2012, the Bureau for Labor Statistics (BLS) changed the way the unemployment rate is measured; thus, it turns out that the miraculous unemployment “drop” from 8.9% to 8.3% is not a drop at all. (Reportedly, the real unemployment rate is closer to a staggering 22%.)

In fact, measured in pre-January 2012 metrics, unemployment remains unchanged at 8.9%.  Note: deducting those no longer seeking employment are conveniently omitted  from the equation rendering a considerably brighter, albeit erroneous and misleading, stat.  (The troubling truth is that the percentage of our population in the labor force is actually the lowest its been since the 1950’s. And that's what our Dear Leader calls "recovery"?)

Pointing to an upsurge in personal borrowing, Obama assures us of more robust consumption and, therefore, economic growth. Note: the upsurge in credit debt is because student loans are now included in the credit debt metric. In fact, Visa and MC debt hasn’t appreciably changed at all.

And don’t forget the Congressional Budget Office's recent projection that unemployment by year’s end will near 9%--and that’s using the new BLS measuring formula.
As we all know, there are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics.
Obama's retaining his princely power and glory is a helluva lot more important to him and his bloodsucking cronies than any silly recovery for the unwashed. The trick, of course, is to convince inattentive voters and those who are hooked on government handouts that the economy really is moving "in the right direction" and that the feds will, of course, continue to dole out the goodies.  And, for the most part, that cynical campaign strategy might very well work on the majority who are either willfully ignorant or totally without virtue or self-respect.

Thursday, February 9, 2012

Just Who are the Domestic Terrorists?

It's been reported that in a recent memo to all law enforcement agencies, the FBI counter-terrorism unit  associated those who referenced "Constitution", "the Bible", "US Supreme Court decisions", and "treaties with foreign governments" as part of a "domestic terrorist movement". You can't make this stuff up, folks.

You will recall that in 2009, Homeland Security issued a report on "Right Wing Extremism" labelling those who used terms like "Constitutionalist", "Patriot" or "linking their belief system to the [ideals of the]American Revolution" were also potential national security threats. And, yes, lumped in with these threatening domestic elements were returning American veterans. Folks, this is beyond stupid and offensive. This is scary.

Of course, the Occupy Wall Street "useful idiots", the darlings of the radical left, Soros, Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi, are nothing but grassroots, highly principled moral paragons of American virtue who are merely trying to peacefully right fundamental wrongs in our depraved capitalist society. But, how do our Progressive overseers explain the thousands of OWS arrests for violence, trespassing, attacks on policemen, and the wanton destruction of private and public property? Well, they don't explain because no one is making them accountable. Remind you of the formative years of the Nazi movement? It should.

Boy, are we on a downward spiral into the bowels of tyranny! And if you can't see that, better consult a physician because you're deaf, dumb and hopelessly blind.

But, just so the FBI and HS don't miss me on their intrusive radar: I love the Constitution and am sworn to defend it on my life. I am a Veteran, a Tea Partier and a  Patriot to boot. Opponent of Obama's Utopian America, you betcha'. Defender of our Founders' America, absolutely on my life!

Notwithstanding Obama's recent attack on the freedom of religion, add to all this the Administration's  relentless assault on our 2nd Amendment rights by its "Fast & Furious" gangsters, aka their so-called "Dept of Justice", the Democrats' open support of the Occupy Wall Street thuggery, both the Democratic Socialist Party's and the American Communist Party's OPEN support for Obama and his Progressive minions, and Obama's insidious class warfare strategy to pit Americans against Americans, races against races, economic classes against economic classes, and we have a powder keg on our hands. Could that be Obummer's intention? To the clear-eyed among us, and at the risk of being politically incorrect, it sure as hell looks that way to me.

On top of this, for some time now I have been monitoring the globalist efforts of Obama's Progressive handmaiden, Sec. of State Hillary Clinton, who has been quietly pushing the following loathesome treaties which she hopes Obama will shove down the Senate's throat, a chamber, by the way, currently dominated by Progressives who share Hillary's and Barack's obscene globalist goals.

And here are those damnable treaties:

1) the authority of the International Criminal Court would be expanded by adding a new crime, that being "aggression", which, in effect, is waging war without the United Nation's approval. This would empower the International Court to prosecute Americans who have not violated any American laws and would give Russia and China veto power over US military actions. (There goes American sovereignty, which is, of course, the globalist goal of these treasonous vermin.)

2) The Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST for short): requires that the US contribute half its royalties from offshore drilling to an international entity of 160 members and would allow that body a free hand to distribute those funds in any manner and to any nation they please. The US would be out-numbered 1- 160. Without compensation, LOST would also obligate the US to share its offshore drilling technology with any other nation who asks for it.(Leveling the playing field and redistributing wealth on a global basis,)

3) Small-Arms Control: in the work for some time now, Clinton is negotiating a treaty which would require that each signatore to this treaty implement domestic measures to stop the exportation of all small arms and to register all ammunition in order to track its source.(If Fast & Furious fails to undermine our 2nd Amendment, then this intrusive Small Arms Control Treaty will. These statists never give up.)

4) Outer Space Code of Conduct: this code would ban activities which are likely to generate debris in outer space. On the surface, EU-endorsed effort is an innocuous international anti-litter campaign in space. How very, very green. HOWEVER, this could very easily lead to prohibiting America's deployment of anti-missile platforms in space. (Not a good idea.)

5) Rights of the Child: And just who wouldn't support the rights of children? But at the needless risk of jeopardizing our sovereignty, Comrade Clinton is pushing for the establishment of a 14-member court which would oversee the international distribution of funds for shelter, food clothing and education for children in poor nations. This could mean that the court would be able to successfully challenge the United States if, in the court's opinion, Americans weren't  forking over enough. (Totally unnecessary and inane. The United States Agency for International Development doesn't need to be told how to distribute America's foreign aid. Again, a Progressive attack on our sovereignty.)

The disturbing reality is that America's sovereignty, our freedom, our liberties, our Constitution, our constitutional republic are of little consequence to the self-serving and shortsighted Progressive ideologues now ruling our lives and transforming our republic out of existence.

And if I hear one more time how much better off the country would be with Hillary rather than Barry at the helm, I will implode! These Progressives are ALL dangerous, destructive of our way of life, and disloyal alien-oriented fruitcakes of the first order who must be STOPPED!

On the treaty issue, I recommend that readers pass this list on to their congressperson, Senators, the Senate Minority Ldr and the Speaker of House and pray they are still on America's side. Tell them NOT to allow the further undermining of either our Constitution or our sovereignty by the Senate's misguided passage of these outrageously offensive treaties.

So, if the goal of terrorism is to instill fear, disorder and instability in order to facilitate fundamental political change, and aside from some imported and homegrown conniving Jihadis and a handful of weirdo "militia" groups, who else among us is a clear and present danger to our lives, our liberties and our God-given right to pursue happiness? Now think hard. I'm sure you'll get it.

Yup! You got it. The PROGRESSIVES! Dangerous to a person, these unprincipled vermin now dominate the once venerable Democratic Party and infect many in the Republican rank and file as well. We call them RINOs. So, don't be fooled by "Democrat" or "Republican"--high-sounding and patriotic labels, but it's subterfuge, plain and simple. It's well past time to call a spade a spade and to hold these brigands accountable for their faithlessness.

Monday, February 6, 2012

Judge Malihi's Ruling Grossly Incompetent

Having read Judge Malihi's embarrassingly flawed opinion as well as Atty Mario Apuzzo's thoughtful analysis of that opinion, to the best of my humble abilitylet me try to reasonably summarize the latter for your consideration.

For even the acolyte, the uninitiated, the layman, an objective reading of the Constitution and pertinent caselaw clearly and unambiguously defines "natural born citizen" as a person born of two US Citizen parents. Defenders of Obama and the willfully ignorant may scream, rant, rave and hurdle ad hominems 'til they're blue in the face, but this is incontrovertible FACT and LAW--not opinion.

Gratuitously adjudging Obama has having been born in the United States and that he is, therefore, a "natural born citizen", Judge Malihi violated the rules of evidence by failing to rely upon the evidence presented by plaintiffs at the hurried January 26th hearing. In effect, by "considering" Obama born in the US, what evidence DID he rely upon to reach this whole cloth opinion? Certainly not the plaintiffs' evidence, and most certainly not the evidence which was NOT submitted by Obama's absent defense. No, he relied upon a terribly flawed state decision, Ankeny v Governor of Indiana.

The grossly incompetent and insupportable Ankeny v Governor of Indiana ruling gratuitously defined "natural born citizen" quite apart from original Constitutional meaning, a ruling which, in any event, has no binding sway beyond the State of Indiana. Only SCOTUS can render such a uniformly binding ruling. And, yet, Ankeny and Malihi relied upon their own trumped up definition of "natural born citizen" and not upon the original intent and meaning conveyed to that word of art by our framers and corroborating caselaw.

Central to the framers' and founders' meaning of NBC was the framers' reliance upon de Vattel's Law of Nations (1758) which defined NBC as being one who is born in the country of parents who are citizens. Note: the Natualization Acts of 1790, 1795 and 1802 show that only children born in the United States of US Citizens can be Art II "natural born citizens" and that children born of aliens in the US are aliens themselves.

Citing  and misreading Minor v Happersett (1875), Ankeny erroneously opined that Happersett left in question whether or not a child born in the US of alien parents was a NBC. Not so. Where doubt was expressed in that ruling was on the question of whether or not a person born of alien parents in the US is even a "citizen". In fact, Happersett, correctly relying upon de Vattel and American common law, and not English common law, left NO DOUBT that a NBC is a child born in the country of two US Citizen parents.

Relying upon the Wong Kim Ark ruling in 1898 which dealt only with the issue of US Citizenship and not natural born citizenship, Ankeny errantly cited this ruling as demonstrating who a NBC is. Huh? In fact, Wong Kim Ark never contested Happersett with respect to the meaning of NBC per de Vattel's Law of Nations. In effect, Ankeny misrepresented the Wong Kim Ark holding by gratuitously ruling that Wong was a NBC, when, in fact, Wong Kim Ark ruled that Wong was a US Citizen--not an Art II NBC. IN FACT, the Wong Kim Ark distinguished between a child born to one or more alien parents and a child born to citizen parents, noting that only the latter can be described as a "natural born citizen"!

Thus, being a US Citizen is NOT the same as being a "natural born citizen". NBCs are citizens per natural law; others are statutory citizens.

In effect, Ankeny, upon which Malihi relied for his opinion, errantly relied upon flawed or misinterpreted  caselaw as well as English common law to define NBC, this despite the fact that all SCOTUS cases, including Minor and Wong Kim Ark, relied upon American common law.

What is especially disturbing is that Judge Malihi's reliance upon Ankeny's "advisory opinion" mysteriously led him to the unwarranted conclusion that Obama was born in Hawaii and that he was, therefore, a NBC. However, Ankeny never actually RULED that Obama was a NBC or that he was, in fact, born in Hawaii. Never mind that Ankeny blew the constitutional definition of NBC, Obama's birth place was never even examined by Ankeny and defense never admitted any evidence to  that effect. As an advisory opinion, therefore, Ankeny cannot be relied upon as proof of Obama's birth place, much less his status as a "natural born citizen". Even in footnote 15 of that advisory opinion, the Ankeny court cautioned that "while the question of whether someone born out of the United States can be a NBC was not before it, its decision should not be interpreted to mean that being born in the  US is the only way someone can be a NBC".

Exhausted  or boiling yet?

Incorrectly concluding that since Wong was a US Citizen that he was also a NBC is a judicial leap into never-never land. For in the same opinion, Ankeny differentiated between citizen and NBC and admitted that the Wong ruling did NOT discuss NBC.

Willfully tortured obfuscation or woeful judicial incompetence? You decide.

Point: relying on natural law and Law of Nations, the founders were adamant and clear that to prevent usurpation of the Presidency by a person of dual alliegiance, that person must have been born of two US Citizen parents. PERIOD!

SO, SCOTUS has been crystal clear as to who is a NBC: a child born in the US of two US citizen parents, whether naturalized or by birth. Thus, all natural born citizens are citizens of the US, but not all citizens of the US are natural born citizens.

The burden of proof rests upon Obama to prove his elibility without a shadow of doubt, but Malihi ignored that burden of proof, instead conjectured that Obama may be "considered"--not ruled--to have been born in the US and, therefore, a NBC. Again, birth place ALONE is insufficient to meet the Art II NBC requirement.

We can only hope that the GA Sec. of State's due diligence and objective and courageous defense of the Constitution and the Rule of Law will hold sway. Since that's not likely, let the appeal process go forward with all deliberate speed.

(For those readers interested in a more detailed analysis of this subject, I urge you to carefully read Mario Apuzzo's commentary in legal opposition to Malihi opinion. Very astute and clear-headed.

Friday, February 3, 2012

Georgia's Judge Malihi Rules Against Plaintiffs: Rule of Law is Dead.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Constitution is no longer on life support. It is D E A D. To believe otherwise is sheer idiocy and monstrously delusional.

Today, Judge Michael Malihi, a name which will live in infamy, "ruled"--something effete judges love doing--AGAINST plaintiffs, rendering Barack Obama ballot-eligible in Georgia on the basis of his being born in Hawaii and, therefore, a natural born citizen.

The ignorance demonstrated by that conclusion is breathtaking and the ruling itself utterly contrived and absurb. Judicial historians will have a veritable heyday with this one. Every legal treatise and case I have rad many times over clearly compels precisely the opposite finding.

What this means is that ANYONE born in the United States of illegal aliens, Legal Permanent Residents, one US Citizen parent--and never mind there's no irrefutably authoritative proof that s/he was actually born within US jurisdiction--is now eligible to be our President. As far as I can see, this may well mean Gov. Bobby Jindal, former Gov. Schwartzenegger, Sen. Rubio and the "anchor baby" of that illegal alien down the street can some day be our President. No effective rules, no constitutional constraints. The possibility of dual allegiances irrelevant.

So much for original meaning and intent of the Constitution's and the 14th Amendment's framers .

In effect, the Constitution's Presidential Clause, de Vattel's Law of Nations and Minor v Happersett, et. al. are now heaps of meaningless words--and wholly irrelevant at least in Georgia.

Scrambling on January 26th to diligently submit a mountain of evidence against Obama during the rushed hearing, plaintiff attorneys took the fall for their patriotic effort and due diligence, and both Obama and his attorneys who showed nothing but contempt for the court and who failed to submit one scrap of authoritative evidence to refute plaintiff claims have, without lifting as much as a finger, prevailed with impunity.

Folks, we are no longer a nation of laws. We are nation of ignorant, Progressive, anti-Constitution nihilists.  And when I think of all the past lives and limbs lost on our nation's battlefields in defense of this Republic and the rule of law, I could, quite literally, cry.

My stomach in knots, I am so digusted and enraged, I could spit bullets.

(Postscript: just spoke with Carl Swensson, plaintiff, who firmly voiced his intention "not to give up". The ruling is on expedited appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court. Since evidence of Obama's ineligibility is already a matter of public record, a full hearing of evidence is anticipated. In passing, and for whatever it's worth, Carl noted that Judge Malihi is a Muslim Iranian.)

Wednesday, February 1, 2012

Stop it, Hannity! Your Shining Star, Sen. Rubio, is NOT Eligible.

Talking heads and politicians often have a problem keeping their brains and their mouths, their hearts and their minds in proper sync. Are you listening, Hannity? O'Reilly? Beck?

On the issue of Senator Marco Rubio's becoming either a VP or Presidential candidate, here's a news flash, Mr. Hannity: RUBIO IS NOT ELIGIBLE!

To be eligible for either slot, per the 12th Amendment (1804), Rubio must also be eligible to be President.

Per the 14th Amendment (1868), Mr. Rubio is a US Citizen, but to be eligible for President, per Art II, Sec 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution, Mr. Rubio must be a "natural born citizen", meaning that he must have been born in the United States of two US Citizen parents who were US Citizens either by birth or through naturalization.

Mario Rubio, Marco's father, didn't petition to become a naturalized US Citizen and renounce his allegiance to Cuba until 11/05/1975, four years AFTER Marco's birth in May 1971. In short, Marco's parents were Legal Permanent Residents--not native born or naturalized US Citizens--when Marco Rubio was born. (Researchers should refer to the National Archives (NADA) and the Constitution to confirm this information.)

For an in-depth legal constitutional analysis of the meaning and requirements of "natural born citizenship", interested readers are encouraged to go to citizen-clause-requires.html,,, federalistblog, US Justice Foundation, and a host of other authoritative sites.

And this: wouldn't it be an inspiring act of selfless public service were Sen. Rubio to publicly confirm that he is constitutionally ineligible to be VP or President?

As importantly, can you imagine the firestorm which would grip the DNC machine, and the abject horror which would pervade the White House whose current occupant is also constitutionally ineligible to serve as Chief Executive? (Obama's mother was a US Citizen, but his purported father, Obama Sr., was a Kenyan national, a British subject at the time of Barack's birth in 1961.)

If Mr. Rubio is the venerable and articulate defender of the Constitution he has appeared to be, then why has he been so studiously silent on this issue. Why has he and his staff avoided answering any questions from many enquiring minds regarding the status of his constitutional eligibility.  His silence has been defeaning, and one can only reasonably speculate that Mr. Rubio is more concerned about his political ambitions than he is about the sanctity of the Constitution.

Don't get me wrong. I love this guy. He's a breath of fresh air in that God-awful beltway. But, I have to wonder if, like so many of his political colleagues, his patriotism and his love of the Constitution stops at the water's edge.

Two wrongs don't make a right. The Constitution is not a toy to be conveniently interpreted or knowingly circumscribed merely to advance one's political or ideological agenda. Nothing honorable, patriotic or redeeming about that.

I will try to obtain a reply on this matter from either Sen. Rubio or his Senatorial staff. Will keep you posted.

"I was bold in the pursuit of knowledge, never fearing to follow truth and reason to whatever results they led, and bearding every authority which stood in their way." Thomas Jefferson

"Law and liberty cannot become the objects of our love, unless they first become the objects of our knowledge." James Wilson (1790)

"Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct." Thomas Jefferson

Sen. Rubio's office never responded to my enquiry.