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 www.TPATH.org or art2skuperpac.com/livevideo.html 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 (6^th 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.

Respectfully,

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.

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.]

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 6^th, 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

Quick Summary of GOP Candidate Positions 12/10/11

Taking into account that candidates’ positions both evolve and are often dictated  by the varying political exigencies at any given time/circumsance, here are abbreviated  highlights of the GOP candidates’ policy positions as of 12/10/12 (Source--Southern New Hampshire 912 Project).  As you will see, a surprisingly mixed bag:

       1.  Supports 2^nd Amendment: without qualification, all support except Romney who supported Brady Bill and signed into law a permanent ban on many semi-automatic  firearms

2.       Strict interpretation of Constitution:  Gingrich, Paul, Santorum; Bachman (except for her support of the Patriot Act); Huntsman (except for his support of hate crime legislation); Perry (supports UN’s Agenda 21, bi-nat’l healthcare with Mexico,  hate crime legislation); Romney (supports Agenda 21, MA Climate Protection Plan, Cap & Trade Agreement w/ 10 N.E. states)

       3.       Supports repeal of Patriot Act: None support except Paul;  Hunstman (unknown).

4.       Against referring to international laws in US Courts: Bachman, Gingrich, Paul, Romney, Santorum; Huntsman favors Doha Roundtrade protocols (WTO) and Trans-Pacific-Partnership (TPP); Perry (Texas Islamic Court established, Halal law recognized)

5.       Supports 9^th & 10^th Amendments: Bachman, Gingrich, Huntsman, Paul, Santorum;  Perry  & Romney (both believe fed law requires states to care for illegal education & healthcare, but Romney believes Obamacare infringes upon state’s rights

6.       Will nominate only strong Constitutional conservative judges: All except Romney, Perry; Huntsman (unknown)

7.       Will close the Dept of Education: All except Gingrich, Huntsman, Romney, Santorum

8.       Favors transferring education system to the states/local gov’t: All except Romney

9.       Will close Dept of Agriculture: All except Ginrgrich, Perry, Santorum; Huntsman (unknown)

10.   Will close Dept of Energy: All except Gingrich, Huntsman, Romney, Santorum

11.   Wants to close IRS: All except Gingrich (reduce size), Huntsman (reform IRS), Perry, Romney, Santorum; Bachman (unknown)

12.   Supports privatization of TSA: Gingrich, Paul; remainder unknown

13.   Supports privatization of Post Office: Gingich, Paul; remainder unknown

14.   Support term limits: Gingrich, Paul, Romney;  Perry does not support; remainder unknown

15.   Promises to reduce business regulations: All except Romney (shaped Regional Cap & Trade, promoted  MA Climate Protection Plan regs, would consider mandating auto efficiency); Hunstman, Perry unknown

16.   Will eliminate Czars:  Gingrich, Paul, Santorum; Huntsman Bachman, Perry; Romney unknown

17.   Wants to repeal 16^th Amendment: All except Bachman, Gingrich, Santorum; Hunstman, Romney unknown

18.   Supported TARP: All except Bachman, Paul, Santorum; Huntsman unknown

19.   Supported Stimulus 2009: Huntsman, Perry; Romney (unclear); remainder did not support

20.   Supports audit of Federal Reserve: All except Romney; Hunstman unknown

21.   Supports shutting down the Fed Reserve: Paul; Perry unsure; Huntsman unknown; remainder opposed

22.   Supports Balanced Budget: All except Perry; Romney, Huntsman unknown

23.   Pledges NOT to raise taxes: All; Huntsman unknown

24.   Will not vote “yes” to raise debt ceiling: All except Perry, Romney, Santorum; Huntsman unknown

25.   Supports Cap & Trade: None except Gingrich, Huntsman, Romney to some extent

26.   Supports lowering taxes for businesses: All

27.   Supports a Flat Tax: All except Huntsman,  Santorum; not fully embraced by Romney (see #15)

28.   Oppose bank bailouts: All except Huntsman; with reservations Perry, Romney

29.   Supports amnesty for illegals currently in USA: Huntsman, Perry; Romney (supported amnesty 2005); Gingrich supports legalization (not citizenship) for long-stayers

30.   Would deport all illegals currently in USA: All except Gingrich (see above), Huntsman, Perry, Santorum; Romney doesn’t fully embrace

31.   Supports border fence along southern border: All except Gingrich, Perry

32.   Supports border security: All

33.   Supports states rights to curb illegals: All except Perry; Huntsman & Paul unknown

34.   Supports In-State tuition for illegals: Perry; Huntsman, Paul unknown; Romney partially supportive

35.   Supports sanctuary cities for illegals: Perry, Romney partially; all others oppose

36.   Stop all taxpayer support for illegals: All yes except  Huntsman, Perry;  Romney & Gingrich unclear

37.   Supports defunding/repeal of Obamacare: All

38.   Believes in man-made climate change/global warming: All except Bachman, Paul, Perry, Santorum

39.   Anti-abortion in all cases: All except Gingrich, Romney  (unclear); Huntsman, Perry (w/exceptions)

40.   Anti-abortion except rape, incest, harm to mother: Gingrich, Perry, Santorum; Paul (state issue),

41.   Supports gay marriage: Romney (before 2005); Paul (state issue); Perry (unclear)

42.   Supports hate crime legislation: Huntsman, Perry, Romney

43.   Supports English as national language: All support except Perry (unknown), Romney (inconsistent)

44.   Supports Right to Work laws: all except Santorum who believes it is a state issue

45.   Will open up drilling for Oil/Gas-in Gulf: All yes

46.   Will open up drilling-Alaska: All yes

47.   Will open up drilling-continental US: All yes

48.   Supports coal energy (currently 45% of US electric power): All yes

49.   Will seek 100% energy independence: All yes

50.   Supports ethanol subsidies: All opposed except Gingrich, Romney

51.   Expressed concerns re Sharia law in America: All concerned except Paul, Perry, Romney

52.   Sympathetic to Muslim orgs like CAIR, Muslim Brotherhood: All unsympathetic, except  Perry (unclear)

Since this is but a thumbnail sketch of candidates’ positions as December 10, 2012, readers are encouraged to conduct their own research.  I will be posting additional abbreviated position sketches as time permits, but will likely focus on frontrunners only.

One thing is crystal-clear: there is no “perfect” candidate, no knight in shining armor, no sainted ideological purist among them.

What's Really With the Drone?

Something doesn't add up.

When I first heard that Obama was politely requesting Teheran to return our high-tech drone to us, my first reaction was "Is this guy totally bonkers?" (Of course, with or without this incident, on that score the jury is still out.)

If the drone's trove of intelligence is that critical to our national security interests, then Obama was constitutionally duty-bound to immediately take it out with a surgical airstrike. (Question: if our intervention in Libya was in our national security interests, then why wouldn't safeguarding the secrets contained in the drone be as well?)

While I'd like to think that we were somehow able to electronically neutralize the intelligence value of the drone, that's not what we've been consistently hearing from the Administration or the Pentagon. First, the intelligence value was reportedly neutralized, then apparently it wasn't. Actually, we've heard nothing by way of substantive clarification one way or the other from either quarter. Why? Because neither "can discuss intelligence matters in public". Really. I thought they already had. Or was that deliberate obfuscation for some deep, dark, national security interest? Got me.

If the technological know-how and intelligence contained in the drone was effectively neutralized, then why was Barry concerned that destroying it on the ground in Iran would be "construed as an act of war" if bombing it was clearly unnecessary to protect the drone's secrets which had already been erased?

And if the drone's intelligence was intact after the drone "strayed" and landed (crashed?) in Iran--if, in fact, it really did stray--was not this straying into Iranian air space already an act of war? And, if so, why wouldn't the US have taken the next logical step by immediately destroying it?

And if we had destroyed it with an airstrike, just what would the Revolutionary Guard have done about it anyway? What could they have done? Effectively speaking, nothing! So, what's this about Obama's apparent concern about precipitating a war with Iran?

So, if this isn't yet another illustration of Obama's hopeless leadership and incompetence, then I think there's more to this muddle than meets the eye. A cover-up? To what end? A deliberate downplaying of what could be a huge and embarrassing intelligence blunder?

In any event, I'm hoping the drone proves to be of no real intelligence or technological value to Iran, Russia or China. One way or the other, I guess we'll find out soon enough.

My Quick Take on the ABC Debate

The ease with which Newt deflected attacks from all sides was especially noteworthy, suggesting to me that he actually believed what he was saying (refreshing) and that he had amply reflected on the subject of those statements well before uttering them, e.g. the moon base, the need for children learning the work ethic, and legalizing the status of well-established illegal aliens who've peacefully and productively acculturated. (Hispanic voters must have been encouraged by the latter.)

The conventional media buzz was that Newt's shoot-from-the-hip statements amounted to little more than debilitating gaffes, a clear sign of indiscipline and the seeds of his self-destruction. So much for conventional "media wisdom". In fact, he didn't back off those statements and either repeated or elaborated on them.

I also thought many of the attacks on Newt came across as rehearsed, desperate and contrived; but, as said, he handily parried those largely innocuous assaults.

I thought Perry redeemed himself, but not sufficiently to make any real difference. He's out.

Santorum and Bachman, among my faves, are also out.

Paul will ride the crest of Libertarian jubilance to the end, but also to no avail.

So, unless there is a major faux pas on Newt's part, or unless his lack of a ground organization does him in (which remains a real possibility), my guess is that Newt will be nominated and will go on to clean Obama's clock, thus eliminating any real hope of an Obama re-election. And we can all thank God for that.

Just a thought: how about a Newt-Paul ticket? Or is that a tad avant-garde? Such a team would certainly serve to keep both players under control, more realistic, but closer to the Constitution and with a firmer commitment to seriously reducing the size of gov't and the national debt. And, except for his fairyland foreign policy inclinations, Ron Paul's stepping into a presidential role in a clinch wouldn't scare me at all. Quite the contrary.

In any event, I'd like to see Ron Paul as Treasury Secretary (love his economic policies and integrity), Bachman as HHS Secretary, Romney at Commerce and Santorum at Interior. Of course, Bolton at State would be an excellent choice. Lincolnesque (keeping your friends close, but your political challengers closer)? Or would such a mix be naive and unworkable? Anyway, just thinking outside the proverbial box.

Finally, I don't know if others feel the same way, but I thought the ABC moderators, Sawyer and Stephanopoulous) did a pretty good job of it. They allowed everyone sufficient time to respond to questions and criticisms without that God-awful 30-second restriction. Of course, with only 6 candidates (vs 8) on stage, the exercise was far more manageable this time around. And as time goes by and the field is reduced in size, the time restriction will be less onerous and primary voters will increasingly benefit.

Is "The Newt" a Chameleon?

Given the widespread angst over Newt's apparent betrayals of conservative principles, I've begun the process of researching for myself Newt's current and past policy positions and voting record.

Yes, I have lingering concerns about the consistency of his conservative record, but I also understand that being an evolving and very much engaged politician--a political practitioner who was often in the rough and tumble front lines of legislation--doesn't always easily lend itself to achieving the appearance of absolute philosophical purity. There are times when, as a practical politician, one must bend to achieve one's core legislative agenda. Thus the likely misleading appearance of apostasy.

As for some of the more questionable positions he's taken in the past, these items beg for an explanation. Do they really represent hidden Progressive, aka neo-Marxist, inclinations, or, more realistically, were they merely political expediencies. Here are some of those troubling positions into which we must all do some objective delving:

1. Co-sponsored the Fairness Doctrine which was mercifully vetoed by Pres. Reagan in 1987. (So far, I cannot determine if he actually voted for it.)
2. Supported the GATT Treaty thereby granting increased sovereignty to the UN. (11/94)
3. Voted for the single largest increase in federal education spending--$3.5B. (04/96) (Question: will he actually eliminate the Dept. of Education?)
4. Supported fed taxdollars for abortions. (04/95)
5. Supported Bush's proposal for mandatory carbon caps. (02/07)
6. LIke other conservatives, said he would have reluctantly voted for the $700B TARP bailout. (09/08)
7. Lobbied for ethanol subsidies. (01/11)
8. Suggested that flex-fuel vehicles be mandated for Americans. (01/11)
9. Wrote book saying he believes in man-made climate change. (02/11)

If Newt is able to explain these positions within the context of political expediency, misrepresentation, misstatement, or momentary addlepation then his conservative credentials would appear to be intact.  I emailed these concerns to Newt's campaign and am hopeful of a timely reply. I am also exploring how best to channel these items of concern to upcoming debate moderators Donald Trump and FOX News as well.

The question is were those inconsistencies and/or faux pas and/or political expediencies indicative of Newt's foundational philosophical bearings. At this juncture and pending further research, I think not.

At this point, I've tentatively concluded that Newt is, in all likelihood, a bonafide conservative with clearly defined and very aggressive conservative solutions. I am especially heartened by his "21st Century Contract with America" and am especially impressed by the 9th and 10th points of that Contract which, respectively, call for effectively clipping the wings of our runaway, activist judiciary and for beginning an orderly transfer of power and responsibility back to the States. For me, these two initiatives are at the heart of any real solution which seriously aims to restore constitutional order.

So, yes, I will be sending another donation to his campaign today. But, I will also continue to research and to keep my eyes and my options wide open.