Obama's Birth Certificate Still Mysteriously Off-Limits

Further to my two previous posts regarding this seminal matter, I thought these related items might be of more than passing interest to you as well.

While awaiting a SCOTUS decision--probably on Monday, the date the Electors vote--as to whether or not the full Court will hear the Wrotnowski vs Bysiewicz suit questioning Obama's constitutional eligibility to be President, it should be noted that Sec 3 of the 20th Amendment stipulates that the Electoral College is the place and time to challenge a candidate's credentials and that the Electors, for whom we actually voted, have the right and responsibility to do so if, course, there is cause. In a real sense, they have been described as the "gatekeepers" in such matters.

The Amendment identifies "the time prior to inauguration" for challenges to be made to the qualifications of both Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates. Thus, the Electors have the specific constitutional right to request a candidate's credentials in Court and also before the Electoral College with Congress acting as adjudicators. SOOOO, even if SCOTUS disallows a full hearing of the Wrotnowski vs Bysiewicz suit, there is still ample time to pursue legal avenues to compel Obama to verify his constitutional qualifications to be President.

You may recall that Obama and his team of three law firms has steadfastly refused to produce the "vaulted" copy of his original Birth Certificate in Hawaii. Doing so, of course, would clarify the matter of his birth once and for all. Unfortunately, he has deigned to produce only a "Certificate of Live Birth" which, even if it's not a fake, omits the name of the hospital where he was born, the name of the attending physician, witnesses, etc.

To further complicate evidentiary matters of his birth, I found that S.338.17.8 of Hawaii's Revised Statutes, in effect, allows Hawaii's Director of Health to issue "Certificates of Live Birth" to children not even born in Hawaii so long as the legal parents have "declared the State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year preceding the birth or adoption of such child." Proof of residency is left up to the discretion of the Director of Health. Questions, anyone?

By way of review, Article I, Sec 2, the so-called Presidential Clause of the Constitution, requires that a Presidential candidate be a "natural born citizen", that he be 35 years of age, and that he has resided in the US for at least 14 years.

Further, US Title 8 Sec 1401 provides that US citizenship alone is not sufficient to qualify one for President or Vice President. He or she MUST be a natural born citizen without, of course, any question of dual loyalties or citizenship.

On 10/31/08, Hawaii's Director of Health verified that he had "personally seen" OBH's orginal Birth Certificate. So we know it exists. However, in his sworn statement, the Dir. of Health did not at any time verify OBH's place of birth or any other pertinent info regarding the document--only that he had personally seen the document.

Cannot it be reasonably inferred that Obama's refusal to produce the original birth certificate or certified long form of same mean that he was not born in the US? In the absence of verifiable proof to the contrary, then the inferrence is, to me, entirely defensible.

And when his choice of Secretary of Commerce, Gov. Bill Richardson, stated to a throng of Hispanic supporters that "Barack Obama is an immigrant," should that not also be cause for justifiable concern? Or was it just follhardy campaign exuberance. Who really knows?

And when OBH's paternal grandmother said she was present during Barack's birth in Kenya, and when OBH's sister, Maya Soetoro, named two different Hawaiian hospitals where Obama may have been born, are not these items cause for concern as well?

And when young Obama was taken to Indonesia by his adoptive Indonesian parent, Leo Soetoro, where he attended a school to which only Indonesian citizens were permitted to enroll and where school records list OBH's citizenship as Indonesian, shouldn't a reasonable person be expected to ask questions? Or was that simply a matter of fraudulent enrollment? Who knows?

Where or where is that elusive Birth Certificate, President-elect Obama? Now, would a good 'ole polished Chicago politican like you be hiding something fro us little 'ole hayseeds? IF NOT, then, as they say in Missouri,"show me!" (Sorry. Couldn't resist that jab. I, like you, don't like being toyed with.)

And to complicate the matter further, as if that's even remotely possible at this juncture--EVEN IF he can prove he was born on US soil, thus a US Citizen, that is but ONE of two eigibility hurdles he must overcome. From a Constitutional standpoint, he may still NOT a "natural born citizen" as required by the Presidential Clause. Since he was born of a US Citizen and an alien father, the latter from which, according to the Constitution's meaning, he derives his "attachment" or "loyalty", and since his faher was a British citizen at the time of Obama's birth in 1961, this would render Obama an ineligible "dual citizen" of the US and Great Britain, most certainly a constitutional no-no within the context of Art I, Sec 2.

As I research this subject further, I will share pertinent "notes" with you. Your comments, questions would be greatly appreciated. They make me think and dig more deeply. And in such sobering matters, thinking and digging are exactly what's required. Not just whimsical ideological blathering and parsing.)

Obama's "Natural Born Citizenship" Issue Still Very Much Alive

Further to my previous post regarding Obama's constitutional eligibility--or ineligibility--to be President and the two more prominent suits filed with the Supreme Court which took issue with his eligibility, if the purpose of the news media is to objectively report the facts, thereby educating "we the people", then the reporting we read in the Democrat & Chronicle's December 9th issue was, as we might have anticipated, very disappointing, indeed.

Headlined "Court Rejects Latest Obama Suit", the writer, one David Savage of the Chicago Tribune, noted that the Donofrio-Wells suit had been turned down by the Supreme Court on December 8th.And so it had.

Savage went on to explain that the basis for the Donofrio suit was "a provision in the Constitution that says no person except a natural born citizen...shall be eligible to the office of the president."

In the next stand-alone paragraph, Savage simplistically and misleadingly asserted that "Any person born in this country is considered under U.S. law to be a natural born citizen." Wow! So who needs the Supreme Court when we have David Savage! There you have it, folks. A done deal. What more is there to say about this subject? Savage is our constitutional savant, the Man!

Arrogance and shoddy journalism at its best. And we wonder why Americans are so uninformed. But, hey, the heretofore off-limits story was at least covered and with fairly bold headlines to boot. That alone borders on the momentous and is justifiable cause for celebration in these halcyon days of political correctness and self-imposed timidity. So, I suppose we should count our blessings as well.

As discussed in my previous post on December 7th, accurately defining "natural born citizen" within the context of one's eligibility to serve as President or Vice President is much more elusive and complex than Savage would have us believe. Clearly, the 'ole boy is a lousy investigative and/or legal journalist. Thus, if finding the truth is our goal, Savage's story most certainly reminds us how very important it is that we supplement any newspaper reading with some careful research of our before drawing any educated conclusions--on ANY subject of ANY value or importance.

By way of update, regarding the Wrotnowski vs Bysiewicz case which I discussed in Update #5 of my previous post, as of tonight there is no word as to its fate at the Supreme Court. Having been rejected by Justice Ginsberg, it was taken up and referred by Justice Scalia to private Supreme Court conference this morning, December 12th. A ruling on whether or not it will be heard by the full court won't be rendered until Monday, December 15th.

Like the Donofrio suit which was rejected after review by Supreme Court conference on Mondy, December 8th, it should be carefully noted that if these suits were frivolous, they would have both been immediately rejected by the court from the outset, thus denying them the dignity of a Supreme Court conference review by all Justices. So, clearly, folks, the facts of these cases are not without merit.

With as much brevity as possible, and as clearly as possible, I will keep you updated on developments as this issue unfolds. Word has it that there could be as many 100+ suits out there being prepared for filing with the Supreme Court. So, it's not over, folks. Not by a long shot.

(For a little more detail and give-and-take regarding this issue, you might want to check out the commentary following my December 7th post on monroerising.com of same title as my post below.)

Will keep you updated.

Murky Birth Certificate Issue Still Unresolved

This will surely ruffle some feathers. So be it.

Nagging and compelling questions regarding Obama's legal qualifications to become Commander-in-Chief continue to pop up on the internet--and not merely on the blogging fringes, but on what appear to be entirely credible and reputable sites as well. The media, of course, is, in typical fashion, entirely ignoring the story. At the considerable risk of being labelled a wild-eyed conspiracy theorist or poor Conservative loser, I thought the matter warranted at least a brief summary here.

FACT: Seventeen law suits in 12 states are underway to compel Obama to provide an "authentic & verifiable U.S. Birth Certificate" to prove he meets all constitutional eligibility rquirements to become President. So far, the Obama team has succcessfully rebuffed these attempts. Why? That's the really nagging question for me.

Currently spearheaded by the U.S. Justice Foundation (USJF), these suits don't appear to be ill-conceived, arbitrary, mean-spirited, myopically partisan efforts to merely disgrace the President-elect or to unfairly invalidate his election by over 60 million American voters. To me anyway, USJF's suit, among others, appears to be a straightforward, fact-based effort to force Obama to validate that he is a natural-born American citizen, one of 3 criteria mandated by Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution. Unfortunately, and quite mysteriously, a similar effort on the part of 17 petitioners around the country is still being rigorously resisted by the Obama legal team. Why?

To date, individual court actions, e.g. the more well-known Berg vs Obama/DNC suit in Pennsylvania, have failed owing to court rulings that the petitioners "lack standing"--NOT that the facts of the suits themselves are without merit or in dispute. And that's an important distinction to bear in mind as this matter unfolds.

If the courts rule that USJF, a well-established entity which one can readily assume possesses sufficient "standing" and stature to bring suit, also "lacks standing" to bring suit in this matter, then shouldn't we all be concerned that "we the people" likely "lack standing" as well? And if we "lack standing" to bring suit on such a seminal issue, then who does? Surely a sobering question.

Should it be discovered that President-elect Obama is not constitutionally qualified to be President well after he has assumed that role, would not all laws, treaties or executive orders he may have had a hand in be constitutionally invalid--in effect, null and void? Not at all a pleasant prospect.

Still at issue, then, is whether Obama is, in fact, and in accordance with the Constitution and prevailing Immigration & Naturalization Service rules and regulations, a natural-born citizen and, if he is, that he has not lost that citizenship when his biological mother married Lolo Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia.

As of this writing, it should be further noted that the Certificate of Live Birth posted on the internet by the Obama team earlier this year does not--according to the Dept. of Hawaiian Home Lands--authenticate Obama's Hawaiian birth. Shouldn't that raise reasonable doubts as to Obama's eligibility? Of course it should. So, why is the Obama team still refusing to produce Obama's birth certificate? If it exists, produce it. If it doesn't exist, explain why.

If it is true that Obama is constitutionally ineligible to be President, much less a Senator from Illinois, the ensuing constitutional crisis will be like none other in our history. Not even the drama of Watergate and Nixon's resignation could compare. And the specter of a possible Biden presidency--if, in fact, that would be constitutionally allowed--with Nancy Pelosi next in line doesn't sit well with me at all.

Since USJF's suit and the others will take years to litigate, of special interest is a little known suit inititated on November 3rd by one Leo Donofrio, a retired lawyer, asking the New Jersey Secretary of State to prohibit Obama AND McCain AND the Socialist Worker Party candidate, Roger Calero, from appearing on the NJ Presidential Ballot on the grounds that none of them had met the natural-born citizenship test to run for President. On December 5th, just 10 days before the Electoral College votes, all U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS)Justices will have met privately to discuss Donofrio's case. (Keep your ear to the ground, folks, and let's honestly hope a constitutional crisis can be averted. Worse, of course, would be a cover-up. We can weather a constitutional crisis, but, in my opinion, a cover-up would be an unmitigated disaster for the Republic.)

Still, the lingering question is why won't the Obama team simply produce the Birth Certificate being requested? Why?

(UPDATE #1: Today, none other than the Washington Times reports that a spokesperson for SCOTUS said a decision on whether to hear Donofrio's case will likely be announced next week. A very interesting development. In other words, SCOTUS hasn't refused to consider the case; it has delayed its decision on the matter. Note: for SCOTUS to consider the case, at least 4 Justices must be on board. Will keep you posted. Again, for the good of the country, let's hope all is on the up-and-up.)

(Update #2: As I delve more deeply, the constitutional ramifications become increasingly fascinating. My cursory research suggests that if Obama is rendered ineligible, either the Electors--for whom we actually voted on Nov 4th--will elect a President, or the election of a President will be left to the House of Representatives. Whichever the case, again let's hope that the facts of the case will determine the electoral outcome, and not political machinations, intrigue and ideology. Let's hope that the Justices, both liberal and conservative, will uphold our Constitution to the letter.)

(Update #3: A new twist: while Donofrio's suit concedes OBH was born in Hawaii, he contends that since his Kenyan father was a British citizen at the time of OBH's birth in 1961 that OBH is a British citizen and not a "natural born U.S. citizen". Note: Kenya was ruled by Britain as British East Africa until its independence in 1963. Donofrio advises other petitioners that the Lolo Soetoro issue is but a distraction. Very interesting.)

(UPDATE #4: without comment, SCOTUS today (12/8) turned down Donofrio's appeal. Thus, a legally binding definition of the Constitution's "natural born citizen" provision as may have been intended by the Framers vs "born in the USA" remains in doubt and is conveniently left for another day, another suit and another Supreme Court. Good luck and Godspeed, President-elect Obama.)

(Update #5: Wow! This is becoming like that proverbial suspense novel one simply can't put down. Anyway this: fast on the heels of Donofrio's suit is the Wrotnowski vs Bysiewicz suit, an end-run to compel SCOTUS to render Obama ineligible for the Presidency. In short, this suit questions the validity of and urges SCOTUS to decide upon the merits of the suit's claim that Pres. Chester A. Arthur was ineligibile to be President on the grounds that his father was, under prevailing US law, a British citizen. Carbon copy of the Donofrio vs Wells claim. If SCOTUS decides against Arthur, then it must decide against Obama. Justice Scalia has reviewed this new suit and is distributing it to whole conference on December 12th, 3 days before the Electors meet. The plot thickens.)

Questions About Bailouts & the Threat of Socialism

What's wrong with offering loans to US automakers on the condition that they commit themselves to immediate chapter 11 reorganization? It seems to me that in doing so the principal sources of their insolvency, i.e. overpaid union workers, princely benefits plans and defective management, can be cut down to manageable size. Result: the industry will finally become more competitive with Toyota, among other auto makers, and American jobs will be protected. Am I being simplistic or is this just plain 'ole commonsense? And especially in these trying times, can or should the unions and managers in Detroit have their frosted cake and eat it too? In short, should failure be rewarded in a free market?

Also, at a time when national solvency itself is at risk, why are the President-elect and his congressional minions pressing for passage of the Jubilee Act (S.2166) and the Global Poverty Act (S.2433), all in an effort to help implement the UN Milennium Development Goal.

The Jubilee Act forgives $75 billion in debts owed to the USA with little convincing proof that recipient countries will not again irresponsibly slip into onerous debt.

And with the idealistic goal of reducing by 1/2 the proportion of people worldwide who live on less than $1/day, the Global Poverty Act dramatically increases US foreign aid by $845 billion over a 13-year period. This is over and above the $65 billion/yr in foreign aid the USA already spends. Can we afford this profligacy? Or is this old humanitarian worker just being cheap and uncaring?

Ultimately, can a vibrant and essentially self-correcting free market operating within the realm of natural economic laws sustain itself without the infusion of legislative mandates and gargantuan financial stimulants? And can untested governmental interventions, aka "fixes", unintentionally (or otherwise) imperil the efficacy of a free market? In our politicians' haste to fix the economy's financial problems, will our free market economy irreversibly morph into Socialism?

My not being an economics major, I'm just not sufficiently knowledgeable to adequately answer these questions myself. Anyone out there have any instructive comments?

My Discouraging Chat with Rep. Slaughter

During a vet recognition luncheon yesterday, I briefly spoke with Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), an invited speaker.

Following the usual pleasantries and before the festivities were underway, I asked Louise what she thought about Sen. Schumer's characterization of conservative talk radio as "pornography", and whether or not that was symptomatic of Democrats' wanting to re-impose the Fairness Doctrine which, to me, was tantamount to breaching free speech. Her carefree demeanor morphed into a decidedly defensive posture and she quickly countered that the doctrine had been around since 1939 and that it was nothing to worry about. (Her logic was interesting. Slavery was the law of the land for a very long time too before that abysmally odious practice was outlawed.) She proceeded to quickly deny that Sen. Schumer said what he had reportedly said and went on to pronounce that the airwaves belong to the people and that equal time for both points of view was needed. Calmly maintaining eye contact and without wavering, I politely pointed out that the free market belonged to "us" all as does "our" choice as to which station "we" can tune in. I asked if she had any problem with "our" exercising "free choice" in this regard and informed her that I periodically listen to Air America, but that owing to the station's sophomoric and mean-spirited dialogue I could never stomach more than 10 minutes at a time and invariably switched to other stations for balance and information. She appeared a tad taken aback by my unwillingness to allow her "congressional awe" to deter me. She countered by saying that the Fairness Doctrine has nothing to do with free speech. "Of course it does," I gently countered.

I then asked her if she planned to push the Fairness Doctrine. She dodged and tried to drift away from me. I asked her to please reflect carefully if that is her position and intention; that her decision should be based upon "country first" and not "party first", noting that that's what we veterans are all about.

Though obviously discomfited by my polite determination, we briefly touched on other subjects, like Obama and how genuinely fearful I am of his presidency. Trying to reassure me on that score, she said that I should just listen to what he says. "If you listen to what he says you have nothing to worry about," she confidently asserted. Momentarily speechless by her exasperatingly vacuous pronouncement, I quickly and calmly assured her that "unlike too many Americans, I HAVE very carefully listened to him and have very carefully examined his record, and that that's precisely why I AM worried."

Realizing she wasn't making any headway on that score, she then asked if I didn't like Medicare and Social Security. I responded that I did, noting that both needed reform and that without proper reform they are both additional train wrecks in the making. As anticipated, she asked if I would have been happy "had the Republicans gotten their way by privatizing Social Security." I courteously parried by noting that the GOP was advocating that only a small percentage of one's social security deduction was to have been privatized, and then only if the taxpayer chose to do so, and that, for me, it's a free choice issue and that I would be surprised if others would have a problem with a person's exercising his or her free choice.

She finally managed to gracefully and deftly drift away. We courteously bid each other farewell, and she took her seat at the head table and I mine with my vet colleagues in the audience.

Unfortunately, this brief exchange served only to reinforce my concerns about the left. For Rep. Slaughter and so many others like her in D.C. I am convinced that narrow ideological interests and party pre-eminence will ALWAYS trump common sense and country. This exchange further convinced me that whenever we have an opportunity to speak with our reps, we should go out of our way to do so. And we should never feel intimidated by their lofty station in life. We should bear in mind that they are but folks not unlike most others we know in our daily lives. They don't have the corner on wisdom, intelligence or reality. But, for these exchanges to be reasonably constructive, no matter how brief they may be, one should always be courteous and certain of one's positions.

Frankly, I wish our exchange yesterday had been heard by everyone in the room. Indeed, everyone in the county. It was revealing and, yes, so very, very unsettling.

Hope & Prayer are Good, But Vigilance is Best

With the heady presidential election behind us, and still somewhat numb and battered from the drubbing, I've just a few things to say for now.

Given the "financial meltdown" erroneously attributed to the GOP, it is nothing short of remarkable that McCain garnered 46% of the vote. Thus, there are at least 55 million Americans who remain deeply skeptical and profoundly concerned about what an Obama presidency might really mean for our country. The truth is that for both Democrats and Republicans alike the president-elect is still very much an unknown quantity, a wild card, an enigma.

Unquestionably, being unified as Americans is always in our best interests. But goody-two-shoes demonstration of unity around this President-elect would be patently myopic and irresponsible. While respectful of the office of the presidency, sensible Americans should continue to be justifiably wary. Being depressed is not in our therapeutic best interests in any event.

Clearly We the People now, more than ever, constitute the only viable check on any socialist excesses which the Obama administration may wish to perpetrate. After all is said and done, a filibuster-proof Senate remains a menacing possibility. So, in the end, it's going to be up us to keep the new administration and congress on an even keel.

My sincerest hope is that Obama will be as pragmatic in his governance as he was in his uniquely successful campaigning, and that fears of his socialist and/or Marxist proclivities have been grossly misguided. Could it be that the hardcore leftist ideological mentoring in his earlier years may not have motivated his single-minded drive to occupy the White House. If true, then perhaps we can reasonably hope that his disturbingly radical associations were either anomalies or merely naive adolescent flirtations, and that they will in no way fundamentally shape his stewardship over the freest, most powerful and most economically vibrant country in the world today.

Let us pray that American traditions and values will be rigorously safeguarded by the new President and that far-left demands and influences will be given short shrift. Let us also pray that Obama's revisionist interpretation of our Constitution, which he will swear to preserve, protect and defend, will not hold sway.

More specifically, it is hoped that Obama, the President, confronted with the harsh reality of national leadership, a faltering economy, and a host of dangerous enemies, will reverse his campaign pledge to slow or drastically curtail new weapons development and the further diminution of our anti-missile defense capability. Let us hope that campaign pledges of tax increases will be either postponed or abandoned, thus ensuring that recession doesn't morph into preventable economic depression.

Among other critical issues, let us also hope that he will in no way help re-impose the God-awful "Fairness Doctrine", unilaterally extend to illegals and terrorists unwarranted and inappropriate rights and privileges, champion debilitating cap-and-trade legislation, or approve passage of the loathsome "Employee Free Choice Act". And let's hope for a commonsense "all-of-the-above" energy policy to free us from foreign energy dependence once and for all.

Ironic that it is now the turn of "country-first" Americans to hope--hope that the "change" about which Obama so eloquently spoke means more than his own personal ambition to be elected President. Let us hope, but let us be ever-vigilant and prepared to stop cold any socialist excesses and heavy-handedness. We've much to lose as a country and, therefore, much to protect.

("The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." Thomas Jefferson)

("I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." Thomas Jefferson)

Insidious Socialist Tide Likely Unstoppable--The Last Gleaming

Since America seems to have been inexorably drawn to the left for a long time now, perhaps the ascendancy to the Oval Office of the most far-left and disturbingly enigmatic politician in our nation's history should not be altogether surprising. Spurred on by the financial market meltdown, the socialist ascendancy in America has, unfortunately, occurred far sooner than I could have anticipated.

How far left have both the political parties moved over the years? Were JFK be alive today, particularly in the area of economic policy, his decidedly conservative governing priniciples would be in stark contrast to the uninspired and progressive big government approach of both political parties today. While JFK would be stunned with the gargantuan size and scope of the federal government today, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would be utterly staggered and brokenhearted.

Dominated by the elitist and progressive Obama-Pelosi-Reid triumverate, the transformation begun on January 20, 2009 to more intrusive big government, suffocatingly higher taxes and spending, further expansion of already bloated bureaucracies and domineering unions, and to the globalist and environmentalist deconstruction of America will be on a fast track. And, of course, our military and weapons development programs, e.g. the anti-missle defense system, will again be eviscerated in order to pay for expanded government giveaways and other vote-mining programs, again rendering our country vulnerable to attack and to Islamofascist subversion from within.

But that's not all. To consolidate power, every attempt, surreptitious and otherwise, will be made by the socialist overseers in D.C. to more aggressively silence opposing political viewpoints and to indoctrinate our youth in socialist precepts. (That process has already been underway with the help of BHO sycophants in public schools and professorial burn-outs from the 60's era.) Political correctness will be more than a nuisance. It will take precedence over commonsense.

Newly appointed Supreme Court justices will be in the Ginsberg, aka ACLU, mold, and efforts will be made to once again curtail our 2nd amendments rights, a unborn babyies right-to-life, and to suppress secret ballot rights of workers. Illegal immigrants will get a free ride (at our expense) and terrorists will be further coddled to the detriment of effective law enforcement and our own security.

A clean sweep of the White House and Congress by an emboldened Democratic Party hijacked and bankrolled by the far-left will usher in the greatest expansion of government since FDR. Our Founding Fathers' principles of small government, states rights, personal liberty and free enterprise will have been dealt a devastating blow from which the nation may not easily--if at all--recover. But fully recover, it probably never will.

If the Democratic Party takeover is complete, failed Euro-style socialism and secularist dominion will have been democratically embraced by a starry-eyed, what's-in-it-for-me electorate seduced by soaring, yet empty and misleading, messianic rhetoric.

An empty-headed pop culture in combination with a craven appetite for bread-and-circuses (entitlements) will have conspired to effectively weaken the very foundations of a once thriving and dynamic experiment in private enterprise and individual freedom. In short, a gullible and misguided American electorate may well have given away all that has made America so profoundly exceptional and uniquely successful. And we'll ALL get hurt in the aftermath.

In the absence of a responsible, dutiful, properly informed and vigilant electorate, the only check on this abuse of power will be conservative talk radio and other divergent media outlets which the Progressive apparachicks are already plotting to shut down with the re-imposition of the so-called Fairness Doctrine. That done, the takeover will be virtually complete. The gallant American experiment, the envy of the world, will be on its way to disrepute and ruin. Like the mighty Roman Empire, our nation's unraveling will have come from within--not from without. We will be our own undoing.

Because most Americans are dominated by wild-eyed emotion, misplaced fears, and/or stubbornly shortsighted ideology, the helm of state is slowly but surely slipping into the hands of self-serving and entirely opportunistic Washington bureaucrats, lobbyists, unionists, environmentalists, and career politicians, many of whom are hostile to America's rich traditions and values and solely dedicated to preserving and expanding their political power at the expense of "we the people". With the complete Democratic takeover in November 2009, the helm of state may have irretrievably slipped from our hands altogether.

As for me, I'm deeply and unashamedly troubled by the prospect of the far-left's occupation of the once venerable Oval Office. The ascendancy of Speaker Pelosi was difficult enough to endure. But, my White House being defiled by a socialist occupation is simply too painful to bear. After the count is in and the left's victory--and America's defeat--is confirmed on November 4th, my flag, which has proudly and prominently flown non-stop from atop my 30-ft flag pole for the last 8 years, will be mercifully, respectfully and quietly retired. I will sorely miss her. Replacing her will be the historical Culpeper Flag ("Give me Liberty or Give me Death, Don't Tread on Me"). Old Glory will again be proudly unfurled on my property only when I can be confident that America has properly cleansed itself of the socialist contagion. Demonstrable and convincing respect on the part of this government for America's cherished traditions and values must be satisfactorily restored before She flies again.

God bless America.

("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." Norman Thomas, Socialist Party of America, circa 1925)

("That government which is big enough to give all you want is big enough to take it all away; that government is best which governs least, because the people discipline themselves." Thomas Jefferson)

("Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it's a dangerous servant and a fearful master." George Washington)

Hello, out there! Is anyone listening to these guys?