OBAMA’S GAMBLE: POSSESSION NINE TENTHS OF THE LAW

3 Comments

Although I”m not for McCain either……you have to wonder why is Obama being so elusive over revealing his birth certificate? Why not just get a copy recently when he was in Hawaii and end the questions….but instead the governor of Hawaii seals his birth certificate and government authorities in Kenya told Worldnet Daily that all documents concerning Obama were under seal until after the U.S. presidential election on November 4, 2008. What’s the big secret?

By: Devvy Kidd


October 30, 2008

© 2008 – NewsWithViews.com

While the disgraced mainstream media continues to ignore the constitutional crisis regarding Obama’s birth certificate, we the people will not be deterred from getting the truth.

Over the past two weeks I have received thousands of emails (which I cannot respond to one on one) from enraged Americans over Judge R. Barclay Surrick’s decision in Berg v. Obama, et al (see here). Americans are energized and faxed their state officials demanding Obama’s eligibility for ballot qualification be investigated. The responses from these elected public servants all provided basically the same response.

As Dr. Edwin Vieira pointed out in my conversation with him yesterday, an individual applying for a hunting license in Virginia must provide a real birth certificate, but an applicant for president of these united States of America doesn’t have to prove citizenship? Excellent point and it appears the states of the Union are willing to allow the DNC to defraud their citizens the right to vote for a legally eligible candidate because they fear riots by a certain race of voters.

The idiom, possession is nine tenths of the law, is EXACTLY what Obama is gambling on right now. If he can stall until November 4th when vote fraud will “elect him” if he’s the choice of the shadow government, Obama figures he’s home free. No doubt Obama is feeling empowered from the extreme bias by corporate media with one newspaper in New Mexico already declaring him the “winner.” In his bloated arrogance, Obama believes that if he’s “declared” the winner, he can just waltz into the Oval office because law enforcement, public officials and federal judges are scared black Americans will burn cities to the ground. In my opinion, they do an injustice to Americans of color. No doubt there are areas in some major cities which have the potential to go off the track, but not everyone of a certain race believes riots are the way to resolve an issue.

Obama’s gamble is that since this big hoax called an election is already underway with early voting, if he “wins” and is sworn into office, possession is nine tenths of the law and the hell with the Constitution. He’s now a step closer. One of the nine lawsuits filed at the state level has now been thrown out:

Judge tosses lawsuit over Obama citizenship

SEATTLE — “A King County judge said Monday that a lawsuit challenging Sen. Barack Obama’s qualifications to be president “may be a positive idea,” but threw it out because the law clearly prevents the secretary of state from getting involved..

Obama was in Hawaii from the afternoon of October 23rd to the morning of October 25th, ostensibly to visit his ailing grandmother. Hawaii is also the state Obama claims is his birthplace. In June, Obama released a copy of a birth certificate which was printed off a laser printer. It carries no state seal and cannot be verified.

While Obama was in Hawaii last week, he could have simply gone down to the Hawaii Department of Health on Friday, October 24th, requested a copy of the state sealed birth certificate, gone outside where the world’s media would be waiting since they follow him everywhere and presented the birth certificate for the world to see. Over, done, finished.

Instead, Obama flies back to the mainland leaving the issue unresolved. WND reports they were told by government authorities in Kenya that all documents concerning Obama were under seal until after the U.S. presidential election on November 4, 2008. What’s the big secret? Perhaps to black mail Obama down the road should he succeed in getting sworn in would be my guess. After all, Obama has a very cozy relationship with Odinga.

No sooner did Obama’s plane lift off the ground to return stateside, Hawaii “Gov. Linda Lingle has placed the candidate’s birth certificate under seal and instructed the state’s Department of Health to make sure no one in the press obtains access to the original document under any circumstances.” The State of Hawaii says a birth certificate can be requested by the individual, authorized family members, authorized legal representative or by a court of law; see here.

When Phil Berg filed his lawsuit over two months ago, Obama could very easily have requested and obtained a ‘vault certificate’. That would have ended all this speculation and lawsuits to get to the truth. Instead, his high paid lawyers, along with defendants DNC and FEC, fought to get Phil’s lawsuit thrown out of court.

Obama’s campaign has been the most corrupt of my lifetime, surpassing even the Clinton duo. According to an investigation done by Kenneth R. Timmerman (see here): “More than half of the whopping $426.9 million Barack Obama has raised has come from small donors whose names the Obama campaign won’t disclose.” I predict once investigations are underway by the FBI, we will see just how much money came in from unlawful sources – especially foreign donors. Obama doesn’t care at this point, he only need make it to coronation day and pay FEC fines later. After all, it’s not his money.

This brings me around to the issue of possible crimes being committed by both Gov. Lingle and Obama. If Gov. Lingle has seen a birth certificate or has been told by an official at the Hawaii Department of Health that “a” document will prove Obama does not meet eligibility requirements under Art. II, Sec.1 of the U.S. Constitution and she remains silent, is she guilty of defrauding the American people? She is the chief law enforcement officer for the State of Hawaii. If Gov. Lingle knows Obama is committing fraud by presenting himself as a natural born U.S. Citizen, isn’t she obligated under the law to expose such fraud?

I consulted with a friend who is a constitutional attorney with 30 years experience in federal court rooms about this very issue. If Obama has knowingly withheld his legal citizenship status in order to run for the presidency and has collected nearly a half billion dollars by perpetrating fraud, can he be charged and indicted?

This is my friend’s expert legal analysis:

“In the late 70s and early 80s, federal prosecutors often sought to indict and convict corrupt state officials by contending that such officials engaged in a “scheme to defraud” the citizens of a particular state of those public servants’ honest services. But in 1987, the Supreme Court held in McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987), that the mail and wire fraud statutes could not be stretched to encompass such a legal theory. In response, Congress adopted 18 U.S.C. §1346 to cure this defect in statutory language. Lots of corrupt local officials have been indicted and convicted for using the mails and wires to carry out a “scheme to defraud” the public via their “dishonest services.” See, as an example, United States v. Frega, 179 F.3d 793 (9th Cir. 1999).

“A great controversy now exists regarding the constitutional qualifications of Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, aka Barry Obama, aka Barack Dunham, aka Barry Dunham, to become President. The Constitution requires that any candidate for the office of President must be a natural born citizen. Yet, there is abundant evidence that this candidate is not natural born and thus is unqualified for that office. To address this specific problem, the Obama campaign has posted on its web site an alleged certified copy of his birth certificate (certificate of live birth?), thus clearly via use of interstate wires informing the American public that Obama does indeed possess the qualifications for President.

As Dr. Edwin Vieira wrote in his legal analysis, October 29, 2008:

Berg v. Obama may very well end up in the Supreme Court. Yet that ought to be unnecessary. For Obama’s moral duty is to produce the evidence of his citizenship sua sponte et instanter. Otherwise, he will be personally responsible for all the consequences of his refusal to do so.

I urge you to read Edwin’s full column because he shreds Judge Surrick’s absurd decision.

Lawsuit update (Hawaii), October 28, 2008: Andy Martin, J. D. and Professor of Law (Adj.):

Dear Judge Ayabe and Hon. Mark Bennett, Attorney General: “I spoke with the court’s judicial assistant on Monday, and today I am FedExing the original Order to Show Cause back to the court so I can obtain a new date. The court has indicated it will not hear me by phone on November 7th, so I must purchase airline tickets and clear several days to make a personal trip to Honolulu. That is a complicated process, particularly given the approaching holiday season. If I am assigned a new hearing date on October 29th (Wednesday), I can arrange to appear in person at a hearing in Honolulu on November 11th-14th (later in the week, Thursday or Friday, is better for me). I am also available November 18-21.”

As you can see, this is well after the massive vote fraud “election” coming up in a few short days.

I spoke briefly with Phil Berg yesterday. He and his colleague did not file their Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court due to time constraints, but will file today. He also mentioned some actions post Nov. 4th, but until we see the “declared” outcome I don’t feel I should comment on that right now. Phil also reinforced that there is no doubt in his mind that there is no birth certificate which will prove Obama’s citizenship and the Governor of Hawaii should be more careful with her choice of words.

While I wanted to send a fax, the FBI operators wouldn’t give me a number, so I sent a letter, along with Edwin’s column (printer friendly) to James Burrus, Chief Investigator of Election Fraud, Federal Bureau of Investigation, J. Edgar Hoover Building, 935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20535-0001. Because time is of the essence, I sent it over night mail; it should arrive in Burrus’ hands by Monday. My letter was short and to the point: Barack Obama refuses to provide proof of citizenship, which he could have done in less than an hour when he was in Hawaii last week. This issue is building into a constitutional crisis and if no one else will investigate, then the FBI has a duty to determine if Obama is committing federal crimes as outlined above. If enough pressure is brought to bear on the FBI, let them issue a subpoena for whatever documents are being held by the Hawaii Department of Health and then let’s see what Obama has to say.


Read entire articla © 2008 – NewsWithViews.com

Banks Pay $108b in Bonuses With Bailout Money Questioned

3 Comments

Gosh……talk about a sweet deal! Get billions from the federal government of taxpayer money and use over $100b of it for bonuses….what a great use of our money to say them from bankruptcy…..I’m about to post another article…Morgan Chase Exec Brags Bailout Is for Takeovers, Restructuring, Not Lending”

By Lorraine Woellert and Christine Harper

Oct. 28 (Bloomberg) — Congressional investigators demanded Citigroup Inc., Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and seven other banks justify billions of dollars in pay and bonuses after they accepted $125 billion as part of a taxpayer-funded bailout.

In letters to the nine firms today, Representative Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said they collectively will pay $108 billion in employee compensation and bonuses in the first nine months of 2008, almost the same amount as last year.

“I question the appropriateness of depleting the capital that taxpayers just injected into the banks through the payment of billions of dollars in bonuses, especially after one of the financial industry’s worst years on record,” Waxman wrote. He cited an Oct. 27 Bloomberg News article detailing how Goldman, Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch & Co. have already accrued $20 billion to pay bonuses this year.

The letter was also sent to Bank of America Corp., Bank of New York Mellon, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, State Street Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co. Waxman asked the firms to supply the information by Nov. 10.

Citigroup “will adhere to the requirements in the government program including restrictions on executive compensation,” said Michael Hanretta, a New York-based spokesman of the bank, in an e-mail.

Spokespeople for the other firms declined to comment or didn’t immediately reply to requests for comment.

Senator Olympia Snowe, a Maine Republican, issued a statement today saying she was “deeply frustrated by Wall Street’s plan to distribute billions of dollars” in pay and bonuses. “Financial institutions that have accepted federal assistance should be required to face consequences from their earlier bad decisions and cancel these bonuses,” she said.

Waxman also asked for the number of employees paid or projected to be paid more than $500,000, as well as the total and projected compensation for the banks’ 10 highest-paid employees.

Great Expectations

More than one-third of Wall Street employees surveyed by a recruitment Web site expect a bigger bonus this year than last year even amid the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

The online survey of 1,300 people was conducted between Oct. 13 and Oct. 21, according to an e-mailed statement from eFinancialCareers, owned by New York-based Dice Holdings Inc.

To contact the reporters on this story: Lorraine Woellert in Washington at lwoellert@bloomberg.net; Christine Harper in New York at charper@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: October 28, 2008 22:03 EDT

Read entire article at Bloomberg.com

Morgan Chase Exec Brags Bailout Is for Takeovers Not Lending

5 Comments

As you read this you might be interested to know that the depression in 1929 was also caused by the bankers doing pretty much the same thing then.……….have we the U.S. citizens learned anything from the past……..well we might have if we’d been told the truth in the first place.

Oct. 26, 2008 (EIRNS)—In an internal bank conference call last week, a JP Morgan Chase executive, unaware that his conversation would be heard and published by a reporter, confirmed exactly what Lyndon LaRouche has said about the Hank Paulson bail-out: It has nothing remotely to do with extending lending to the U.S. economy, but is concerned with the Mussolini-like corporatist restructuring of the U.S. banking system, turning over the “smaller banks” to the totally bankrupt big banks, so that they can digest the smaller banks’ assets, and survive perhaps a few more weeks.

New York Times reporter Joe Nocera obtained the call-in phone number on which the Oct. 17 Morgan Chase conference call took place, only 4 days after JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon had agreed to take $25 billion in a U.S. government capital injection. In an article in the Oct. 25 Times, entitled “So When Will Banks Give Loans?” Nocera quoted the unnamed JP Morgan Chase executive who gave the conference call, as follows:

“Twenty-five billion dollars is obviously going to help the folks who are struggling more than Chase,” he began. “What we do think it will help us do, is perhaps be a little bit more active on the acquisition side, or opportunistic side, for some banks who are still struggling. And I would not assume that we are done on the acquisition side, just because of the Washington Mutual and Bear Stearns mergers. I think there are going to be some great opportunities for us to grow in this environment, and I think we have an opportunity to use that $25 billion in that way. And obviously depending on whether recession turns into depression or what happens in the future, you know, we have that as a backstop.” [emphasis added]

Read the entire article at Executive Intelligence Review:

‘Obamamania’ may assault Second Amendment, bring Fairness Doctrine

Comments Off

I know I’ve posted one article already on the “fairness doctrine”, but this one includes more “stuff” Obama could likely do as far as new laws and legislation that could be passed………Hold on to your hats as you read this one!

By Douglas Wellman Sr.

For The News-Sentinel

“Obamamania” having swept the nation through the anointing of Barack Obama by the liberal media and the money from likeminded socialists, it is, indeed, possible Obama will be our next president. Obama’s election will bring about an assault on many of our cherished American rights and freedoms.

I predict one of the first things we see will be the most draconian gun control bill introduced by Sen. Schumer (D-N.Y.) that will be supported by Obama. I predict this bill will make the unconstitutional gun ban enacted in 1994 and dubbed the “Clinton gun ban” look mild.

Obama’s record on the Second Amendment is as follows: 1. He has supported a complete ban on handguns; 2. He voted to ban most rifle ammunition; 3. He refused to sign a brief supporting an individual right in the “Heller” case; 4. He supported the lawsuits that were designed to destroy the firearm industry; 5. He opposes the right to carry for self-defense; 6. He supports gun registration (which in Germany before WWII was used to disarm the Jews and used in Australia to disarm its citizens); 7. He served on the board of the Joyce Foundation, a rabidly anti-Second Amendment organization; 8. He voted to allow prosecution of citizens for using firearms for self-defense in their own homes.

These are just a few of the problematic facts relating to Obama’s stand on the Second Amendment. He takes these positions despite the fact that wherever concealed- carry laws have been adopted, there has been a reduction in crime. You can also look forward to an international gun ban treaty, being funded by self-anointed messiah George Soros and put together by Rebecca Peters, who was behind the gun confiscation in Australia, to be presented eventually to the Senate for ratification.

Sadly, Obama’s position on the Second Amendment wasn’t even addressed in the debates. The reason for this is that when all of the facts are known, it’s a losing cause for the liberals.

You can also look for the liberals in Congress to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine will be an attempt to stifle conservative views by forcing the stations that air talk radio to provide equal airtime to the liberal viewpoints, which are everywhere every day except for talk radio.

The liberals for years have had control of the mainstream media. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The L.A. Times, USA Today, etc., have spewed forth liberal propaganda for years. The problem for them now is that there is talk radio and the Internet. They can’t stand the fact that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingram, Glen Beck and others have a venue to air their opinions. They are upset that many of their pet programs went down in defeat because they were exposed for what they were. How many times has the switchboard in Washington, D.C., been shut down with such a large volume of callers forcing a change in direction?

The Internet provided the platform to expose Dan Rather using a forged document in an attempt to influence an election.

Liberals attempted to compete in the market with conservative talk radio with their “Air America.” George Soros also kicked in several million dollars to get it off the ground. It failed because no one was listening. They could not get advertising as a result.

And let us not forget Obama’s plan for economic redistribution. Taking Americans’ hard-earned money and giving it to someone else. That is the only way he can give tax cuts to 95 percent of Americans.

Our Constitution will be under assault as it never has been before. James Madison, chief architect of the Constitution and our fourth president, said the following: “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

Be concerned. Be very concerned.

Douglas H. Wellman Sr. is a resident of Fort Wayne.

Most Presidents Ignore the Constitution

Comments Off

This is an excellent article by Andrew Napolitano whom you can watch on Fox News at times…..this article is from the Wall Street Journal and  Napolitano pulls no punches here:

The government we have today is something the Founders could never have imagined.

In a radio interview in 2001, then-Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama noted — somewhat ruefully — that the same Supreme Court that ordered political and educational equality in the 1960s and 1970s did not bring about economic equality as well. Although Mr. Obama said he could come up with arguments for the constitutionality of such action, the plain meaning of the Constitution quite obviously prohibits it.

[Commentary] Getty Images

FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court.

Mr. Obama is hardly alone in his expansive view of legitimate government. During the past month, Sen. John McCain (who, like Sen. Obama, voted in favor of the $700 billion bank bailout) has been advocating that $300 billion be spent to pay the monthly mortgage payments of those in danger of foreclosure. The federal government is legally powerless to do that, as well.

When Franklin Delano Roosevelt first proposed legislation that authorized the secretary of agriculture to engage in Soviet-style central planning — a program so rigid that it regulated how much wheat a homeowner could grow for his own family’s consumption — he rejected arguments of unconstitutionality. He proclaimed that the Constitution was “quaint” and written in the “horse and buggy era,” and predicted the public and the courts would agree with him. (Horse and buggy era….now that sounds familar doesn’t it! Now days they tell us the Constitution is flexible and can change with the times…..that’s not what the founding fathers thought.)

Remember that FDR had taken — and either Mr. Obama or Mr. McCain will soon take — the oath to uphold that old-fashioned document, the one from which all presidential powers come.

Unfortunately, these presidential attitudes about the Constitution are par for the course. Beginning with John Adams, and proceeding to Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and George W. Bush, Congress has enacted and the president has signed laws that criminalized political speech, suspended habeas corpus, compelled support for war, forbade freedom of contract, allowed the government to spy on Americans without a search warrant, and used taxpayer dollars to shore up failing private banks.

All of this legislation — merely tips of an unconstitutional Big Government iceberg — is so obviously in conflict with the plain words of the Constitution that one wonders how Congress gets away with it.

In virtually every generation and during virtually every presidency (Jefferson, Jackson and Cleveland are exceptions that come to mind) the popular branches of government have expanded their power. The air you breathe, the water you drink, the size of your toilet tank, the water pressure in your shower, the words you can speak under oath and in private, how your physician treats your illness, what your children study in grade school, how fast you can drive your car, and what you can drink before you drive it are all regulated by federal law. Congress has enacted over 4,000 federal crimes and written or authorized over one million pages of laws and regulations. Worse, we are expected by law to understand all of it.

The truth is that the Constitution grants Congress 17 specific (or “delegated”) powers. And it commands in the Ninth and 10th Amendments that the powers not articulated and thus not delegated by the Constitution to Congress be reserved to the states and the people.

What’s more, Congress can only use its delegated powers to legislate for the general welfare, meaning it cannot spend tax dollars on individuals or selected entities, but only for all of us. That is, it must spend in such a manner — a post office, a military installation, a courthouse, for example — that directly enhances everyone’s welfare within the 17 delegated areas of congressional authority.

And Congress cannot deny the equal protection of the laws. Thus, it must treat similarly situated persons or entities in a similar manner. It cannot write laws that favor its political friends and burden its political enemies.

There is no power in the Constitution for the federal government to enter the marketplace since, when it does, it will favor itself over its competition. The Contracts Clause (the states cannot interfere with private contracts, like mortgages), the Takings Clause (no government can take away property, like real estate or shares of stock, without paying a fair market value for it and putting it to a public use), and the Due Process Clause (no government can take away a right or obligation, like collecting or paying a debt, or enforcing a contract, without a fair trial) together mandate a free market, regulated only to keep it fair and competitive.

It is clear that the Framers wrote a Constitution as a result of which contracts would be enforced, risk would be real, choices would be free and have consequences, and private property would be sacrosanct.

The $700 billion bailout of large banks (click here) that Congress recently enacted runs afoul of virtually all these constitutional principles. It directly benefits a few, not everyone. We already know that the favored banks that received cash from taxpayers have used it to retire their own debt. It is private welfare. It violates the principle of equal protection: Why help Bank of America and not Lehman Brothers? It permits federal ownership of assets or debt that puts the government at odds with others in the free market. It permits the government to tilt the playing field to favor its patrons (like J.P. Morgan Chase, in which it has invested taxpayer dollars) and to disfavor those who compete with its patrons (like the perfectly lawful hedge funds which will not have the taxpayers relieve their debts).

Perhaps the only public agreement that Jefferson and Hamilton had about the Constitution was that the federal Treasury would be raided and the free market would expire if the Treasury became a public trough. If it does, the voters will send to Congress those whom they expect will fleece the Treasury for them. That’s why the Founders wrote such strict legislating and spending limitations into the Constitution.

Everyone in government takes an oath to uphold the Constitution. But few do so. Do the people we send to the federal government recognize any limits today on Congress’s power to legislate? The answer is: Yes, their own perception of whatever they can get away with.

Mr. Napolitano, who served on the bench of the Superior Court of New Jersey between 1987 and 1995, is the senior judicial analyst at the Fox News Channel. His latest book is “A Nation of Sheep” (Nelson, 2007).

Read the article at the Wall Street Journal .com

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 396 other followers