Monthly Archives: February 2009
Credible sources have confirmed that AIG is not following capitalistic finance rules. They are now Sharia Finance Compliant, which puts all AIG investments into the hands of Islam. Our National Govt is training workers in Sharia Compliant Finance. What for?
Here is a more telling history of AIG….and, exactly who are we bailing out here and why are we training govt workers on Islamic finance laws?
There’s More at Work Here…than meets the eye.
China is calling the shots on this one.
AIG was founded in China in the 1900s, then kicked out. In the early 90s, AIG wanted back in to China and China wanted to join the WTO. Greenspan make something like 35 trips to China negotiating the deal. China wanted the customary 50 percent ownership of AIG as a foreign company, but they had to give up all ownership to get into the WTO. Now AIG is the only 100 foreign-owned company operating in China. And the largest.
This is where it gets bad.
Basically, the Chinese are savers, so AIG captured almost all of China’s private money, setting up a pension fund for the Chinese in the late 90s. They’re like the Social Security system. AIG also insures China’s own banking investments. When AIG faltered last fall, it almost brought down the Hong Kong Exchange.
We immediately got our marching orders from China on the AIG bailouts.
So, what was Hillary really talking with China about buying treasuries about the other day?
Read the rest of the AIG history…here
In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets — including the New York metropolitan region — will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.
Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates — anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.
”Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990’s by reducing down payment requirements,” said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae’s chairman and chief executive officer. ”Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.”
Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.
In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980’s.
”From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,” said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ”If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.”
Under Fannie Mae’s pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 — a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.
Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.
Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.
Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990’s. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University’s Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.
In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent.
Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.
In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.
The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.
In Obama’s weekly radio address, he announced:
“Never before in our history has a tax cut taken effect faster or gone to so many hardworking Americans”
“Making Work Pay” tax break will affect 95 percent of working families, and, in six weeks’ time, a typical family will start taking home at least $65 more every month.”
This is an outright lie and distortion of the truth.
Fact: The majority of the 95% he talks about do not even pay taxes and will not even see a difference.
Fact: The majority of the ones he is talking about will be the ones lined up for the extended unemployment pay or increased welfare benefits. Benefits that will come at a very high price to small business owners who are already struggling.
Fact: Expanding Government has been proven to hinder capital growth, thus prolonging a recession.
It also still continues to dumbfound me, how these elected officials think it is fiscally responsible to “CHARGE” a debt on the “taxpayer credit card”. The country is “BROKE”, when will they get it!!!
This week, legislaters in Pierre will be meeting to discuss how to best implement any funds Gov. Rounds takes from “US”. Please call, e-mail and fax your concerns. And better yet, if you are in the area, drop by and see them personally. ( SD Stimulus Planning Committee )
Fact: For states to create the jobs that Obama claims will be created, the state will have to spend 87% of the total amount, of the Stimulus they receive, just for payroll, taxes and emplyee benefits. That is 87% before any govt red tape or construction costs are factored in.
Fact: The money will “NOT” be going for job creation and capital stimulation, this is “WELFARE” at it’s best!!!
Governors of LA & MS are already saying they will not make any changes to their states unemployment codes so as to not further burden small business owners. I believe SD should follow suit. It is the moral and ethically responsible thing to do.
Fact: If you give a man a fish, he eats for a day. If you teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime.
Update ~ Don’t get too comfortable with that extra few dollars(a Lincoln at best) a week. It will be gone very soon and you will be in the “other” majority or looking to add another job to cover Obama’s dreams of “Big Brother” . . .
WASHINGTON (AP)— President Barack Obama wants to cut the federal deficit in half by the end of his first term. Read the whole story at AP for the full depth of Obama’s ignorance and the fact that he has absolutely “NO” experience running anything that requires balancing a budget.
This week, Obama will start the dialogue on how to increase coverage, restrain costs and improve quality.
Whether a bill can get through Congress and to Obama this year is uncertain. For half a century, the track record on health care has been one of missed opportunities, spectacular failures and hard-won incremental gains.
Obama plans to stress the need for major changes in his address to Congress on Tuesday, administration officials say. He quickly will follow up with a budget that includes a commitment to expand coverage for the uninsured. A White House summit on health care is being planned in coming weeks.
read full story here ——> 2009 The Associated Press
I feel as though I am chained down being forced to watch a never ending speech by the TIC (teleprompter in chief) and the only thing I gain from it is a bad case of whiplash.
From here on in, I am going to call them by what they really are: the “Fascist” and the”Conservative”.
The “Fascist”, and I do not use that term loosely, would like to see that every aspect of our lives are controlled by a Hierarchy aka tyranny at its peak.
Now while some Constitutional scholars would like us to believe that we are in a soft tyranny, I couldn’t disagree more. When Congress has passed legislation or has legislation waiting to pass that would:
“assume control of what and how we eat or drink, what is the best course for treating our health needs, what kind of vehicle we drive, what legal pleasures/sins we may partake in before being fined or maybe even jailed, how we speak about our beliefs and values in public or private lest we offend some pedophile and are subjected to lawsuits or incarceration, legislation pertaining to how we are no longer trustworthy to protect our own homes and property, how many bedrooms you have and who and how many sleep in them(from the TIC’s new and improved census survey), and finally, that same government running roughshod over private corporations in the guise of protecting the taxpayer”
frankly, I see this as “America teetering on the brink” of a hard tyranny.
OK, now you are saying, “oh please, you’re being too harsh, it’s just socialism”.
I would agree to that had everything just ended with the healthcare reform. But instead, I refer you back to those things that have come down the pike since the passing of the C.R.A.P. (Congressional Relief Action Program) in February with all its hidden agenda items and then some that were not even voted on that were added after the vote. (You can thank Rahmbo for the add-ons. It was NO mistake that TIC took off for the Chicago get-a-way after he touted how urgent the passing of this C.R.A.P. was and left his Chicagoan Gangster Political Hit-man in charge of the office.)
Furthermore, nothing this new administration is doing (or plans to do) is instilling confidence into our Republic and bolstering a renewed energy that is needed to lift us out of this government provoked/sustained recession. Instead he is accomplishing most of his legislative triumphs by revoking the Constitution and using Hierarchy/Chicago-Style gangster thuggery.
Why keep things so bad? Because that is how Fascists want it. It’s just another step forward towards the accomplishment of their final take-over and the total dismantling of our Capitalist Society.
How did they grasp that power?
Because these so-called “Conservatives” are not even close to making sure the Constitution is being protected. After they abandoned the laws to keep big government from forming, all the while aiding and abetting in over stepping their powers, they now have abandoned the prima-fascia law that was put in place to keep such a tyrant from holding the most powerful office of our Republic:
Article II, Section I, Clause V of the Constitution
The “Conservatives” who were elected and have taken the oath to protect and defend the constitution have now become the “CINO’s”, (Conservatives in Name Only). And if this isn’t bad enough, the so-called Constitutional scholars have joined them. They are no better to us at this point than the LSM (Lame Stream Media).
Article II, Section I, Clause V of the Constitution was our last vice and they have managed to shred it to smithereens.
When our founding fathers and framers of the Constitution were corresponding, many letters were written and referenced before finalizing this MOST VITAL clause. In fact, it was the most debated and the one clause that the framers spent the most time on.
The following is a fraction of the historical facts I have. They can also be found at the United States Library of Congress:
Historical Fact #1: On July 25, 1787, John Jay, the 1st Chief Justice of the Supreme Court under the new Republic and also the President of the Continental Congress, wrote to George Washington the following:
“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our National Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American Army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born citizen.”
Historical Fact #2: We know that the framers referenced on the “Laws of Nations” when drafting the Constitution so what does that have to say to the intent of framers in regards to the definition of “natural born citizen”. Even today, the US Supreme court refers back to the “Laws of Nations” when interpreting the intent of the framers who drafted the Constitution:
“The citizens are the members of society, bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or “natural born” citizen, are those born in the country, of parents [emphasis added on plural, meaning both father and mother] who are citizens. As society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise by the childhood of children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is suppose to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born to a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
Historical Fact #3: Additionally, in 1800, Charles Pinckney ( Continental Congress (1777-78 and 1784-87) and S.C. state legislature (1779-80, 1786-89, and 1792-96) said the presidential eligibility clause was designed “to insure…attachment to the country”:
“What better way to insure attachment to the country than to require the President to have his American citizenship through his American Father and not through a foreign father. Any child can be born anywhere in the country and be removed by their father to be raised in his native country. The risks would be for the child to return later in life to reside in this country bringing with him foreign influences and intrigues.”
Historical Fact #4: Further research brings us to St. George Tucker (Fourteenth and Fifteenth Congresses (March 4, 1815-March 3, 1819); chairman, Committee on District of Columbia (Fourteenth Congress), Committee on Expenditures on Public Buildings (Fifteenth Congress); author of Tucker’s Commentaries and of a treatise on natural law and on the formation of the Constitution of the United States and State senate, 1819-1823; chancellor of the fourth judicial district of Virginia 1824-1831):
“The Provision in the Constitution which requires that the President shall be a “natural born” citizen, unless he were a citizen of the United States when the Constitution was adopted, is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom.
The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would render him a member of a fraternity of the crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora’s Box.”
Historical Fact #5: Under the old English common law doctrine of natural-born subject, birth itself was an act of naturalization that required no prior consent or demanded allegiance to the nation in advance. Furthermore, British at birth was viewed as enjoining a “perpetual allegiance” upon all that could never be severed or altered by any change of time or act of anyone. England’s “perpetual allegiance” due from birth was extremely unpopular in this country; often referred to as absurd barbarism, or simply perpetual nonsense. America went to war with England over this doctrine behind “natural-born subject” in June of 1812.
Having won the Revolutionary war and having citizenship under the sovereign nation of the United States, England still considered them British Subjects and was still holding them to British laws. The newly freed American citizens could not travel to England to visit family due to the fact that they would be arrested. Also, because of the British blockades of the American ports where they would stop every ship and remove any person found to be British born and force them into military service on behalf of the crown, the new American citizens went that final step to completely sever any allegiance to the crown that England tried to hold them to.
So, what have we learned in the 1stfive historical facts that we must apply to Barack Hussein Obama aka Berry Hussein Soetoro here-in referred to as BHO aka BHS?
Complacent and Ignorant citizens elected into the most powerful office of this country a man, who at birth was a “British Subject” and for all we know, still is today since he has NEVER renounced that citizenship formally.
But, even if he had renounced those citizenships when he came of age in 1979, under the definition, he could have never held any other US citizenship, other than that of, “citizen by way of birth on the soil only” under the 14th Amendment which we will get to shortly.
This man spent the most impressionable years of his life fathered by 2 foreigners, one British/Kenyan and the other Indonesian. The rest of his youth he spent under the wing of a “Proud Communist” grandfather and also under the wing of the county’s most renowned communist at the time, Frank Marshall Davis, who fled the mainland for Hawaii to avoid prosecution. So, for all of BHO aka BHS’s young life before he came of age, he either was under the wing of foreigners or citizens who hated America and the Constitution and fought politically to undermine the country and the Constitution until the day they died.
Now some say that because of the Indonesian citizenship, he was automatically disqualified, but this is where I disagree with those claims.
Citizenship at birth can never be changed. History and research are very clear on this point. However, the actions of the person once they become of age, come into play as to qualifications for any elected office, thus the reason for the 14 year requirement in Article II, Section 1, Clause V.
To be qualified, the person MUST have formally renounced any other citizenship before that 14 yr qualification, therefore leaving only their “natural-born” US citizenship having jurisdiction over them. For BHO aka BHS, since he was an Illinois State Senator 1st, and had he been a “natural born” citizen, he would have had to formally renounce his dual citizenship no later than 1991, thus leaving only his US citizenship that he owed allegiance to. Unfortunately for BHO, there are records showing he traveled on a foreign passport during his term in the Illinois state senate and possibly also during his term as a US Senator for the state of Illinois. But more importantly, there are no records that can be found of BHO aka BHS formally renouncing any of his prior citizenships to the US State Dept. anytime between 1979 and 1991 that would have made him eligible to hold any elected office. To this day, BHO aka BHS still holds multiple citizenships.
Thus we are back to: “Why BHO aka BHS cannot be a “natural born” citizen under the 14th Amendment”.
Historical Fact #6: According to the US Legislature, the definition of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was defined as “Not owing allegiance to anybody else”. Therefore, that rule prevents us from interpreting “natural born” under the 14thAmendment because it eliminates the possibility of a child being born with more than one allegiance. Remember, BHO aka BHS held dual allegiances at birth. He, himself has publically acknowledged the fact that his father was a British Subject at the time of BHO’s birth, therefore he, himself was also a British subject at birth.
The purpose of the Fourteenth Amendments first section was to end the denial of those fundamental rights that belong to all citizens by virtue of their citizenship under Article IV, Sec. II of the U.S. Constitution, it was imperative to first define citizenship of the United States. Otherwise, a State could refuse to recognize newly emancipated slaves as citizens by withholding the right to sue, make contracts, due process, purchase property, etc. Therefore, the Fourteenth Amendment acts to recognize all persons naturalized or born to citizens of the United States as citizens.
The primary author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (elected as a Whig to the Twenty-seventh Congress (March 4, 1841-March 3, 1843); elected as a Republican to the United States Senate to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Kinsley S. Bingham; reelected in 1865 and served from January 17, 1862, to March 3, 1871), said during the drafting:
“The word jurisdiction, as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the Executive, or by the Judicial Department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States.”
When we look further into the study of the 14th Amendment’s drafting, we find a ruling from US Attorney General, George Williams (1865 to 1871 Williams served as United States Senator from Oregon. In 1871 he was a member of the commission to settle the Alabama claims from the Treaty of Washington. December 14, 1871-1875; Attorney General of the United States). George was a US Senator at the time of the drafting of the 14th Amendment:
“The word “jurisdiction” under the 14th Amendment “must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment. “Political and military rights and duties” do not pertain to anyone else.”
Essentially, what this means is that in order to be a “citizen” under the 14th Amendment, one must renounce any other allegiances so that their US citizenship is solely under the “jurisdiction” of the United States. In fact, controversy at the time due to dual allegiances was so great that Congress, in a joint congressional report on June 22, 1874 said:
“The United States have not recognized double allegiance”
In 1866, under Sec. 1992 of the revised statutes, the same Congress confirmed and adopted as law the principle in regards to determining citizenship at the time of birth:
“All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be “citizens” of the United States.”[note the word citizen, not “natural born citizen”]
Rep. Bingham commenting on Sec. 1992 said during debate on the difference between ‘natural born” and ‘born” citizenships under the 14th Amendment:
“It means every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of “parents” [emphasis plural] not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of our Constitution itself, a “natural born” citizen.”
What Bingham was referring to here was the fact that, by the laws of nature, a “natural born” citizen needed “NO” amendment to confer their US citizenship upon them, they already are born owing “NO” allegiance to any other jurisdiction, so the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to further define citizenship of children born to a parent or parents who had not yet finalized their naturalization process, which is the only other type of citizenship one can obtain under the 14th Amendment. “Naturalized” meaning, renouncing any and all allegiance to a foreign sovereignty; swearing to total and complete allegiance to the United States willingly; with the intent to settle permanently in the United States.
Therefore, it does not require a leap of faith to understand what persons, other than citizens themselves, under the Fourteenth Amendment are citizens of the United States by birth: Those aliens who have come with the intent to become U.S. citizens, who had first complied with the laws of naturalization in declaring their intent and renounce all prior allegiances.
Since BHO aka BHS’s father was never a citizen, never applied for citizenship and had no intent of becoming a US citizenship since he was here on a student visa under the conditions that he return and work for the Kenyan government as payment for that schooling, we can without a doubt say:
Yes, BHO may be a citizen under the 14th, but according to definition of ‘natural born citizen” by the US Legislature and the intent of the framers, BHO aka BHS “never” could have met the required qualification for a President who must be a “natural born” citizen. AND HE KNOWS IT!!!
Now that you have a grasp of the difference between a “natural born” citizen, a citizen and a “naturalized” citizen, the only citizenships one can claim under the 14th Amendment and the reason behind it to further define citizens referred to in Article IV, Section II of the Constitution, I have a couple more facts that go prove that today’s Congress is fully aware and are hiding it from the general public.
Congressional Fact #1:
H.J.Res. 88: A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FOREIGN-BORN CITIZENS TO BE PRESIDENT. HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
I am pretty sure they were gearing up to make way for the Kennedy’s new “whipping boy”, Schwarzenegger, to run for office and although this was back in 2000, it still goes to the point of the extent of the knowledge our elected officials DO KNOW the intent of the framers regarding “natural born” citizen.
A non-binding (will not hold up in a court of law), bi-partisan resolution, its only purpose is to say “In their Opinion” John Sidney McCain is a natural born citizen:
Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a “natural born Citizen” of the United States;
Whereas the term “natural born Citizen”, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States; [ not in the literal sense, but we all know these elected officials fully know the intent and the meaning since it is on record in legislation regarding the 14th Amendment]
Whereas there is “no evidence of the intention” of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President; [my personal fav of all the whereases ( refer to Dept of States Foreign Affairs Manual 7FAM1116.1-4c) could they really be this arrogant or ignorant, choose your poision]
Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the “natural born Citizen” clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term “natural born Citizen”; [ ok, they just said there was no evidence to the intent in the former whereas, refer to Historical Fact #6]
Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders; [ ok, they got me on this one, our military are vital but in “NO” way does it make them immune from the rule of law as set forth in the Constitution]
Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and [ yes, those that were citizens “AT THE TIME” of the adoption of the Constitution, nearly wet myself over this one, tee hee hee, they really are reaching here and it shows their desperation]
Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be itResolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a “natural born Citizen” under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. [ wrong again, he was born in a Panama Hosp, the military hosp was not built until a few yrs later]
Permit me to add to this a bit for further clarity. Since it’s not legal, nor is it binding and only cleverly describes the opinions of those who stand to benefit from it, I won’t be breaking any laws. Also, make a mental note that this “opinion” was passed by a “unanimous consent vote” aka no one in the room, the name of the bill is read and the gavel goes down and the acting speaker says “passed unanimously”:
Whereas, this Congress is corrupt and to get BHO aka BHS slid through and on the Democrat ticket, and to the fact that the Democrats rose so much stink about McCain’s ineligibility to the point that McCain released all his records: medical, vault copy of his BC, all school records, including his West Point records that were not so flattering;
Whereas BHO aka BHS has spent over a half million dollars of his 2008 campaign funds fighting to keep ALL his records sealed from the public and his hired thugs have formally threatened those who dare to push for the release of them;
Whereas there are several lawsuits still active requesting these documents be released;
Whereas, additional lawsuits continue to arise forcing BHO aka BHS to keep his hired law thugs on the dole;
Whereas BHO aka BHS must continue to heavily push for continued contributions to his campaign even though the election is over;
Whereas, Two of the co-sponsors of the non-binding, “Unconstitutional” Resolution that is worth less that the paper it is printed on include none other than one Hillary Rodham Clinton and one Barack H Obama and finally; and
Whereas you will “NOT” find a single record of this “unanimous consent” vote online at the Senate voting records page
Still want more? Oh, I know you do so here it just one more and it is one of the juicy kind:
A lawyer in a Chicago law firm whose partner served on a finance committee for then Sen. Obama has advocated for the elimination of the U.S. Constitution’ s requirement that a president be a “natural-born” citizen, calling the requirement “stupid” and asserting it discriminates, is outdated and undemocratic.
The paper was written in 2006 by Sarah Herlihy, just two years after Obama had won a landslide election in Illinois to the U.S. Senate. Herlihy is listed as an associate at the Chicago firm of Kirkland & Ellis.
Herlihy’s published paper reveals that the requirement likely was considered in a negative light by organizations linked to Obama in the months before he announced in 2007 his candidacy for the presidency.
“The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the ‘stupidest provision’ in the Constitution, “undecidedly un-American, ” “blatantly discriminatory, ” and the “Constitution’ s worst provision,” Herlihy begins in her introduction to the paper titled, “Amending the Natural Born Citizen Requirement: Globalization as the Impetus and the Obstacle.”
“The current American perceptions about the effects of globalization and the misunderstanding about what globalization actually is will result in Americans deciding that naturalized citizens should not be president because this would, in effect, be promoting globalization, Herlihy wrote.
Oh, but wait, it gets better:
She blamed support for the constitutional provision on “fear, racism, religious intolerance, or blind faith in the decisions of the Founding Fathers.”
Herlihy said the constitutional provision simply is outdated:
“Considering that the Founding Fathers presumably included the natural born citizen clause in the Constitution partly out of fear of foreign subversion, the current stability of the American government and the intense media scrutiny of presidential candidates virtually eliminates the possibility of a ‘foreigner’ coming to America, becoming a naturalized citizen, generating enough public support to become president, and somehow using the presidency to directly benefit his homeland,” she wrote.
“The natural born citizen clause of the United States Constitution should be repealed for numerous reasons. Limiting presidential eligibility to natural born citizens discriminates against naturalized citizens, is outdated and undemocratic, and incorrectly assumes that birthplace is a proxy for loyalty,” she wrote.
Many of the reasons for keeping the limit, she wrote, “are based primarily on emotion.”
It looks like Obama’s camp looked into the matter of ‘natural born’ back as early as 2006. What is even more disturbing is that it would appear that they are following the thought of:
“If the facts do not support the theory, Destroy the facts!”
The online pdf has been scrubbed, but you can read the law review in its entirety here: Herlihy, natural born citizen is stupid clause
There you have it my fellow citizens, you have been duped by those who took an oath to abide by, protect and defend the Constitution. Doesn’t it just make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that they are looking out for your best interest?
You also, now know the 1stof the many ugly truths as to why BHO aka BHS is having such a hard time with foreign policy that is leaving even the toughest of our brave military personnel quaking in their boots.
He hasn’t figured out which one, of the sovereign nations he holds allegiance to, is the most important/beneficial to his agenda as of yet. His “Global Campaign Tour of 2008”, where he made sure to stop in communist country as well as Muslim country announcing to all he is a “global citizen” (in which he “literally” is according to court and government records) was my 1st clue that prompted the old saying: “Houston, we have a problem”.
His constant spewing, that we all must become “global citizens” in his agenda to “re-make America” and save the world, sent shivers down my spine and into full throttle mode digging for information on this enigma that had swept so many citizens off their feet like they were at a “Jim Jones revival”.
So, next time you have contact or correspondence with our state or US elected officials, don’t be shy, go ahead and ask them: “Are you a “Fascist” or a “Conservative”?” I predict they will certainly claim that they are the later, so take them to task. They “ALL” have this information and much, much more. I know, because I provided it to them, all “130 pages” of a very detailed report that included the official government docs. Everything I warned them on last fall is NOW happening and they still refuse to uphold their oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution.
So, thanks for listening and now please excuse me while I take my neck brace off so I can shower to try and scrub some of the scum, that this massive corrupt Congress has strewn all over us, down into the proverbial cesspool in the sewer where it belongs . . . Isn’t 2010 here yet?
L. A. Melin 5/15/2009 http://www.constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com
Praying that our Lord will give you a sense of His loving presence and His calming peace for each tomorrow. May you be comforted knowing that we deeply care and sorrow with you.
With heartfelt sympathy, Your South Dakota Constituents
2 Thessalonians 2:16-17 ~ Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace, Comfort your hearts, and stablish you in every good word and work