http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters11ef
… how to report illegal aliens
http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=research_hiringillegals
....could report the Federal Government to ICE for hiring Obama as an illegal alien and another complaint against the State of Illinois for hiring an illegal senator, state bar for licensing an illegal, prior employers for hiring an illegal, drivers license, opening a bank account, giving a mortgage on a loan, car loan and on and on.. ...
http://www.vdare.com/mann/reporting_aliens.htm
..how to report illegals
Sunday, December 28, 2008
You Can Read About Our Case in Today's WorldNetDaily
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
Eligibility remains focus of Supremes' conferences
Dispute posted on docket twice after Electoral College votes in
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: December 26, 2008
10:40 pm Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
A second conference has been posted on the docket for the U.S. Supreme Court over the issue of Barack Obama's eligibility to occupy the White House, this one scheduled a week after Congress is to review the Electoral College vote tabulation.
The latest issue posted is a request for an injunction on the election results pending the resolution of a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by attorney Philip J. Berg, a case that is docketed for a similar conference among the justices on Jan. 9.
Berg's original case raises questions about Obama's eligibility and his injunction request first was filed early in December. It was submitted to and rejected by two different justices before it came before Justice Antonin Scalia on Dec. 18. Then just before Christmas the docket was updated to reflect that the motion had been "distributed for conference of January 16, 2009."
On Berg's Obama Crimes.com website, he said Congress is scheduled to hear the Electoral College results on Jan. 8. Then on Jan. 9 there's the conference scheduled on Berg's case itself, with the injunction issue to be addressed a week later.
WND has reported Berg's case, one of the first legal challenges to Obama's eligibility to reach the Supreme Court, alleges he cannot constitutionally be inaugurated.
"I know that Mr. Obama is not a constitutionally qualified natural born citizen and is ineligible to assume the office of president of the United States," Berg said in a statement on his ObamaCrimes.com website.
"Obama knows he is not 'natural born' as he knows where he was born and he knows he was adopted in Indonesia; Obama is an attorney, Harvard Law grad who taught Constitutional law; Obama knows his candidacy is the largest 'hoax' attempted on the citizens of the United States in over 200 years; Obama places our Constitution in a 'crisis' situation; and Obama is in a situation where he can be blackmailed by leaders around the world who know Obama is not qualified," Berg's statement continued.
"The Supreme Court has listed the case of Berg vs. Obama for 'conference' on January 9," the website said.
"I am appalled that the main stream media continues to ignore this issue as we are headed to a 'Constitution Crisis,'" Berg wrote. "There is nothing more important than our U.S. Constitution and it must be enforced. I am concerned that our courts have not yet decided to look into the merits of our allegations."
WND previously reported on a case brought by Cort Wrotnowski. It fell by the wayside when the justices heard about it in conference but refused to give it a further hearing. That was the same fate handed to a case brought by Leo Donofrio. Both challenged Obama on essentially the same issue: allegations that dual citizenship based on a father who was a British subject and a mother who was an American minor disqualified him for office.
Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 190,000 others and sign up now!
The high court previously turned down a request from Berg to stop the Electoral College from selecting the 44th president until Obama documents his eligibility for the office.
As WND has reported, more than a dozen lawsuits have been filed over Obama's eligibility to assume the office of the president, many have been dismissed, while others remain pending.
The cases, in various ways, have alleged Obama does not meet the "natural born citizen" clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which reads, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
Some of the legal challenges have alleged Obama was not born in Hawaii, as he insists, but in Kenya. Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. Such cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Several details of Obama's past have added twists to the question of his eligibility and citizenship, including his family's move to Indonesia when he was a child, his travel to Pakistan in the '80s when such travel was forbidden to American citizens and conflicting reports from Obama's family about his place of birth.
A partial listing and status update for several of the cases surrounding Obama's eligibility to serve as president is below:
Philip J. Berg, a Pennsylvania Democrat, demanded that the courts verify Obama's original birth certificate and other documents proving his American citizenship. Supreme Court conferences on the case and its motions are scheduled Jan. 9 and 16.
Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.
Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.
Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public's support.
Chicago attorney Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.
Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.
In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.
In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.
In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.
California attorney Orly Taitz also has brought a complaint alleging Obama is not a "natural born" citizen and has written an open letter to the Supreme Court asking for the issue to be resolved. Last month, WND reported the worries over a "constitutional crisis" that could be looming over the issue of Obama's citizenship.
"Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void," argues the Alan Keyes case pending in California, "Americans will suffer irreparable harm in that (a) usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal."
With such high stakes potentially at risk, WND earlier launched a letter campaign to contact Electoral College members and urge them to review the controversy.
That followed a campaign that sent more than 60,000 letters by over-night delivery to the U.S. Supreme Court when one case contesting Obama's eligibility for the Oval Office was pending.
A separate petition, already signed by more than 190,000 also is ongoing asking authorities in the election to seek proof Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution.
WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi had gone to both Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama's birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.
The biggest question was why, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists as his campaign has stated, Obama hasn't simply ordered it made available to settle the rumors. The image his campaign posted online has been rejected by critics since it is a "certification of live birth," not a birth certificate, and under Hawaii law at the time such certifications were given to parents of children born outside the state.
The governor's office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii?
Obama's half-sister, Maya Soetoro, has named two different Hawaii hospitals where Obama could have been born. There have been other allegations that Obama actually was born in Kenya during a time when his father was a British subject. At one point a Kenyan ambassador said Obama's birthplace in Kenya already was being recognized.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related offers:
Sign the petition
POSTED BY ORLY TAITZ, DDS ESQ
OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
Eligibility remains focus of Supremes' conferences
Dispute posted on docket twice after Electoral College votes in
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: December 26, 2008
10:40 pm Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
A second conference has been posted on the docket for the U.S. Supreme Court over the issue of Barack Obama's eligibility to occupy the White House, this one scheduled a week after Congress is to review the Electoral College vote tabulation.
The latest issue posted is a request for an injunction on the election results pending the resolution of a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by attorney Philip J. Berg, a case that is docketed for a similar conference among the justices on Jan. 9.
Berg's original case raises questions about Obama's eligibility and his injunction request first was filed early in December. It was submitted to and rejected by two different justices before it came before Justice Antonin Scalia on Dec. 18. Then just before Christmas the docket was updated to reflect that the motion had been "distributed for conference of January 16, 2009."
On Berg's Obama Crimes.com website, he said Congress is scheduled to hear the Electoral College results on Jan. 8. Then on Jan. 9 there's the conference scheduled on Berg's case itself, with the injunction issue to be addressed a week later.
WND has reported Berg's case, one of the first legal challenges to Obama's eligibility to reach the Supreme Court, alleges he cannot constitutionally be inaugurated.
"I know that Mr. Obama is not a constitutionally qualified natural born citizen and is ineligible to assume the office of president of the United States," Berg said in a statement on his ObamaCrimes.com website.
"Obama knows he is not 'natural born' as he knows where he was born and he knows he was adopted in Indonesia; Obama is an attorney, Harvard Law grad who taught Constitutional law; Obama knows his candidacy is the largest 'hoax' attempted on the citizens of the United States in over 200 years; Obama places our Constitution in a 'crisis' situation; and Obama is in a situation where he can be blackmailed by leaders around the world who know Obama is not qualified," Berg's statement continued.
"The Supreme Court has listed the case of Berg vs. Obama for 'conference' on January 9," the website said.
"I am appalled that the main stream media continues to ignore this issue as we are headed to a 'Constitution Crisis,'" Berg wrote. "There is nothing more important than our U.S. Constitution and it must be enforced. I am concerned that our courts have not yet decided to look into the merits of our allegations."
WND previously reported on a case brought by Cort Wrotnowski. It fell by the wayside when the justices heard about it in conference but refused to give it a further hearing. That was the same fate handed to a case brought by Leo Donofrio. Both challenged Obama on essentially the same issue: allegations that dual citizenship based on a father who was a British subject and a mother who was an American minor disqualified him for office.
Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 190,000 others and sign up now!
The high court previously turned down a request from Berg to stop the Electoral College from selecting the 44th president until Obama documents his eligibility for the office.
As WND has reported, more than a dozen lawsuits have been filed over Obama's eligibility to assume the office of the president, many have been dismissed, while others remain pending.
The cases, in various ways, have alleged Obama does not meet the "natural born citizen" clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which reads, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
Some of the legal challenges have alleged Obama was not born in Hawaii, as he insists, but in Kenya. Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. Such cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Several details of Obama's past have added twists to the question of his eligibility and citizenship, including his family's move to Indonesia when he was a child, his travel to Pakistan in the '80s when such travel was forbidden to American citizens and conflicting reports from Obama's family about his place of birth.
A partial listing and status update for several of the cases surrounding Obama's eligibility to serve as president is below:
Philip J. Berg, a Pennsylvania Democrat, demanded that the courts verify Obama's original birth certificate and other documents proving his American citizenship. Supreme Court conferences on the case and its motions are scheduled Jan. 9 and 16.
Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.
Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.
Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public's support.
Chicago attorney Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.
Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.
In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.
In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.
In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.
California attorney Orly Taitz also has brought a complaint alleging Obama is not a "natural born" citizen and has written an open letter to the Supreme Court asking for the issue to be resolved. Last month, WND reported the worries over a "constitutional crisis" that could be looming over the issue of Obama's citizenship.
"Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void," argues the Alan Keyes case pending in California, "Americans will suffer irreparable harm in that (a) usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal."
With such high stakes potentially at risk, WND earlier launched a letter campaign to contact Electoral College members and urge them to review the controversy.
That followed a campaign that sent more than 60,000 letters by over-night delivery to the U.S. Supreme Court when one case contesting Obama's eligibility for the Oval Office was pending.
A separate petition, already signed by more than 190,000 also is ongoing asking authorities in the election to seek proof Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution.
WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi had gone to both Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama's birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.
The biggest question was why, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists as his campaign has stated, Obama hasn't simply ordered it made available to settle the rumors. The image his campaign posted online has been rejected by critics since it is a "certification of live birth," not a birth certificate, and under Hawaii law at the time such certifications were given to parents of children born outside the state.
The governor's office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii?
Obama's half-sister, Maya Soetoro, has named two different Hawaii hospitals where Obama could have been born. There have been other allegations that Obama actually was born in Kenya during a time when his father was a British subject. At one point a Kenyan ambassador said Obama's birthplace in Kenya already was being recognized.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related offers:
Sign the petition
POSTED BY ORLY TAITZ, DDS ESQ
Letter From A Reader
Orly Taitz,
We will be changing the soldiers picture> American Soldiers stand STRAIGHT AND TALL & PROUD.
This present Joyce & I worked on for you is also coming from HOPEFULLY 242,000,000 Million American voters who did NOT vote for OBAMA! Let’s go SAVE AMERICA! My father was 100% pure blooded Hungarian Immigrant. My mother Irish, English, French(combination), born in the U.S.A. I am a 100% PURE BLOODED AMERICAN, born and bred on good old American soil!
NOW, LET’S GO CLEAN UP WASHINGTON D.C.! So I can have my life back. This is beyond ridiculous!
Attorney Lawrence Eagleburger
We will be changing the soldiers picture> American Soldiers stand STRAIGHT AND TALL & PROUD.
This present Joyce & I worked on for you is also coming from HOPEFULLY 242,000,000 Million American voters who did NOT vote for OBAMA! Let’s go SAVE AMERICA! My father was 100% pure blooded Hungarian Immigrant. My mother Irish, English, French(combination), born in the U.S.A. I am a 100% PURE BLOODED AMERICAN, born and bred on good old American soil!
NOW, LET’S GO CLEAN UP WASHINGTON D.C.! So I can have my life back. This is beyond ridiculous!
Attorney Lawrence Eagleburger
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Disinformation, Right on Our Blog
“Dr. Orly, Sandra Lines said nothing more than the obvious fact that images can be faked and to tell for sure one needs to look at the original. She said nothing to indicate that Barack Obama's COLB was genuine or not. And thereby she makes any analysis of the COLB image moot, including that of "Rod Polarik". You can't tell anything from an image.
The suggestion that Dr. Onaka, head of Vital Statistics in Hawaii, recent past president of the national organization of vital statistics agencies (NAPHSIS) would allow a forged Hawaiian birth certificate to be blown all over the Internet without a word from him (or the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health or Hawaii's Republican Governor) is beyond credible. That alone is enough to raise a very high standard of proof for a document analyst trying to assert a forgery. "Polarik's" analysis is about as poor as one could imagine--more of a flight of imagination than science as he sees scans being sent to the one who would do the forgery, as he tries for the 700th time to guess what kind of scannerObama used and matching it miserably.
First of all, what is it to you "Kevin"? Are you a paid Obama operative? Who are you? Why bother? Why do you care?
Second, how did you know that XXX was Ron Polarik?
Third, Ron Polarik and Sandra Lines are not the only two forensic document experts that have examined these documents and weighed in on them. There is at least one other in the Berg case. And these affidavits are not from the Berg case, but from the Hochberg case. Sorry dude. These two might be completely different from the 3 forensic document analysts that Berg has assembled.
Also, having read the 139 page report from Polarik, and having advanced degrees in relevant fields, I would say that Polarik does not "only try to guess what sort of scanner" that Obama used. And how do you know that Polarik has "matched it miserably"?
How would you know? Who are you? Tell me about your PhD in digital image processing why don't you Kevin? Where did you get your degree? Do you hold any patents? What is your publication record like? And what is any of this to you anyway? Why bother?
You ask, why would Onaka allow fake documents to be spread all over? I think the answer is pretty obvious. From the court proceedings in Hawaii, and the fact that the Hawaiian Health
Department has turned down several subpoenas from courts in other states, one can conclude that the government of Hawaii has decided to make a huge stand on this issue.
From interviews in the press, and my own conversations with the officials at the Hawaii Health Department, it is obvious that Oanaka and others in the Hawaii Health Department feel bound by the laws of their state. They have clearly been told that if they talk about this, they will lose their jobs, be fined and/or go to prison. That, coupled together with confusion about what the constitutional requirements are to be president of the United States, and some disagreement about the definition of the term "natural born citizen", as well as a large number of people that believe the constitution is obsolete or optional or should be changed or ignored, and you have the perfect setting for someone like Onaka to behave as he does.
Would you be willing to risk prison time if you were Onaka? Onaka has climbed to his position by playing by the rules. You expect Onaka to break the rules now and maybe destroy his career and spend years in prison? Why? Would you?
And what if Onaka illegally releases Obama's birth record information, and it shows that Obama was not born in Hawaii and Congress and the courts ignore this and confirm Obama as President anyway? Many have stated publicly that they favor making Obama President, even if Obama is shown to be ineligible to assume the presidency. Even Ron Paul has stated this recently. What do you think would happen to Onaka then?
This could include things much much worse than prison; presidents like Clinton and Nixon have used the IRS and other government agencies to harass "enemies". Obama associates with people that advocate bombings and assassination. Not just one or two people, but lots of people. He even supported his cousin Odinga's campaign in Kenya that ended with widespread slaughtering of his opponents, even though his cousin Odinga lost the Kenyan election. Obama is even inviting his cousin Odinga to the inauguration.
What do you think that a President Obama would do to someone like Onaka if he illegally released such information? Do you know that most lawyers will not touch this case for fear of retribution for the same reason? Most judges? Do you expect a government bureaucrat in Hawaii to be braver than most lawyers and judges? To risk his life and the lives of his family to stop Obama when no law enforcement official, no court and no politician has stepped up to offer support and rotection? You expect Onaka to voluntarily blow the whistle and then probably be punished for it? To spend every dime he has and every dime his family has defending his actions in court? To probably be fined, imprisoned or maybe even killed for it? What are you, insane? Naive? Stupid?
Please "Kevin". You are nothing but an Obama operative and a troll. Go away.
The suggestion that Dr. Onaka, head of Vital Statistics in Hawaii, recent past president of the national organization of vital statistics agencies (NAPHSIS) would allow a forged Hawaiian birth certificate to be blown all over the Internet without a word from him (or the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health or Hawaii's Republican Governor) is beyond credible. That alone is enough to raise a very high standard of proof for a document analyst trying to assert a forgery. "Polarik's" analysis is about as poor as one could imagine--more of a flight of imagination than science as he sees scans being sent to the one who would do the forgery, as he tries for the 700th time to guess what kind of scannerObama used and matching it miserably.
First of all, what is it to you "Kevin"? Are you a paid Obama operative? Who are you? Why bother? Why do you care?
Second, how did you know that XXX was Ron Polarik?
Third, Ron Polarik and Sandra Lines are not the only two forensic document experts that have examined these documents and weighed in on them. There is at least one other in the Berg case. And these affidavits are not from the Berg case, but from the Hochberg case. Sorry dude. These two might be completely different from the 3 forensic document analysts that Berg has assembled.
Also, having read the 139 page report from Polarik, and having advanced degrees in relevant fields, I would say that Polarik does not "only try to guess what sort of scanner" that Obama used. And how do you know that Polarik has "matched it miserably"?
How would you know? Who are you? Tell me about your PhD in digital image processing why don't you Kevin? Where did you get your degree? Do you hold any patents? What is your publication record like? And what is any of this to you anyway? Why bother?
You ask, why would Onaka allow fake documents to be spread all over? I think the answer is pretty obvious. From the court proceedings in Hawaii, and the fact that the Hawaiian Health
Department has turned down several subpoenas from courts in other states, one can conclude that the government of Hawaii has decided to make a huge stand on this issue.
From interviews in the press, and my own conversations with the officials at the Hawaii Health Department, it is obvious that Oanaka and others in the Hawaii Health Department feel bound by the laws of their state. They have clearly been told that if they talk about this, they will lose their jobs, be fined and/or go to prison. That, coupled together with confusion about what the constitutional requirements are to be president of the United States, and some disagreement about the definition of the term "natural born citizen", as well as a large number of people that believe the constitution is obsolete or optional or should be changed or ignored, and you have the perfect setting for someone like Onaka to behave as he does.
Would you be willing to risk prison time if you were Onaka? Onaka has climbed to his position by playing by the rules. You expect Onaka to break the rules now and maybe destroy his career and spend years in prison? Why? Would you?
And what if Onaka illegally releases Obama's birth record information, and it shows that Obama was not born in Hawaii and Congress and the courts ignore this and confirm Obama as President anyway? Many have stated publicly that they favor making Obama President, even if Obama is shown to be ineligible to assume the presidency. Even Ron Paul has stated this recently. What do you think would happen to Onaka then?
This could include things much much worse than prison; presidents like Clinton and Nixon have used the IRS and other government agencies to harass "enemies". Obama associates with people that advocate bombings and assassination. Not just one or two people, but lots of people. He even supported his cousin Odinga's campaign in Kenya that ended with widespread slaughtering of his opponents, even though his cousin Odinga lost the Kenyan election. Obama is even inviting his cousin Odinga to the inauguration.
What do you think that a President Obama would do to someone like Onaka if he illegally released such information? Do you know that most lawyers will not touch this case for fear of retribution for the same reason? Most judges? Do you expect a government bureaucrat in Hawaii to be braver than most lawyers and judges? To risk his life and the lives of his family to stop Obama when no law enforcement official, no court and no politician has stepped up to offer support and rotection? You expect Onaka to voluntarily blow the whistle and then probably be punished for it? To spend every dime he has and every dime his family has defending his actions in court? To probably be fined, imprisoned or maybe even killed for it? What are you, insane? Naive? Stupid?
Please "Kevin". You are nothing but an Obama operative and a troll. Go away.
Another Nice Example of Disinformation
Sure enough, another "o-bot" who called himself "A REAL American" posted some drivel in response to my blog post, "Will the Military Respect the President-Elect?":
“I guess that's why the military donated 6:1 for Obama during the election:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-14-military-donations_N.htm
Or the retired Admirals and Generals that supported Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdN8XpL36Pk
And it's funny how reports from other sources said nothing about the silence you claim.
Of course, you'll just dismiss it as more MSM propaganda.....as you do with anything that doesn't fit your myths and conspiracy theories.....
Unfortunately, we had to remove "A REAL American"'s post because we cannot let this blog turn into a platform for ridiculous pro-Obama propaganda. The internet is already full of such sites, replete with disinformation and lies. And there are many Obama operatives who frequent blogs and forums to try to spread their lies and poison and venom.
No, I will not claim that this story is necessarily accurate. You and I were not there. I did not see any video footage; did you? But this story is sourced to 3 different news outlets. So we have to wonder. It is interesting how all the stories in the media that make Obama look bad you just reject out of hand, and you only repeat the stories in the media that make Obama look good. Not very objective.
Clearly, reality is far more nuanced than you are trying to portray it. If you just want to blindly believe that Obama is incredibly popular among the military because a few retired military leaders came out in his support, and a news report came out that Obama had more campaign contributions from deployed military than McCain, that is your prerogative. But frankly, I do not find your evidence particularly compelling.
Obama Support Among Military Leaders
To start with, this YouTube video of what appears to be a press conference or campaign media event features 1 retired admiral and 3 retired generals. Two of the retired generals had "noncombat" positions in the military. One was in charge of "civil works" and the other was a "chief of staff" for the National Guard. What was their basis for supporting Obama?
First, they support Obama because he had disagreed with the decision to go to war in Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein. Allow me to point out that Obama had no access to the intelligence that many of the other senators and congressmen did; he did not have the clearance to hear the information. All of those with the clearance to hear the real intelligence (not what was reported in the press, which is badly misleading and deficient) voted to remove Saddam Hussein. Even Bill Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998, which was passed by both houses of Congress, and called for the removal of Saddam Hussein.
However, is this a necessary qualification for someone to be president? Someone who voted against a war when he did not have access to the information the decision was based on? I was against the war myself. Do I fulfill the requirements to be president of the United States then?
The second reason the retired military leaders gave for endorsing Barack Obama was that Obama is always calm and has a placid demeanor. So that is a prerequisite for someone to be president? Someone should be passionless? The US has had stolid, resolute presidents before, and that is no guarantee that someone will be regarded as a good president (see an analysis of presidential temperament here).
For example, Calvin Coolidge was one of US presidents with a calmer temperament, but he is not remembered as one of the great US presidents. He is remembered as a bit of a disaster. He rose to prominence because of his union-busting activities. Many think his administration's policies set the US up for the 1929 crash. He is described by some as a "worried pessimist".
How many liked Gerald Ford as a president, particularly at that time? Ford was very calm and reasonable, which is why he was chosen to replace Nixon by the Congress. However, Americans thought he was dull. Ford presided over the start of what became known later as "stagflation".
Jimmy Carter might be viewed as a fairly imperturbable bloodless technocrat. Carter's presidency is perceived by many as a failure.
On the other hand, Kennedy, Reagan, and both Roosevelts, are all widely praised as presidents. All of them were passionate adventurers and temperamentally the opposite of someone "calm
and placid".
Anyway, these 3 retired generals and 1 retired admiral who voiced support for Obama, in addition to retired generals Wesley Clark and Colin Powell, can be compared with over 100 retired generals and admirals who endorsed McCain. That is, retired military leaders support McCain in far greater numbers. Obama's military support is less than 5 percent of McCain's military support among retired military leaders. So basically trying to rely on these 4 guys in a YouTube video to prove anything is beyond comical. It is ridiculous.
Retired General Wesley Clark, who once was reportedly being considered by Obama for a position in his administration and maybe even for the vice-presidential slot on the ticket, was nominally an Obama supporter, but still did not give Obama a ringing endorsement. Clark was famous for stating on Face the Nation on CBS that "I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president." However, on another occasion, in a BBC interview, Clark had stated that Obama was not sufficiently experienced to be Commander in Chief and to end the war in Iraq. Clark said, "That means knowing where you're headed before you start down the path."
The Campaign Contribution Report
The report on the donations is very selective and a bit hard to swallow. First, if you count all donations, then according to the same report McCain supporters gave an average of 502 dollars each to McCain's campaign, while Obama supporters gave an average of only 310 dollars each to Obama's campaign. The numbers with the biggest differences were the overseas donors, but there were only 134 overseas Obama donors and 26 overseas McCain donors; the Obama donors represent 0.038% and the McCain donors represent 0.0071% of the roughly 364,049 US troops deployed overseas.
These numbers are so small that it is not clear if they mean anything, or if they are representative or even if they are accurate. It is not clear what time period this report covers, and if a different time period was chosen or a longer time period was chosen, if the results would have been different. All kinds of other factors could restrict these contributions such as the type of deployment and location, and so it is not clear what these donation numbers are even measuring.
Other reported contribution statistics paint a far more complicated picture. For example, military donors from January 2007 through March of 2008 favored Republicans over Democrats, 62 percent to 38 percent; that is, Republicans raised 63 percent more money from the military than Democrats did, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP). In addition, the CRP reports that during that period, Ron Paul raised 12.8 percent more money from the military than Obama did. So Obama is supposedly the troop's favorite, based on that widely hyped story in the mainstream press? Does that report mean that Obama is incredibly popular among the enlisted men and women? I doubt it.
I suspect if we looked even more carefully into the military campaign support data, we might find that the media had once again reported this story in a selective manner, or "cherry-picked" the data, or engaged in some other sort of misrepresentation. After all, the media have done it lots of times in the past in previous stories, right? Once the press loses its credibility, it is hard to rely on anything they claim, including this story about military campaign donations.
Other Signs Obama has a Military Image Problem
Barack Obama is also associated with many radical anti-military groups, like Code Pink. Code Pink has donated heavily to the Obama Campaign as a "bundler". Code Pink has "harassed, vandalized and impeded military recruiters across the United States in a campaign it calls “counter-recruitment.”" Code Pink even donated over 600,000 dollars to the families of terrorists attacking American troops in Fallujah, because Code Pink views them as "freedom fighters". This association of Obama with Code Pink has been decried by Families United for Our Troops and Their Mission, Move America Forward, Military Families Voice of Victory, The Band of Mothers and FreeRepublic.com[1]. This shows Obama's has great support from our military and will continue to enjoy this support?
The US military has solidly and repeatedly rejected a draft for many years and is happy with its current all-volunteer force. A lot of left wing attacks on McCain focused on bemoaning the potential of a draft if McCain were elected [2][3][4]. McCain stated that he would not be in favor of a draft unless the US was faced with "World War III" [5] .
Obama on the other hand has stated repeatedly that he will call for "universal national voluntary service". That is not a draft? Well he does not call it a draft, but it is essentially a draft. Obama just presents it with a lot of double-talk. What is universal voluntary service? If it is universal, it is not voluntary.
“I guess that's why the military donated 6:1 for Obama during the election:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-14-military-donations_N.htm
Or the retired Admirals and Generals that supported Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdN8XpL36Pk
And it's funny how reports from other sources said nothing about the silence you claim.
Of course, you'll just dismiss it as more MSM propaganda.....as you do with anything that doesn't fit your myths and conspiracy theories.....
Unfortunately, we had to remove "A REAL American"'s post because we cannot let this blog turn into a platform for ridiculous pro-Obama propaganda. The internet is already full of such sites, replete with disinformation and lies. And there are many Obama operatives who frequent blogs and forums to try to spread their lies and poison and venom.
No, I will not claim that this story is necessarily accurate. You and I were not there. I did not see any video footage; did you? But this story is sourced to 3 different news outlets. So we have to wonder. It is interesting how all the stories in the media that make Obama look bad you just reject out of hand, and you only repeat the stories in the media that make Obama look good. Not very objective.
Clearly, reality is far more nuanced than you are trying to portray it. If you just want to blindly believe that Obama is incredibly popular among the military because a few retired military leaders came out in his support, and a news report came out that Obama had more campaign contributions from deployed military than McCain, that is your prerogative. But frankly, I do not find your evidence particularly compelling.
Obama Support Among Military Leaders
To start with, this YouTube video of what appears to be a press conference or campaign media event features 1 retired admiral and 3 retired generals. Two of the retired generals had "noncombat" positions in the military. One was in charge of "civil works" and the other was a "chief of staff" for the National Guard. What was their basis for supporting Obama?
First, they support Obama because he had disagreed with the decision to go to war in Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein. Allow me to point out that Obama had no access to the intelligence that many of the other senators and congressmen did; he did not have the clearance to hear the information. All of those with the clearance to hear the real intelligence (not what was reported in the press, which is badly misleading and deficient) voted to remove Saddam Hussein. Even Bill Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998, which was passed by both houses of Congress, and called for the removal of Saddam Hussein.
However, is this a necessary qualification for someone to be president? Someone who voted against a war when he did not have access to the information the decision was based on? I was against the war myself. Do I fulfill the requirements to be president of the United States then?
The second reason the retired military leaders gave for endorsing Barack Obama was that Obama is always calm and has a placid demeanor. So that is a prerequisite for someone to be president? Someone should be passionless? The US has had stolid, resolute presidents before, and that is no guarantee that someone will be regarded as a good president (see an analysis of presidential temperament here).
For example, Calvin Coolidge was one of US presidents with a calmer temperament, but he is not remembered as one of the great US presidents. He is remembered as a bit of a disaster. He rose to prominence because of his union-busting activities. Many think his administration's policies set the US up for the 1929 crash. He is described by some as a "worried pessimist".
How many liked Gerald Ford as a president, particularly at that time? Ford was very calm and reasonable, which is why he was chosen to replace Nixon by the Congress. However, Americans thought he was dull. Ford presided over the start of what became known later as "stagflation".
Jimmy Carter might be viewed as a fairly imperturbable bloodless technocrat. Carter's presidency is perceived by many as a failure.
On the other hand, Kennedy, Reagan, and both Roosevelts, are all widely praised as presidents. All of them were passionate adventurers and temperamentally the opposite of someone "calm
and placid".
Anyway, these 3 retired generals and 1 retired admiral who voiced support for Obama, in addition to retired generals Wesley Clark and Colin Powell, can be compared with over 100 retired generals and admirals who endorsed McCain. That is, retired military leaders support McCain in far greater numbers. Obama's military support is less than 5 percent of McCain's military support among retired military leaders. So basically trying to rely on these 4 guys in a YouTube video to prove anything is beyond comical. It is ridiculous.
Retired General Wesley Clark, who once was reportedly being considered by Obama for a position in his administration and maybe even for the vice-presidential slot on the ticket, was nominally an Obama supporter, but still did not give Obama a ringing endorsement. Clark was famous for stating on Face the Nation on CBS that "I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president." However, on another occasion, in a BBC interview, Clark had stated that Obama was not sufficiently experienced to be Commander in Chief and to end the war in Iraq. Clark said, "That means knowing where you're headed before you start down the path."
The Campaign Contribution Report
The report on the donations is very selective and a bit hard to swallow. First, if you count all donations, then according to the same report McCain supporters gave an average of 502 dollars each to McCain's campaign, while Obama supporters gave an average of only 310 dollars each to Obama's campaign. The numbers with the biggest differences were the overseas donors, but there were only 134 overseas Obama donors and 26 overseas McCain donors; the Obama donors represent 0.038% and the McCain donors represent 0.0071% of the roughly 364,049 US troops deployed overseas.
These numbers are so small that it is not clear if they mean anything, or if they are representative or even if they are accurate. It is not clear what time period this report covers, and if a different time period was chosen or a longer time period was chosen, if the results would have been different. All kinds of other factors could restrict these contributions such as the type of deployment and location, and so it is not clear what these donation numbers are even measuring.
Other reported contribution statistics paint a far more complicated picture. For example, military donors from January 2007 through March of 2008 favored Republicans over Democrats, 62 percent to 38 percent; that is, Republicans raised 63 percent more money from the military than Democrats did, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP). In addition, the CRP reports that during that period, Ron Paul raised 12.8 percent more money from the military than Obama did. So Obama is supposedly the troop's favorite, based on that widely hyped story in the mainstream press? Does that report mean that Obama is incredibly popular among the enlisted men and women? I doubt it.
I suspect if we looked even more carefully into the military campaign support data, we might find that the media had once again reported this story in a selective manner, or "cherry-picked" the data, or engaged in some other sort of misrepresentation. After all, the media have done it lots of times in the past in previous stories, right? Once the press loses its credibility, it is hard to rely on anything they claim, including this story about military campaign donations.
Other Signs Obama has a Military Image Problem
Barack Obama is also associated with many radical anti-military groups, like Code Pink. Code Pink has donated heavily to the Obama Campaign as a "bundler". Code Pink has "harassed, vandalized and impeded military recruiters across the United States in a campaign it calls “counter-recruitment.”" Code Pink even donated over 600,000 dollars to the families of terrorists attacking American troops in Fallujah, because Code Pink views them as "freedom fighters". This association of Obama with Code Pink has been decried by Families United for Our Troops and Their Mission, Move America Forward, Military Families Voice of Victory, The Band of Mothers and FreeRepublic.com[1]. This shows Obama's has great support from our military and will continue to enjoy this support?
The US military has solidly and repeatedly rejected a draft for many years and is happy with its current all-volunteer force. A lot of left wing attacks on McCain focused on bemoaning the potential of a draft if McCain were elected [2][3][4]. McCain stated that he would not be in favor of a draft unless the US was faced with "World War III" [5] .
Obama on the other hand has stated repeatedly that he will call for "universal national voluntary service". That is not a draft? Well he does not call it a draft, but it is essentially a draft. Obama just presents it with a lot of double-talk. What is universal voluntary service? If it is universal, it is not voluntary.
Corrupt IL Hospital Board Has Given Campaign Contribution to Obama, He Returned It Only Now, when Scandal Erupted
Reform Law Might Have Aided Blagojevich Scheme
A 2003 Illinois Good-Governance Measure Supported by Obama Apparently Backfired in Hospital-Construction Scandal Article
more in Politics »By JOHN R. EMSHWILLER and CHRISTOPHER COOPER
President-elect Barack Obama helped enact an Illinois good government reform measure while serving as a state senator in 2003 that appeared to inadvertently have aided Gov. Rod Blagojevich in an alleged corruption scheme involving hospital construction.
Mr. Obama backed legislation that revamped the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board. The panel was responsible for approving major hospital expansion projects and was seen at the time as unwieldy and tainted by cronyism. The bill shrank the size of the board and set new limits on a governor's ability to stack the panel with members of his own political party.
Getty Images
Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich
But Mr. Blagojevich, a Democrat, put together a friendly, five-member majority on the shrunken board that included members of both parties -- board members whom Mr. Blogajevich and his allies used to extract money from companies seeking approval to build medical facilities, according to the federal criminal complaint filed this month against the governor. The alleged health-board abuses were part of what prosecutors say was a broader scheme by Mr. Blagojevich to obtain money for political favors, including the attempt to sell the U.S. Senate seat vacated last month by Mr. Obama. Mr. Blagojevich has denied the charges.
There is no indication that President-elect Obama was involved in any hospital board wrong-doing. But his role in the legislation shows how he became a useful, though apparently unwitting, ally to Mr. Blagojevich's alleged schemes, sometimes conducted under the "reform" slogan that both men regularly invoked.
After the passage of the law, Mr. Obama received $15,500 in campaign donations from three hospital-board members who since have been identified by prosecutors as participants in the alleged abuses. As the Illinois political scandal that has now engulfed Mr. Blagojevich burgeoned, Mr. Obama gave that money to charity.
Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt declined to comment on the 2003 law or the Blagojevich scandal. In a written statement, he said that "President-elect Obama's longstanding record of reform in the Illinois legislature is clear." He said that record included a sweeping 1998 ethics reform package and Mr. Obama's support this year for a state law to reduce special-interest influence in the legislature.
Mr. Obama and aides also have denied wrongdoing in Mr. Blagojevich's alleged abuse of his appointment power to fill the vacant U.S. Senate seat. The Obama transition team released a
report Tuesday saying Obama aides had some interaction with Mr. Blagojevich and his associates on the matter, but didn't discuss any deals.
Mr. Blagojevich won the governorship in 2002 as a reformer. Changing the makeup of the hospital board was part of a general revamp of state panels.
Getty Images
Businessman and fund-raiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko
The hospital board bill was introduced in the legislature in the spring of 2003 and won quick approval from a Senate committee that Mr. Obama chaired; it passed both houses unanimously. A subsequent email from an adviser to the governor named Mr. Obama as one of several legislators instrumental in getting the legislation passed.
Within months of the board's reduction to nine members from 15, Mr. Blagojevich had assembled a majority five-member bloc that was used to begin extracting campaign contributions from medical executives, prosecutors say. A Federal Bureau of Investigation affidavit filed in the Blagojevich case says that the point man in this scheme was Antoin "Tony" Rezko, a friend and major fund-raiser for both Mr. Obama and Mr. Blagojevich.
While Mr. Rezko wasn't a member of the hospital board, he provided instructions on behalf of Mr. Blagojevich to members on how to vote, according to the FBI affidavit. One member of that group, Stuart Levine, testified at the Rezko trial that Mr. Blagojevich had told him to discuss hospital board matters only with Mr. Rezko or another ally, adding that "you stick with us and you will do very well for yourself."
Mr. Levine pleaded guilty in 2006 to two criminal counts related to the misuse of his position on the hospital board and on another state panel and agreed to cooperate in the ongoing investigation. Jeffrey Steinback, an attorney for Mr. Levine, declined to discuss the Blagojevich case. None of the four other members of the purported bloc have been criminally charged. Two have been granted immunity from prosecution in exchange for their testimony.
One example of alleged hospital-board abuses cited by prosecutors involved the effort by Mercy Health System to win approval for a new hospital in Crystal Lake, Ill. The board initially voted down the proposal. Later, it reversed its stance. Prosecutors say the reversal came after Mr. Rezko exercised "his influence at the Planning Board" in return for the hospital builder's promise to "make a substantial campaign contribution" to Gov. Blagojevich.
Mercy executives have denied any wrongdoing.
Mr. Rezko was convicted of influence-peddling earlier this year in Chicago federal court in connection with the hospital board and other matters. Prosecutors say Mr. Rezko has begun providing information to them about Mr. Blagojevich. A Rezko attorney declined to comment.
Write to John R. Emshwiller at john.emshwiller@wsj.com and Christopher Cooper at christopher.cooper@wsj.com
A 2003 Illinois Good-Governance Measure Supported by Obama Apparently Backfired in Hospital-Construction Scandal Article
more in Politics »By JOHN R. EMSHWILLER and CHRISTOPHER COOPER
President-elect Barack Obama helped enact an Illinois good government reform measure while serving as a state senator in 2003 that appeared to inadvertently have aided Gov. Rod Blagojevich in an alleged corruption scheme involving hospital construction.
Mr. Obama backed legislation that revamped the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board. The panel was responsible for approving major hospital expansion projects and was seen at the time as unwieldy and tainted by cronyism. The bill shrank the size of the board and set new limits on a governor's ability to stack the panel with members of his own political party.
Getty Images
Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich
But Mr. Blagojevich, a Democrat, put together a friendly, five-member majority on the shrunken board that included members of both parties -- board members whom Mr. Blogajevich and his allies used to extract money from companies seeking approval to build medical facilities, according to the federal criminal complaint filed this month against the governor. The alleged health-board abuses were part of what prosecutors say was a broader scheme by Mr. Blagojevich to obtain money for political favors, including the attempt to sell the U.S. Senate seat vacated last month by Mr. Obama. Mr. Blagojevich has denied the charges.
There is no indication that President-elect Obama was involved in any hospital board wrong-doing. But his role in the legislation shows how he became a useful, though apparently unwitting, ally to Mr. Blagojevich's alleged schemes, sometimes conducted under the "reform" slogan that both men regularly invoked.
After the passage of the law, Mr. Obama received $15,500 in campaign donations from three hospital-board members who since have been identified by prosecutors as participants in the alleged abuses. As the Illinois political scandal that has now engulfed Mr. Blagojevich burgeoned, Mr. Obama gave that money to charity.
Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt declined to comment on the 2003 law or the Blagojevich scandal. In a written statement, he said that "President-elect Obama's longstanding record of reform in the Illinois legislature is clear." He said that record included a sweeping 1998 ethics reform package and Mr. Obama's support this year for a state law to reduce special-interest influence in the legislature.
Mr. Obama and aides also have denied wrongdoing in Mr. Blagojevich's alleged abuse of his appointment power to fill the vacant U.S. Senate seat. The Obama transition team released a
report Tuesday saying Obama aides had some interaction with Mr. Blagojevich and his associates on the matter, but didn't discuss any deals.
Mr. Blagojevich won the governorship in 2002 as a reformer. Changing the makeup of the hospital board was part of a general revamp of state panels.
Getty Images
Businessman and fund-raiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko
The hospital board bill was introduced in the legislature in the spring of 2003 and won quick approval from a Senate committee that Mr. Obama chaired; it passed both houses unanimously. A subsequent email from an adviser to the governor named Mr. Obama as one of several legislators instrumental in getting the legislation passed.
Within months of the board's reduction to nine members from 15, Mr. Blagojevich had assembled a majority five-member bloc that was used to begin extracting campaign contributions from medical executives, prosecutors say. A Federal Bureau of Investigation affidavit filed in the Blagojevich case says that the point man in this scheme was Antoin "Tony" Rezko, a friend and major fund-raiser for both Mr. Obama and Mr. Blagojevich.
While Mr. Rezko wasn't a member of the hospital board, he provided instructions on behalf of Mr. Blagojevich to members on how to vote, according to the FBI affidavit. One member of that group, Stuart Levine, testified at the Rezko trial that Mr. Blagojevich had told him to discuss hospital board matters only with Mr. Rezko or another ally, adding that "you stick with us and you will do very well for yourself."
Mr. Levine pleaded guilty in 2006 to two criminal counts related to the misuse of his position on the hospital board and on another state panel and agreed to cooperate in the ongoing investigation. Jeffrey Steinback, an attorney for Mr. Levine, declined to discuss the Blagojevich case. None of the four other members of the purported bloc have been criminally charged. Two have been granted immunity from prosecution in exchange for their testimony.
One example of alleged hospital-board abuses cited by prosecutors involved the effort by Mercy Health System to win approval for a new hospital in Crystal Lake, Ill. The board initially voted down the proposal. Later, it reversed its stance. Prosecutors say the reversal came after Mr. Rezko exercised "his influence at the Planning Board" in return for the hospital builder's promise to "make a substantial campaign contribution" to Gov. Blagojevich.
Mercy executives have denied any wrongdoing.
Mr. Rezko was convicted of influence-peddling earlier this year in Chicago federal court in connection with the hospital board and other matters. Prosecutors say Mr. Rezko has begun providing information to them about Mr. Blagojevich. A Rezko attorney declined to comment.
Write to John R. Emshwiller at john.emshwiller@wsj.com and Christopher Cooper at christopher.cooper@wsj.com
An Open Letter to Mr. Joel Belz
I was quite disconcerted to read an article, entitled "Hoping for a Stumble" by Mr. Joel Belz in World Magazine, dated December 13, 2008, attached below.
Belz seems to suggest that worrying if the president-elect is actually eligible to take the office or not is a "triviality". Belz thinks it is destructive to "orderliness" to insist that anyone assuming the office of the President actually be legitimate.
I would beg to differ. Given the gridlock that could ensue with a usuper in office who is unable to sign any bills into law and the chaos that might be caused by having someone ineligble to be Commander in Chief of the military in office, I think allowing someone who is illegitimate to take office is destructive to "orderliness". I also think that if someone who is ineligible takes the office, he would be vulnerable to extortion, both foreign and domestic. I think it is unreasonable to give anyone this kind of undue influence and leverage over the President of the United States.
I also think that this is potentially the camel's nose under the tent, and sets a bad precedent. We are a nation of laws, and when we just decide to ignore or discard those laws, without even debating the issue, we are in big trouble.
I wrote to Mr. Belz, and asked him:
Sir:
Do you have a problem with following the rule of law? Do you have a problem with the US Constitution? Or do you think the US Constitution should be discarded? Please answer that for me. I await your response and I will publish it on the internet.
Robert Stevens
He responded:
I believe in the rule of law. I believe in following the U.S. Constitution. I do not think the U.S. Constitution should be discarded.
JOEL BELZ
I then replied:
Mr. Belz:
Thank you for your response. Do you have any comment about this quote from the December 24, 2008 issue of Pravda:
"Any politician’s efforts to allow a person to take the Office of the President, who can not prove he is eligible is the highest violation of their Oath to defend and protect the Constitution. Anyone who violates the US Constitution has no authority to represent it."
from: http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/106866-0/
Do you disagree with this excerpt? Agree? Thank you.
Robert Stevens
I have not heard back from Joel Belz. Please join me in contacting Mr. Belz if you agree with me that the Obama Eligibility Controversy is not some triviality. Following the US Constitution is not an attack on "orderliness". It is just following the rule of law. And I am just stunned that he does not seem to understand this. With friends like this, who needs enemies? Send your comments to Joel Belz at jbelz@worldmag.com.
Robert Stevens
Copyright © 2008 WORLD Magazine
December 13, 2008, Vol. 23, No. 25
Copyright © 2008 WORLD Magazine
December 13, 2008, Vol. 23, No. 25
Hoping for a Stumble
Nobody should want to destroy a presidency, but many do Joel Belz
Nothing was uglier—bordering even on treasonous—during the recent presidential campaign than the way George Bush's opponents seemed so regularly to welcome bad news from Iraq. Included among his "opponents" in that sense were the Democratic campaigns, for sure. But displaying the same despicable habit were many in the mainstream media.
Nor was the tendency limited to bad news about the war. Who will ever know the extent to which Democratic connivance and media lopsidedness didn't just respond to, but actually helped bring about, the current economic disaster?
But I mention that here not to heap still more criticism on Bush's opponents. I cite these issues instead as examples of behavior that biblically directed conservatives should take care to avoid in their own opposition in the months and years ahead to the presidency of Barack Obama.
I am hearing regularly from WORLD readers who seem intent on only one goal: They are zealous, already, for the failure of the Obama presidency. Indeed, nothing would make them happier than for the Obama presidency to be stillborn.
So, instead of quietly thanking God for a peaceful election and an apparently tranquil transfer of power—and then getting on with the monumental tasks before us—some of these folks won't be satisfied until they can prove that the Obama presidency itself is illicit. "In what sense," one Indiana subscriber asks me in an email, "am I biblically responsible to be subject to a man who unconstitutionally calls himself my president?"
Which makes makes me wonder: Did Nero have to produce a Roman Empire birth certificate before there was binding force to Paul's instruction in Romans 13? He's pretty straightforward: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."
But it's not just individual letter-writers. You get the impression that whole conservative watchdog organizations face extinction if you don't give generously—today!—to ensure their ability to maintain litigation that will finally expose our new president's Islamic faith and alien roots. To which I am inclined to say: Good riddance! Let them collapse of their own awkward weight. If there was once a time to explore such bizarre possibilities, that time almost certainly ended with the election.
It's not the risks to the direct mail operatives that should worry us. It's the risk to the republic if we set millions of folks over against each other debating such technicalities. Do folks have any sense at all how devastating to orderliness it might be for a challenge to the legitimacy of Obama's presidency to gain even minimal traction?
Here's the point: Never let it be legitimately said that our main goal is to destroy our opponent or his presidency. Always let it be said that our focus is on the issues themselves—and that, having debated those issues, we are content to leave in God's sovereign hands the political
results.
Admittedly, such a distinction may not always be easy to maintain—and especially so with someone who has an agenda so unambiguously fastened to the liberal left. His support for abortion, for special privileges for homosexuals, for state-controlled education, for over-weening government regulation, and a hundred other liberal causes is well established. And his calculated coolness in driving that agenda heightens the temptation to expose every conceivable weakness of the man instead of seeking, through the electoral and legislative process, to defeat the policy enactment of his program. It's time to prove it possible again to say: "We respect you, Mr. President—along with your office. And at the same time we think you are very wrong."
Unless we learn to do that, though—and not just in a trivial way—we demean the very office we want to uphold. Indeed, we demean the very Constitution some folks claim they are honoring in their efforts to prove an Obama presidency an illicit affair. We end up doing the very thing to our present opponent that we found so ugly and distasteful over the last few years when we were watching it in reverse.
And no more now than on the playgrounds of our youth will it count for much to say: "He hit me first!"
If you have a question or comment for Joel
Belz, send it to jbelz@worldmag.com.
Belz seems to suggest that worrying if the president-elect is actually eligible to take the office or not is a "triviality". Belz thinks it is destructive to "orderliness" to insist that anyone assuming the office of the President actually be legitimate.
I would beg to differ. Given the gridlock that could ensue with a usuper in office who is unable to sign any bills into law and the chaos that might be caused by having someone ineligble to be Commander in Chief of the military in office, I think allowing someone who is illegitimate to take office is destructive to "orderliness". I also think that if someone who is ineligible takes the office, he would be vulnerable to extortion, both foreign and domestic. I think it is unreasonable to give anyone this kind of undue influence and leverage over the President of the United States.
I also think that this is potentially the camel's nose under the tent, and sets a bad precedent. We are a nation of laws, and when we just decide to ignore or discard those laws, without even debating the issue, we are in big trouble.
I wrote to Mr. Belz, and asked him:
Sir:
Do you have a problem with following the rule of law? Do you have a problem with the US Constitution? Or do you think the US Constitution should be discarded? Please answer that for me. I await your response and I will publish it on the internet.
Robert Stevens
He responded:
I believe in the rule of law. I believe in following the U.S. Constitution. I do not think the U.S. Constitution should be discarded.
JOEL BELZ
I then replied:
Mr. Belz:
Thank you for your response. Do you have any comment about this quote from the December 24, 2008 issue of Pravda:
"Any politician’s efforts to allow a person to take the Office of the President, who can not prove he is eligible is the highest violation of their Oath to defend and protect the Constitution. Anyone who violates the US Constitution has no authority to represent it."
from: http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/106866-0/
Do you disagree with this excerpt? Agree? Thank you.
Robert Stevens
I have not heard back from Joel Belz. Please join me in contacting Mr. Belz if you agree with me that the Obama Eligibility Controversy is not some triviality. Following the US Constitution is not an attack on "orderliness". It is just following the rule of law. And I am just stunned that he does not seem to understand this. With friends like this, who needs enemies? Send your comments to Joel Belz at jbelz@worldmag.com.
Robert Stevens
Copyright © 2008 WORLD Magazine
December 13, 2008, Vol. 23, No. 25
Copyright © 2008 WORLD Magazine
December 13, 2008, Vol. 23, No. 25
Hoping for a Stumble
Nobody should want to destroy a presidency, but many do Joel Belz
Nothing was uglier—bordering even on treasonous—during the recent presidential campaign than the way George Bush's opponents seemed so regularly to welcome bad news from Iraq. Included among his "opponents" in that sense were the Democratic campaigns, for sure. But displaying the same despicable habit were many in the mainstream media.
Nor was the tendency limited to bad news about the war. Who will ever know the extent to which Democratic connivance and media lopsidedness didn't just respond to, but actually helped bring about, the current economic disaster?
But I mention that here not to heap still more criticism on Bush's opponents. I cite these issues instead as examples of behavior that biblically directed conservatives should take care to avoid in their own opposition in the months and years ahead to the presidency of Barack Obama.
I am hearing regularly from WORLD readers who seem intent on only one goal: They are zealous, already, for the failure of the Obama presidency. Indeed, nothing would make them happier than for the Obama presidency to be stillborn.
So, instead of quietly thanking God for a peaceful election and an apparently tranquil transfer of power—and then getting on with the monumental tasks before us—some of these folks won't be satisfied until they can prove that the Obama presidency itself is illicit. "In what sense," one Indiana subscriber asks me in an email, "am I biblically responsible to be subject to a man who unconstitutionally calls himself my president?"
Which makes makes me wonder: Did Nero have to produce a Roman Empire birth certificate before there was binding force to Paul's instruction in Romans 13? He's pretty straightforward: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."
But it's not just individual letter-writers. You get the impression that whole conservative watchdog organizations face extinction if you don't give generously—today!—to ensure their ability to maintain litigation that will finally expose our new president's Islamic faith and alien roots. To which I am inclined to say: Good riddance! Let them collapse of their own awkward weight. If there was once a time to explore such bizarre possibilities, that time almost certainly ended with the election.
It's not the risks to the direct mail operatives that should worry us. It's the risk to the republic if we set millions of folks over against each other debating such technicalities. Do folks have any sense at all how devastating to orderliness it might be for a challenge to the legitimacy of Obama's presidency to gain even minimal traction?
Here's the point: Never let it be legitimately said that our main goal is to destroy our opponent or his presidency. Always let it be said that our focus is on the issues themselves—and that, having debated those issues, we are content to leave in God's sovereign hands the political
results.
Admittedly, such a distinction may not always be easy to maintain—and especially so with someone who has an agenda so unambiguously fastened to the liberal left. His support for abortion, for special privileges for homosexuals, for state-controlled education, for over-weening government regulation, and a hundred other liberal causes is well established. And his calculated coolness in driving that agenda heightens the temptation to expose every conceivable weakness of the man instead of seeking, through the electoral and legislative process, to defeat the policy enactment of his program. It's time to prove it possible again to say: "We respect you, Mr. President—along with your office. And at the same time we think you are very wrong."
Unless we learn to do that, though—and not just in a trivial way—we demean the very office we want to uphold. Indeed, we demean the very Constitution some folks claim they are honoring in their efforts to prove an Obama presidency an illicit affair. We end up doing the very thing to our present opponent that we found so ugly and distasteful over the last few years when we were watching it in reverse.
And no more now than on the playgrounds of our youth will it count for much to say: "He hit me first!"
If you have a question or comment for Joel
Belz, send it to jbelz@worldmag.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)