Does Pakistan suffer today because of his death? Yes. Does it change anything on the ground? No. 

He was slain because he called the notorious blasphemy law as black law. He stood up for a Christian woman who was accused of blasphemy and was sentenced to death by a local court. Taseer wanted his government to repeal the blasphemy law that was incorporated in the 1980s by the military dictator General Ziaul Haq. It was a legitimate demand. In his own words, “these are man made laws and men can correct this”. 

These black laws will now be repealed or not? This does not change anything on the ground either. 

Nothing will change on the ground because nothing changed a decade ago when a Christian cricket player on the national team was allegedly forced to convert. Nothing changed when pop singers one after another started denouncing their own careers and joined the elite mullah ranks. Not a thing changed when two boys were lynched publicly just last year. These were the obvious symptoms of a society turning intolerant, self-righteous, and violent. A society without the respect for law and order. 

It changed nothing back then, it will not change anything now. Hence, the events that followed Salmaan Taseer’s gruesome murder are disturbing. These events have nothing to do with a religion, or its preaching, but everything to do with the mindset that has been developed over the years. Evidently, this mindset is irrespective of class. The jubilant response on Facebook and YouTube was not by the uneducated and madrassa clan. A Pakistani blogger summed it up well: “If you go through the profiles of Qadri supporters on Facebook, you’d think Justin Bieber was the cause of extremism in Pakistan.” 

The killer’s overwhelming welcome at the courts by men who know how and why a law is made demonstrates that the liberals – a minority in Pakistan – have been reduced to an endangered species.  

And that is what has changed. And that is what matters today on the ground in Pakistan. 

Do a little math. The killer is a 26 year old man and hails from a semi-urban area. He joined the Elite force in 2003 which means he was 18 then. General Musharraf toppled a democratic government in 1999, and the killer must have been 14. And this is the age group that’s using the Internet, Facebook, YouTube and blogs more aggressively. This is the age group that went through a whole “moderate enlightenment” phase fully sponsored by Pervez Musharraf and shamelessly supported by George Bush for almost over a decade. And this is the group that has the street power in Pakistan. This is the group that is the future of Pakistan. Its mind has been infiltrated by private television, launched during Musharraf’s era. Instead of promoting freedom of speech, it promoted violence, illiteracy and conspiracy theories. It produced the “I-know-more-than-you-know-coz-I-like-that-anchor-and-you-dont-watch-that-show” minds, whereas before young men from the same age group used to extract influence from their family heads. 

The dual game of the military government ten years ago, fully supported and encouraged by the US government, produced a whole generation that detests its own constitution and Western freedom of speech values. This generation is the raw material available to and exploited by religious groups, ready to kill and get killed. My philanthropist friend Manzur Ejaz believes that the right wing in Pakistan is organized and has ideological strength. It has been supported by the State machinery through an education system and infested state institutions, while its opposition lacks committed people, organization and a cause. 

This sorry state of Pakistan is pretty much an example of Martin Niemoller’s ‘First They Came.’ 

They came first for the Communists,

and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.



Then they came for me

and by that time no one was left to speak up.

This existing situation has nothing to do with the drone attacks carried out today or the policy changed in favor of Pakistan. The ruling party was once considered a liberal group, but now its own members and sitting ministers publicly announced that they will shoot a blasphemer themselves. They align themselves with so-called “moderate” Muslim politicians like Imran Khan who have practiced Western values but sympathise with the Taliban. 

This indicates that now the dominant political philosophies are right, center to right and very right groups. It has men that have a soft heart for fundamentalists. The absence of a left–because the representative parties or groups were systematically dismantled by military dictators–will bring more extremism. 

Persons with liberal thoughts need protection, which requires some strategy as well as strength. It has to organize itself and build an anti-mullah manpower. It’s a war now, and decisions taken today will reflect the systems adopted in the future. And that will change everything on the ground.

–
Crosspost: ThePakistanUpdate.com

Have a knee replacement. Yep, that seems to do the trick alright. It doesn’t matter if you come up to the security area in a wheelchair, or using a cane, the result is the same: a sexual assault in front of God/dess and everyone. It doesn’t matter if you say, “Hey, I had a knee replacement. Let me roll up my pants’ leg and show you my half a foot long scar.” Nope. All that gets you is a “Step over here, please, and put your arms out while I run my hands all over your body, including your buttocks and up into your crotch.”

And note to TSA: it does not make it the least bit better for your employees to tell you what they are doing to you as they are doing it, whether it is with the back of their hand running over my butt, or the front running up my pants’ seam. It is still a stranger running her hands all over my body in public.

All because I have bad knees, and am trying to rectify that situation by getting them replaced. Wow.

I suppose I should be thankful that the TSA employees who had their way with me changed their gloves. That seems to be a problem with some of the agents. And guess what that can get you? Oh, it’s a long list, as several doctors have tried to highlight to Congress:

[snip] Syphilis, lice, gonorrhea, ringworm, chlamydia, staph, strep, noro and papilloma viruses all are part of the possible fringe benefits when airline passengers next go through a full hands-on pat-down by agents of the federal government’s Transportation Security Administration, according to doctors. [snip]

Oh, yippee!! And all of this is included in the price of an airline ticket? Wow!
But wait, there is more:

[snip] Now two doctors – and several others – have confirmed that there is the definite possibility that passengers will be able to catch whatever someone in front of them in line was suffering from via the latex gloves TSA workers use.

“There is no doubt that bacteria (staph, strep, v.cholerae etc.) and viruses (noro, enteroviruses, herpes, hepatitis A and papilloma viruses) can be spread by contaminated vinyl or latex gloves,” Dr. Thomas Warner of Wisconsin told WND in a letter to the editor.

“If a traveler has diarrhea and is soiled, as can and does happen, the causative agent can be spread by this method since bacteria and viruses in moist environments have greater viability.”

He continued. “The traveler readjusting clothes can easily get the infectious agents on their hands and therefore into their mouth, nose or eyes.”

[...]

“Anything can be transmitted. If there are open wounds and they [TSA agents] are not aware, there’s syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes, chlamydia, lice, ringworm.”

Worse yet would be for people whose immune systems are compromised by treatments they may be having, including cancer patients, she said. (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Isn’t flying just great these days?

Obviously, this does not affect everyone, but there are many of us for whom, unless these procedures are changed, will be subjected to this kind of invasive – and believe me, it is invasive – pat down just because we want to are travel and have had surgery. If the agents were willing to accept a visual confirmation; or to use the good ol’ standby, the wand; or to have a wipedown of our hands put in for testing of hazardous materials, that would be one thing.

But that isn’t how it works. So all because I had a knee replacement, I was forced to stand alongside everyone going through security, with my arms outstretched, treated like a potential terrorist, while undergoing an embarrassing, offensive pat-down.

Do we need security procedures? Absolutely we do. But there has to be some middle ground between standard x-ray machines, walk through scanners, and full body – and I do mean full body – pat downs. A wand would have highlighted to the TSA instantly that, yes, indeed, the area was confined to my KNEE, not my butt, not my crotch, and not around my breasts. But, no – that is apparently too old school for the TSA these days. They prefer physically invasive, open handed pat downs instead of the easier, as well as quicker, solution of using a wand or opening their damn eyes.

So, yes – I, an American citizen, was forced to endure the new government-sanctioned TSA procedures of physically invasive public pat-downs as my partner, a friend, and I traveled in and out of the country, a wonderful trip for which we had planned long in advance, all because of a knee replacement. Presumably, unless this is changed, something toward which I will have to be subjected every time I fly.

There is something seriously wrong with this picture…

Okay, here goes:

Section 834b. (a) Every law enforcement agency in_________ shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws.

(b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the following:

(1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding documentation to indicate his or her legal status.

(2) Notify the person of his or her apparent status as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws and inform him or her that, apart from any criminal justice proceedings, he or she must either obtain legal status or leave the United States.

(3) Notify the Attorney General of __________ and the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service of the apparent illegal status and provide any additional information that may be requested by any other public entity.

(c) Any legislative, administrative, or other action by a city, county, or other legally authorized local governmental entity with jurisdictional boundaries, or by a law enforcement agency, to prevent or limit the cooperation required by subdivision (a) is expressly prohibited.

“Demanding Documentation”?? What? How dare they demand substantiating documentation of someone’s legal status. That’s an outrage! Ahem.

You may be thinking this MUST be Arizona with this strong language regarding questioning suspected illegal immigrants given the levels of protest. I mean, yikes, that’s some pretty strong language there in that entire section. They ain’t messing around, that’s for sure.

But what really struck me was the threat in #3-C regarding the prohibition against limiting or not cooperating with this law. Why? Because that would include the cities of Los Angeles and San Francisco, to name just two, which have voted to boycott Arizona over their very similar law. This is California’s law on Illegal Immigrants.

Yep. So, when Obama, the President, dismisses out of hand a law that is extremely close to California’s own law, that says something. Perhaps Obama can’t be expected to know about California’s law. But the freaking governor of the state should know about it, especially being a LEGAL immigrant himself. That makes Schwarzenegger’s comment regarding Arizona even more surprising:

“I was also to go and give a commencement speech in Arizona, but with my accent I was worried they were going to deport me back to Austria,” said Schwarzenegger.

The governor has said he’s strongly opposed to the Arizona law. He says the attempt to control illegal immigration will create a “mess.

So, is he admitting that he is failing to follow the laws of his own state, and the Federal Government? Kinda seems that way to me.

Perhaps, instead of Obama criticizing Arizona, he should take a look at why the current federal law is not being upheld. Maybe he could ask if these cities and states who refuse to uphold this law are willing to forgive and all federal tax dollars – OUR dollars – because they are in violation of federal law. Yeah, right. I know, that will happen about the same time our unicorns and Obama cash show up, as my buddy, SFIndie, is wont to say.

I could be wrong, but I was pretty sure that all of these elected officials were required to take oaths of office pledging to uphold the laws and Constitution. Did some of these laws become optional at some point? Sure seems that way since entire cities are willing to take stands saying they REFUSE to uphold laws on the books in their own state. And if they refuse to follow federal and state laws, why should anyone follow what THEY say?

In the meantime, maybe these folks in CA can get off their high horses about Arizona, and maybe take a little look see at their own laws. Just a suggestion. Especially since Arizona is NOT going to take this lying down:

Moreover, this travel thing goes both ways, too. Oh, yes. Arizona residents are basically saying, “You can bite us” to San Diego:

Would-be tourists have notified the San Diego Convention and Visitors Bureau and some hotels that they are canceling their scheduled travel to the coastal vacation destination, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune.

I believe this is known as, “Screw me? Screw YOU screw me!” And don’t think this isn’t affecting San Diego:

That has tourism officials urging Arizonans to consider the resolutions as merely symbolic and local politics at work.

“We’re in a very tough environment already because of everything else going on, and we don’t need another negative impact to our industry,” ConVis President Joe Terzi told the Union-Tribune. “This affects all the hardworking men and women who count on tourism for their livelihoods, so we’re saying, don’t do something that hurts their livelihoods.”

“I’ve been approached by a number of hotels who are very concerned because they’ve received cancelations from Arizona guests,” Namara Mercer, executive director of the county Hotel-Motel Association, told the newspaper.

Roughly 2 million Arizonans visit San Diego each year but the recession has taken a toll on the hotel industry that was hoping for a comeback this year. Hotels are offering deep discounts to fill up their undersold rooms while the tourism board spends $7 million this spring and summer season to promote travel to the area.

Imagine that. There are actually consequences to the actions taken by these city councils, and Arizonans have no reason to see them as “symbolic.”

Add these kneejerk, politically motivated decisions to our elected officials deciding they do not have to follow state or federal laws they decide they don’t like. Can you imagine what would happen if we decide there are laws we just areen’t going to bother following, and take a step further, demand others not follow, too? Oh, I know – whaddya say we try doing that with our taxes and see how far we get? Yeah, I know – not very far.

Maybe the Governor of Arizona needs to put her law down side by side California’s law, and have a little chat with her fellow governor. Let him know this thing goes both ways, and she is not going to sit back while California threatens Arizona simply for enforcing federal law.

And if California refuses to enforce federal laws, I say take their damn funding away. They cannot have it both ways, right? Let’s hear it.

Upset — and scared, said a 40-year-old undocumented Mexican immigrant named Moses, who has lived and worked in the United States for 19 years. He currently works as a foreman on state-financed construction projects, he said. (Emphasis mine.)

“I pay my taxes, I try my best,” he said. “We need a chance because of our family. All my kids are U.S.-born.”

State financed projects in Illinois, and they don’t require proper documentation? Wow.

And while I am talking about the Immigration protesters, I want to share a video with you that NQ regular, HARP, provided me. This is a disturbing video out of Santa Cruz:

I hate to make the obvious distinction, but this is the antithesis of the Tea Party rallies, isn’t it?

I am still trying to wrap my head around why people think the United States should have completely open borders. It seems they are fine with the US having absolutely no idea who is coming in, any way to track them, or anyway to protect the border states. Why?

There is another issue here, too. These protesters seem to be oblivious to, or in complete and utter denial about, the rampant crime in these border states, and the staggering costs associated with having so many illegal immigrants come in. Texas Rep. Riddle said that it costs Texas FOUR BILLION dollars a year to deal with illegal immigrants: education, crime, and healthcare oare three major issues. It costs California TEN billion dollars a year.

Just who do these protesters think should pay for this? I think we know the answer to that. Even still – what other country in the world would allow people to enter without any documentation? None of which I am aware.

Which brings me to this. Mexican President Felipe Calderon is also lambasting Arizona for their recent attempt to enforce existing federal law. Oh, yes, he had all kinds of things to say in this article, Mexican Hypocrisy? U.S. Neighbor Has Its Own Tough Take on Immigration:

Mexican President Felipe Calderon says his government “cannot and will not remain indifferent” in the face of Arizona’s new immigration enforcement law, which he says violates human rights. But Mexico itself has “incredibly restrictive” immigration laws, experts told FoxNews.com.

Mexican President Felipe Calderon says his government “cannot and will not remain indifferent” in the face of Arizona’s new immigration enforcement law, which he says violates human rights. But Mexico itself has “incredibly restrictive” immigration laws, experts told FoxNews.com.

When Arizona’s law goes into effect this summer, law enforcement officers in the state will be required to verify the immigration status of individuals they suspect are in the country illegally. President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder quickly criticized the law despite its popularity in Arizona, and a referendum drive and a lawsuit have emerged as potential roadblocks to it.

But Calderon’s objection has riled some immigration policy experts, who called his take on the measure misguided given Mexico’s policies on unauthorized residents, particularly how the country deals with illegal entry and foreign ownership of property.

“It shows more than anything else that Mexico’s restrictive immigration policies have kept that country poor and in conflict for years,” said Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration policy analyst for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a Washington-based conservative think tank. “The United States should not try to emulate that.”

Before last year, when Mexican immigration law was amended, the penalties for entering Mexico illegally ranged from fines to imprisonment for up to two years, followed by deportation. The law now allows for fines up to 5700 pesos (roughly $470), and a $400 fine for overstaying on a visa.

Hmmm. Let’s see, fines, imprisonment, and deportation. That is our neighbor to the South. The one whose president is criticizing us. Oh, wait – he probably just wanted to get in good with our president, who is busy criticizing Arizona, while not lifting a pinky to help them. Nice.

But there is more:

And the U.S. State Department warns Americans to exercise “extreme caution” prior to investing in property in Mexico, due to substantially different real estate practices and laws. The Mexican Constitution bans direct ownership by foreigners of real estate within 10 kilometers — or 6.2 miles — of any border and within 50 kilometers (31 miles) of any coastline.

“In order to permit foreign investment in these areas, the Mexican government has created a trust mechanism in which a bank has title to the property but a trust beneficiary enjoys the benefits of ownership,” the State Department profile on Mexico reads. “However, U.S. citizens are vulnerable to title challenges that may result in years of litigation and possible eviction.”

Nowrasteh said those policies hurt Mexico financially and contribute to a system that is not designed to accommodate foreigners.

“Restrictive ownership of property by foreigners restricts foreign investment,” he said. “It restricts the movement of entrepreneurs and laborers to Mexico who make the country wealthier. Any person around the world should be able to own property and invest in any economy around the world. It’s to everyone’s benefit.”

Syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin said Mexico’s immigration laws are “far more draconian” than those in the United States, adding that Mexican authorities can “exercise any discretion” regarding deportations.

“So it’s particularly ironic to see them complaining about America when we allow open borders activists and illegal aliens to march on the streets demanding that we give them more than they certainly do in Mexico,” said Malkin, who is a Fox News contributor.

No kidding. Pot, meet kettle. What sheer and utter hypocrisy from Mexico’s president, if you ask me. Though I am not alone:

Andrew Selee, director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, agreed that Calderon’s statements regarding Arizona’s law are seemingly incongruous given immigration policies in his own country.

“The Mexican government is certainly within its rights to defend its citizens abroad, but they should also remind them of the need to substantially improve immigration laws in Mexico,” Selee said. “We would expect the Mexican government to want to protect their citizens living in the United States, but this is a highly public issue. It should certainly also bring about some reflection on how immigration law is applied in Mexico.”

Dan Griswold, director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, disagreed, saying Calderon has a right to speak his mind about Arizona’s new law.

“The Mexican president has a right to complain about laws he thinks work against Mexican citizens in the United States,” he said. “And the Arizona law does raise legitimate questions about discrimination.”

Griswold continued, “The Mexican president is an important voice in this discussion. They’re an important neighbor, an important trading partner and we have mutual interests.”

Sure, Mexico is important in this discussion, especially since it is THEIR people who are being so disruptive in Arizona, Texas, and California with the drug cartels, gangs, and violence. Maybe Calderon figures better here than there.

Here’s the bottom line though: no country allows people to just waltz on in without proper documentation. Canada, our friendly neighbor to the north, also has very strict immigration policies in place. They require a large sum of money in the bank, and documentation of employment, for starters. Mexico has “draconian” immigration laws. And we should at least be protecting our borders so that we can protect our citizens. No matter how loudly illegal immigrants yell to be given their “rights,” the reality is, they are in this country ILLEGALLY, thus they do not deserve the same rights as American citizens have.

Do we need to make changes to our immigration laws? Probably so, as my friend, Ani points out in this excellent article. But in the meantime, we need to enforce the laws we have so that states like CA, TX, AZ, and others do not have to suffer such great expense in terms of money, time, resources, and safety.

In other words, stop playing politics to get votes, and start protecting our nation’s borders for our citizens. Obama can begin NOW by reinstating the border guards and funds to secure our borders. That would be a start…

“We have repeatedly sought your departments’ cooperation,” they wrote. “Our efforts have been met with delay, the production of little that was not already public and shifting reasons for why the departments are withholding [information] that we have requested.”

Before he went on his terrorist rampage, Hasan was in regular e-mail contact with Anwar al-Awlaki, the US-born imam who ministered to at least three 9/11 hijackers as well as the would-be Christmas Day underwear bomber.

Indeed, FBI and Army investigators reportedly intercepted those e-mails, and also knew that he’d been heard making statements justifying suicide bombing.

“Given the warning signals about Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan’s extremist radicalism,” ask Lieberman and Collins, “why was he not stopped before he took 13 American lives?”

Why not, indeed?

That is the question – why WON’T Holder and Gates provide the information the Senate needs to fulfill its duty? I am sure this will be dragging out for a while.

Then I reported that Gov. Rendell claimed the Tea Party is not a legitimate movement, basically asserting that its “popularity” is simply the result of positive media coverage. After I picked my jaw up off the floor at such an incredibly ridiculous statement based on FACTS, I found numerous instances of the media covering the Tea Party, but it was far from positive.

I was not the only one to refute this ridiculous claim, though, A Tea Party member, who is also a DJ, had this to say about Gov. Rendell’s statement:

Uh, yeah. I might add, I was reminded by Karen For Hillary that Rendell had also tried to found an Anti-PUMA group during the election, one he termed, H.O.U.N.D. (thanks, Ani, for acronym). Get it? Ahem. Yeah, he needs some rehab from that Obama Kool Aide.

And while I am on the topic of the media, and the way it covers events, how about the coverage of the AZ protesters of the new Immigration law v. Tea Party coverage:

So Anti-Immigration protesters are heaving full water bottles at police officers, some are being arrested, and this is a PEACEFUL protest? Wow.

Finally, there is this call to violence by Slate’s David Plotz:

Plotz acknowledged that he was indeed calling for violence (isn’t that a crime? “Inciting a riot” is what it sounds like to me, though I’m no lawyer). Moreover, when asked if he wanted to burn people in effigy, he made it clear that “in effigy” was NOT his plan.

Can you imagine, can you JUST imagine, if ANYONE in the middle or the right issued such a call?? Ohmygosh, they would have the FBI at their door tout de suite.

I might add, Plotz is clearly uninformed – there IS a populist uprising in progress in this country right now. It’s the TEA PARTY. Whether you agree with it or not, that is exactly what it is – a populist uprising against wasteful spending, taxation, and government expansion. You’d think someone who was in the news business would be aware of that. Ahem.

Stay tuned – I am sure there will be more to add in the coming days!

And circumvents the Congress, even the President, in the process. Yes, it turns out that, according to DOJ lawyer, David Barron, it is A-Okay for ACORN to receive funds from American taxpayers, according to this NY Times article.

Yes, it is a little more complicated than that, but not a lot. I believe the term is “grandfathering” the contracts in:

The Justice Department has concluded that the Obama administration can lawfully pay the community group Acorn for services provided under contracts signed before Congress banned the government from providing money to the group.

The department’s conclusion, laid out in a recently disclosed five-page memorandum from David Barron, the acting assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel, adds a new wrinkle to a sharp political debate over the antipoverty group’s activities and recent efforts to distance the government from it.

Since 1994, Acorn, which stands for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, has received about $53 million in federal aid, much of it grants from the Department of Housing and Urban Development for providing various services related to affordable housing.

But the group has become a prime target for conservative critics, and on Oct. 1, President Obama signed into law a spending bill that included a provision that said no taxpayer money — including money authorized by previous legislation — could be “provided to” the group or its affiliates.

Here’s a little newsflash – it isn’t just Conservatives who are angry that this organization, which has engaged in MASSIVE voter registration, as well as voter, fraud, is receiving our tax dollars. Then there’s the pesky little issue of the videos taken in their offices mentioned below. But I digress…

This will warm the cockles of your heart, just who it was who asked that funding be restored. Yes, another government agency:

A Housing and Urban Development Department lawyer asked the Justice Department whether the new law meant that pre-existing contracts with Acorn should be broken. And in a memorandum signed Oct. 23 and posted online this week, Mr. Barron said the government should continue to make payments to Acorn as required by such contracts.

The new law “should not be read as directing or authorizing HUD to breach a pre-existing binding contractual obligation to make payments to Acorn or its affiliates, subsidiaries or allied organizations where doing so would give rise to contractual liability,” Mr. Barron wrote.

The deputy director of national operations for Acorn, Brian Kettenring, praised Mr. Barron’s decision.

“We are pleased that commitments will be honored relative to Acorn’s work to help keep America’s working families facing foreclosure in their homes,” Mr. Kettenring said.

Mr. Barron said he had based his conclusion on the statute’s phrase “provided to.” This phrase, he said, has no clearly defined meaning in the realm of government spending — unlike words like “obligate” and “expend.”

Citing dictionary and thesaurus entries, he said “provided to” could be interpreted as meaning only instances in which an official was making “discretionary choices” about whether to give the group money, rather than instances in which the transfer of money to Acorn was required to satisfy contractual obligations.

Since there are two possible ways to construe the term “provided to,” Mr. Barron wrote, it makes sense to pick the interpretation that allows the government to avoid breaching contracts.

Moreover, he argued, requiring the government to cancel contracts with a specifically named entity — “including even in cases where performance has already been completed but payment has not been rendered” — would raise constitutional concerns best avoided by interpreting the law differently.

In other words, it all depends on how you define the term. Wow, that’s some major lawyering going on right there, isn’t it? “It depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is…” Great.

You may recall that ACORN has filed a lawsuit, too, claiming it should not be cut off from our funds, despite it clearly being a partisan organization:

The Constitution prohibits “bills of attainder” — legislation intended to punish specific people or groups. Acorn has filed a lawsuit arguing that the statute banning the government from providing it money amounts to a bill of attainder.

Founded in Arkansas in 1970, Acorn describes itself as the nation’s largest grass-roots community organizing group. It provides financial services to poor and middle-income families, conducts voter registration drives, and advocates for higher minimum wages and more affordable housing.

Conservatives have long complained about Acorn’s voter drives in poor neighborhoods, citing instances in which workers fraudulently registered imaginary voters like Mickey Mouse. Acorn has argued that it is the real victim of such incidents, which its employees have often brought to the attention of the authorities.

Criticism of Acorn escalated in September, when two conservative activists released videos they had recorded using secret cameras of Acorn workers in several cities. The activists had posed as a pimp and a prostitute seeking financial advice. Instead of raising objections, the Acorn employees counseled the couple on how to hide their illicit activities and avoid paying taxes.

Conservatives seized on the videos to criticize the group further, highlighting that the Obama campaign had paid an Acorn affiliate for get-out-the-vote efforts. Congress then enacted the ban on providing money to it.

Acorn has fired several of the employees depicted in the videos.

Again, I am no attorney, and certainly welcome comments from those who are (jbjd!), but I’m thinking that when the Constitution is heralded as a foundation for not discriminating against certain “groups of people,” it doesn’t mean partisan political organizations like ACORN, but more like Native Americans, or disabled Americans, et al. But I could be wrong.

I hope I’m not, though – can you imagine the Constitution protecting a political group that constantly works to circumvent our very laws, like, say, child prostitution? Or, voter fraud? Or embezzlement? Yeah, me, neither.

It makes me wonder about our Department of Justice, though. So far, we have it supporting DOMA, in which it likens GLBT people to pedophiles and incest perpetrators; allowing someone who committed an act of war in which thousands were killed to have a civilian trial with all the inherent rights of an American citizen, as is the case with Khalid Sheik Mohammed, and now does an end-run around the Legislative and Executive Branches to continue funding a disreputable company. They sure have their priorities straight, don’t they? Uh huh.

I guess this is more “change we can believe in”? And just in time for the holidays, too…

No need to take my word for it. Watch this short video (from a traffic camera) to get an idea of just how many people were there (and again, thanks to Logistics Monster, who was THERE, for this video link):

The thing that bugged me about the MSM reporting is that they consistently copied each other – oh, no wait – it just LOOKED that way (check out their opening lines in the articles above and you’ll see what I mean). No, it is that they consistently claimed the marchers were all Conservatives. Apparently, this was their way to dismiss the real anger and frustration people have toward this Congress, whose approval rating is LOW, something else these writers could have looked up easily, and this President, whose ratings continue to decline. They just write them off as some right-wing whackos (1.5 million or so of them), and pay no attention to their actual concerns.

And they have plenty of them. You know, concerns like the fact that the US Government now owning 61% of GM (hey, anyone want to buy a Cadillac?); or that the Obama Administration is adding $3 MILLION to the National Debt EVERY MINUTE; or maybe it’s the 32 czars – oops, make that 31 czars (see ya, Van) Obama is appointing left and right; or the Health Care Bill; or I could go on and on and on. These aren’t just Conservative concerns – these are AMERICAN concerns. But they won’t report it that way, because it doesn’t suit the meme they have created. Had they bothered to talk to some more people on the ground, they would have found out they were Democrats, Independents, and Republicans, all coming together to protest the out of control spending of this Congress and this Administration. To put it in perspective, we are $1 TRILLION more in debt since Obama took office. $ONE TRILLION. Once again, that’s not just an issue for Conservatives. That is an issue for ALL Americans.

Here are some photos of signs at the march – they came via Barbara Espinosa who sent them to Pajamas Media at THIS site. You can see more there:

This video from – of all places – MSNBC – is a fairly good synopsis (though they still couldn’t refrain from painting this as a wholly conservative movement – until the very, very end, when the reporter actually spoke the truth). I saw it at Michelle Malkin’s site while looking for an awesome photo I saw last night, which I have not been able to find again. The sign said, “We Are Not Wee Weed Up: We are PISSED!” If I find it, I’ll add it. Here’s the video:

This is but a snapshot of the day. There is so, so much more to the events of the day, the numbers of people, the calls for accountability in our government.

For those people who aren’t upset about the added $Trillion to our deficit, the takeover of GM, the unvetted czars, the $Trillion Health Care Plan, etc., etc., those people who are downplaying the size of this march, who blow it off as just some group of conservatives going off half cocked, my question is, Why the hell are you NOT upset at what our government is doing??? Bill Clinton downsized our government tremendously, Bush increased it, and now Obama is bankrupting it. Why AREN’T they upset??

Now, this isn’t a new issue – GLB couples having to engage in all kinds of machinations should they fall in love with someone from another country. But this story was mighty surprising given the position one of the men held, Gay Couples Forced To Flee U.S. Over Immigration Law: San Angelo mayor last month resigned his post and moved to Mexico to live legally with his partner. Right? Wowie zowie:

The mayor of this West Texas sheep ranching town offered a stunning explanation when he suddenly resigned last month: He was in love with a man who was an illegal immigrant and had gone to Mexico.

They had to move, he said, because there was no legal way for them to remain together in the United States. Same-sex couples can’t secure green cards for their partners like heterosexual spouses can (emphasis mine).

“It wasn’t a decision that any U.S. citizen should have to make,” former Mayor J.W. Lown said from Mexico. “I left a home. I left a ranch. I left a promising political career.”

His local prominence and his departure on the day he was supposed to be sworn in for a fourth term caused jaws to drop, but it also became a high-profile example of the thousands of Americans who face a similar choice — separate or move abroad .

About 36,000 Americans are in this situation, said U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., citing information from the advocacy group Immigration Equality.

He is absolutely right – it ISN’T a decision any U.S. citizen should have to make.

Now is when I interject that my sister married some guy from the other side of the world whom she met in a Star Trek chat-room. I am not kidding you (and yes, we were all so proud). Oh, he is now an American citizen – BECAUSE HE CAN BE.

And like everything else dealing with the GLBT community, it is not smooth sailing ahead:

Bills have been introduced in Congress to treat same-sex partners like heterosexual spouses for the purposes of immigration, but they are likely to face a strong fight, both from opponents of gay marriage and anti-immigration groups. The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act prevents immigration officials from recognizing same-sex marriages, even from states where they are now legal.

Proponents see the issue as a basic rights question, and Steve Ralls, a spokesman for Immigration Equality, said he thinks the best chance for the legislation is as part of a larger immigration bill.

But other immigration advocates want to keep the issues separate, fearful of bogging down an already tough fight. Kevin Appleby, migration policy director for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said the push for same-sex partners in immigration is about getting recognition in federal law for gay marriage — which he opposes.

“It’s an unholy marriage of the immigration debate and the same-sex marriage debate,” he said. “It’s very combustible.”

Oh, well, when you put it like that, by all means, let’s just back burner the whole thing and continue to make the GLBT community pay a higher price than anyone else in this country to BE citizens of this country.

As for the mayor, well, evidently, his decision was a bit of a surprise:

Lown’s decision last month brought the issue to an unlikely place, a town of 90,000 where ranchers and roughnecks from the vast open lands come to do their banking and send their kids to the regional state college. The town’s only other recent brush with national fame came last year when it housed the hundreds of children taken from a polygamist sect’s ranch in nearby Eldorado.

Before his May 19 resignation, Lown was considered a political rising star. The 32-year-old Republican, first elected at age 26, won his fourth term with about 89 percent of the vote.

During his tenure, Lown transformed the $600-a-year, part-time job from a mostly ceremonial position to a hands-on office. He actively appeared at thousands of community functions and went to Washington to lobby for the West Texas town — spending his own money after a few residents complained about taxpayers footing the bill.

“That’s devotion and dedication,” Councilwoman Charlotte Farmer said. “He would have gone far in the political arena in the state of Texas and perhaps farther.”

Lown’s sexuality never really became an issue. Some people didn’t know he was gay. Lown’s godfather, Mario Castillo, said most who knew didn’t care.

“San Angelo has a live-and-let-live attitude. As long as you don’t go around waving your boxer shorts in Sunday school, people leave it alone,” said Castillo, a longtime resident who is now a Washington lobbyist.

ROTFLMAO – okay, that was funny. But, what is not funny is the attitude there in the town. It is downright REFRESHING. And AMERICAN.

Back to the mayor:

But Lown, who worked as a real estate agent, said his prominence meant his 2-month-old relationship would be scrutinized and his 20-year-old partner might be subject to deportation.

“My heart was torn, and I had to make a decision,” he said shortly after his resignation.

Lown has declined to identify his partner but said the man came across the Rio Grande as a teenager and attended high school and college in San Angelo. They went to Mexico — Lown won’t say exactly where — so that his partner can apply for legal residency in the United States, generally a lengthy process for Mexicans without a spouse, child or parent who is a U.S. citizen.

“I did not want to consciously violate the law,” Lown said. “We want to make a life together and do it in the right way and follow the law.”

Lown, whose mother was Mexican, holds dual citizenship that allows him to live legally in Mexico, he said.

And on that level, he is lucky that he CAN live in the country of citizenship for his partner. “Lucky,” in that regard, but a difficult word to use given what he has had to give up because of whom he loves:

San Angelo, meanwhile, will be without a mayor until the City Council decides whether to appoint someone or schedule a special election.

Lown said he hopes to eventually return here with his partner.

“I don’t know how long this is going to take. It could take months. It could take years, but I’m prepared to wait as long as it takes,” he said. “I hope I’ll have some shred of my good name left when this is resolved.”

I don’t know how long this will go on, either. It has gone on far too long as it is, but so has the fight for us to have equal rights AT ALL. And now we have a president who has reneged on every promise he made to the BLT community (and you already know how I feel about that – I expected nothing less from him than this big huge dagger sticking out of my back, but frankly, I am sick of so many of us reaping what others have sown. I’m just sayin’.).

So now Mr. Lown has had to up and move, give up his position (and potential positions) to live with the man he loves. This is happening all over the country, make no mistake. And will continue to happen until we are seen as full fledged citizens of this country. Once again, though, I am NOT holding my breath for that to change under Obama. Maybe when we get a President Clinton…Until then, GLB U.S. citizens will continue having to give up their homes, their professions, and their COUNTRY because of whom they love. And that is just wrong.

There are new findings out from the Civic Literacy Report, and they are not good. In fact, they are disturbing. This is a follow-up survey by one done to test civic knowledge of college students conducted over two years. The best result – the BEST result – was 54.2% on basic civics and self-governance. How do I say this? Oh, here it is – that’s PATHETIC. So, the American Civic Literacy Organization decided to survey adults, and elected officials. Check out some of these findings based on 33 questions asked:

The results reveal that Americans are alarmingly uninformed about our Constitution, the basic functions of our government, the key texts of our national history, and economic principles.

* Less than half can name all three branches of the government.
* Only 21% know that the phrase “government of the people, by the people, for the people” comes from Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address.
* Although Congress has voted twice in the last eight years to approve foreign wars, only 53% know that the power to declare war belongs to Congress. Almost 40% incorrectly believe it belongs to the president.
* Only 55% know that Congress shares authority over U.S. foreign policy with the president. Almost a quarter incorrectly believe Congress shares this power with the United Nations.
* Only 27% know the Bill of Rights expressly prohibits establishing an official religion for the United States.
* Less than one in five know that the phrase “a wall of separation” between church and state comes from a letter by Thomas Jefferson. Almost half incorrectly believe it can be found in the Constitution.

Americans from all age groups, income brackets, and political ideologies fail the test of civic literacy.

* Americans age 25 to 34 score an average of 46% on the exam; Americans age 65 and over score 46%.
* Americans earning an annual income between $30,000 and $50,000 score an average of 46%; Americans earning over $100,000 score 55%.
* Liberals score an average of 49%; conservatives score 48%.
* Americans who go to church once a week score an average of 48%; Americans who never go to church score 50%.

I know – holy crap, right? This sure does explain a lot to me, though, about how/why certain people do not see glaring violations of the Constitution even when it is shoved in their faces. They just do not know.

Wanna guess who it is in part responsible for the “dumbing down of America”? Did you guess the television? Then you would be right:

In order to help isolate the impact a college degree has on civic literacy, ISI examined additional factors that might add to or subtract from an individual’s civic knowledge. The survey results were put through a regression analysis to determine whether various behaviors in a respondent’s life had a unique, statistically significant impact on his or her civic knowledge.

The multiple-regression analysis indicated that a person’s test score drops in proportion to the time he or she spends using certain types of passive electronic media. Talking on the phone, watching owned or rented movies, and even monitoring TV news broadcasts and documentaries diminishes a respondent’s civic literacy.

Actively seeking knowledge through print media and high-quality conversations has the opposite effect. Reading about history and current events in books, magazines, and newspapers—and talking about these subjects with family and friends—increases a respondent’s civic literacy.

In fact, an American who lacks a college degree but has initiative and desire—and who does not spend too much time watching TV and talking on the phone—can acquire more civic knowledge than a couch potato with a college degree.

So there’s at least some hope if people can tear themselves away from CNN and MSNBC and pick up a newspaper and discuss it, they might actually learn something about this country.

Okay, as promised, wait, just WAIT until you see how our elected officials, those who swear to uphold the Constitution fared in basic civics. I’d put down that mug (or glass) if I were you:

The elected officeholders come from the ranks of Democrats (40%), Republicans (31%), Independents (21%), and those who say they belong to no party or indicate no affiliation (8%). None were asked to specify what office they held, so the proportion in which they held local, state, or federal positions is unknown.

Not all officeholders do poorly, of course. Some elected officials rank among the highest scorers. But the failure rate on the test among those who have won public office is higher (74%) than among those who have not (71%). Officeholders scored lower on all sub-themes of the test: political history, cultural institutions, foreign relations, and market economy.

In each of the following areas, for example, officeholders do more poorly than non-officeholders:

* Seventy-nine percent of those who have been elected to government office do not know the Bill of Rights expressly prohibits establishing an official religion for the U.S.
* Thirty percent do not know that “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” are the inalienable rights referred to in the Declaration of Independence.
* Twenty-seven percent cannot name even one right or freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment.
* Forty-three percent do not know what the Electoral College does. One in five thinks it either “trains those aspiring for higher political office” or “was established to supervise the first televised presidential debates.”
* Fifty-four percent do not know the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. Thirty-nine percent think that power belongs to the president, and 10% think it belongs to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
* Only 32% can properly define the free enterprise system, and only 41% can identify business profit as “revenue minus expenses.”

On some questions, Americans who have held elected office do better than Americans who have not. They are a little more likely, for example, to recognize the language of the Gettysburg Address (23% to 21%) and to know that the question of whether slavery should be allowed to expand into new territories was the main issue in the Lincoln–Douglas debates (25% to 20%).

Officeholders and non-officeholders find it equally difficult to identify the three branches of government. Only 49% of each group can name the legislative, executive, and judicial.

Well, that sure explains a lot, doesn’t it? No wonder we find ourselves screaming at the tv watching our lawmakers say the stupidest things that CLEARLY bear no relation to the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. But for ANYONE in this country – ANYONE – to not know we have three separate branches of government is – wow – staggering. How can any American NOT KNOW THAT???? Clearly, they did not see this enough while growing up:

So, will people be upset of Patrick Fitzgerald doesn’t stay on in his current position? For less than half of the nation who don’t even know the three branches of government, I’d say the percentage of people who wouldn’t even know anything had changed would be at least A GAZILLION percent. Sad. Really, really sad. This is exactly how we end up with people like Obama as the President Elect. People know so little about the government in general, how in the WORLD can we expect them to understand something like caucus fraud?? Wow. Just freakin’ wow. Go check out the site and see some of the other findings. I bet you’ll be be blown away, too. And I bet Thomas Jefferson is rolling over in his grave.

It has taken the better part of a year, and specifically the last six months of this election season, for committed citizen journalists at NoQuarter and many other blogsites to do the research on Barack Obama that the media, the democratic national committee, and our Congress should have done.   Although our collective knowledge of Barack Obama and the concerns of his candidacy came too late to make a difference in this election,  for all our hard work, we were successful in shedding some light on the content of his character: his associations, his deeds, his family relations, his friends, his stewardship, his patriotism, his potential agenda, and the startling depth of his secrecy. 

Now that we have “un-muddied” the water…..we stand on the edge of a caldera* with no idea of the complexity, depth,  explosiveness, nor unpredictability of this phenomenon we have all witnessed in the rise of Barack Obama!   We as a country have never actually been here before, standing at the edge, except perhaps in the election of 1860. One realizes at once the perils of both diving into that hot pool of water or running away to avoid the explosion….

While there seems to be little evidence that we will ever fully know Obama, nor avoid the explosion change he will bring, there is a way we can learn from this experience such that our Country will never again be faced with someone who is truly unknown, inexperienced, untested, and feels (to me anyway) uncommitted to America.  We can use the  2008 experiences to also highlight and then design strategies to ensure that every political party is responsive to its constituents, and that our Constitution is really a living document.

The Constitution is by and for “we the people”; therefore “we the people” must make it work and not rely on any political party to sell America to the highest bidder.

FOUR QUESTIONS 

I bring forward four questions that get to the heart of our rights, as American citizens, to ensure that our government and its leaders are indeed qualified to lead our great country.  By extension, these questions can be used as windows to other potential areas where we the people do not yet have redress.

These questions are miraculously (given procedural errors and existing judgments)before the Supreme Court with the requirement that President-elect Obama respond to them by December 1, 2008.  

While I have not kept track of the Berg v. Obama case for many reasons, it truly is miraculous that Justice Souter granted the writ of certiorari.  Even if, as some have said, Souter’s action is not significant and procedural only, how Obama responds will reveal much about his view of the Constitution and will determine if the Supreme Court decides to hear the case.

In my opinion, the questions raised by Berg and the questions raised in the case should not have been thrown out entirely based on standing alone, or by the notion that the injury to a voter is “vague”.   The Supreme Court Rules permit the grant of a writ of certiorari only under specific circumstances.

The questions presented for review are:

1. Whether a citizen of the United States has standing to challenge the Constitutional qualifications of a Presidential nominee under the “natural born citizen clause” [Article II of the U.S. Constitution] when deprivation of the right to such a challenge would result in the infringement of a citizen’s Constitutional right to vote?
2. Isn’t it true that no one has the responsibility to ensure a United States Presidential candiate is eligible to serve as President of the United States?
3. Are there proper steps for a voter to ensure a Presidential Candidate is qualified and eligible to serve as President of the United States?
4. Isn’t it true that there are not any checks and balances to ensure the qualifications and eligibiity of a Presidential Candidate to serve as President of the United States?

 The “questions presented for review” in the the writ require Obama’ response. Notice that answering these questions does not require Obama to produce a birth certificate,  but to answer why he does not have to prove himself eligible.  

Although we cannot predict Obama’s answers, based on past legal motions submitted in the lower court case, Obama may indeed argue that (1)a citizen does not have standing, (2) that no one has responsibility to ensure eligibility, (3) that there are no proper steps for a citizen to ensure qualifications, and (4) that there are no checks and balances that exist today to ensure a candidate is qualified.  It is also possible Obama would argue that the 14th Amendment permits “naturalized citizens” and “dual citizens” to be known as “American citizens” and thereby satisfies the requirements of Article II.

I think these questions may have Obama boxed in. If he intends not release his COLB, citizenship records, etc, Obama would then practically argue a big “FU” to the U.S. Supreme Court and say in effect “I don’t have to respond to this because there is no law, no avenue for citizens, and no checks and balances that require me to do so.”  He will argue technicalities in how to disregard the Constitution. I wonder how the Supreme Court might respond to that? 

If Obama responds in any other way, he will be forced to disclose and or describe why, how, and what steps citizens can take to assure the POTUS’s  eligibility, and perhaps then he may be forced prove his eligibility to serve as POTUS under Article II. Alternatively he could be forced to concede that there are no procedures to ensure eligibility of a person for POTUS.  Would the Supreme Court order him then to produce his documentation according to the original suit filed by Berg?

One item of interest is how Obama responds to Question 4, on the existence of checks and balances to assure eligibility.  One would assume procedurally that “checks and balances” could mean legislative processes, acts, bills, or resolutions that would act as those “checks and balances”.  Here is where Obama could argue that the Senate Resolution passed by Leahy, Obama, and McCatskill on John McCain’s eligibility applies.  This resolution could be seen as an attempt by the three Senators to create a blanket provision for a naturalized citizen to be eligible to serve as POTUS.  In other words, Obama could argue that the checks and balances already exist and this resolution suffices (notice this is not a bill).

Justice Souter will then hear Berg’s response to Obama’s legal argument before deciding where the case goes next, including whether the full Supreme Court will take the issue up.  Remember that Souter’s clerks have all the lower court material and reviewed it before Souter granted the writ of certioriari.

How does the Supreme Court react?  Will it order the production of Obama’s documents? Will it order the FEC, electors, or Congress to verify his eligibility, or develop verification procedures?  Will they say that the 14th Amendment really did modify Article II criteria? Will they dismiss the case?

And how, in the meantime, are we to ever know about Barack Obama? Is the burden of proof really on America (Berg), or on Barack Obama?  Is it up to your empoyer to find out who you are, or is it up to you as an employee to provide your documentation?  Isn’t Obama supposed to be working for America?

Implications for the Future

The four questions presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 will have a lasting and enduring effect on the course of the American Constitution in the next decade or more, and will continue to feed the growing doubts about Obama’s intentions in the next four years.

Just my suspician, but I am beginning to get a more complete picture of why Obama has sealed all of his records, including college financial aid applications, papers, and coursework.  I believe his financial aid applications reveal his foreign status; and I now see that his Columbia and Harvard papers could reveal his examination of the “weaknesses” of the U.S. Constitution and ways to “remedy” them using “administrative procedures”.

As I look at the scope of research on the issue of eligibility during this election season, I note that nearly all have concluded that there are no checks and balances to assure the eligibility of a Presidential Candidate, that no one is responsible, and that indeed citizens and voters have very little recourse to ask these questions.  The Supreme Court has never been presented with this question before on Article II eligibility.  I doubt that they will duck their responsibilities to protect the constitution.

It appears that up until this time, it has been assumed that every candidate and POTUS has met Article II qualifications.  We assume that in fact no one would dare to run for and claim the Presidency if he/she didn’t meet the qualifications of the Constitution.  Looks like our age of innocence is over.

It appears that we will have to craft legislation to assure eligibility criteria are met for the POTUS, and to assign appropriate responsibilities to assure so.  If the country wants to amend the Constitution to allow naturalized or dual citizens to serve as POTUS, then we have that mechanism, wherein 75% of the states have to ratify.

The four questions to the Supreme Court also remind me of other areas in which we voters do not have redress when something goes wrong.  Although I am now an “unaffiliated” voter, having left the democratic party after November 4th, it also appears that democrats do not have an avenue of redress when the DNC and RBC violate party rules as they did in this case to deny Hillary Clinton the nomination. In addition, we now know that caucuses can be gamed, and do not serve the interests of democracy or provide a fair representation of the strength of our party’s candidates.  Because of the DNC, RBC and Obama’s gaming of the system with caucus fraud,  the blatant use of race and misogyny to silence critics, we are witnessing the democrats begin the disintegration of the “democratic brand”.  I am sure there are issues in the Republican party after GWB destroyed the “republican brand”.  We all need a detox from our respective koolaid brands in order to really see clearly.

What is next for our country?  Well, if we don’t want to dive into that hot pool, we’d better start creating an alternative vision.  A line in one of my favorite movies, The Shawshank Redemption, sums it up for me:

“…get busy livin’, or get busy dyin’…”

*Photo Credits: (1)”Predictor”, EENR, Yellowstone National Park 2003. (2)British Columbia photo stock

Oh, wait – not every single question – there was at least one when you showed your truly narcissistic, superficial side. Wanna guess which one? That’s right – about his moral failure was in drinking and doing drugs as a teenager (a TEENAGER – nothing since then!!! Wow, he really IS Obush!!), a direct result of his mother being a poor sharecropper who didn’t have a row to hoe—-oh, wait – that’s not the right meme. No, his mother was a poor, single mother with no resources whatsoever who reared him all by her lonesome living hand to mouth his entire life until he somehow, someway, through his own sheer grit and determination, got into an Ivy League University. The rest, as they say, is history. Hey, wait – he prevaricated there, TOO!! A twofer! Woohoo! In this case, I think it is safe to call that a fairy tale. But never mind – all politicians embellish just a little right? RIGHT? That’s all it was, not flat-out lying!!! Oh, sure. Ahem.

Let us put to rest the Obama (false) charge that McCain cheated, and heard Obama’s “conversation” with Rev. Rick Warren. Warren HIMSELF said McCain was sequestered away, and could not hear anything. Freakin’ enough on that crapola, Andrea (Mitchell, NBC shill for Obama – see link at “cheated” above). Unless Obama has a teleprompter in front of him with a speech written by his 20-something white speechwriter (I am not kidding – CHECK it out for yourself), he does not know WHAT he thinks or for what he stands. Whatever YOU are for, so is he, until the next person comes along and supports the exact opposite. And that is McCain’s fault HOW, exactly?? Because he actually DOES know what he thinks and for what he stands (and no, this is NOT an endorsement of McCain – just making a point here)? Yeah, what a JERK!!! No WONDER Obama did so poorly! Harrumph!!

Never mind that in this Forum, ONCE AGAIN, Obama was throwing people under the bus (fleet) left and right. How about the issue of when a fetus is viable? Obama passed on that one in a heartbeat, with his “that’s above my pay grade” comment. Because there is no WAY he could have anticipated THAT question coming from a minister. In his church. In a “forum” designed to question the candidates. Heckfire, who could have seen THAT question coming???? NARAL? Planned Parenthood?? Got anything to say NOW???

Or how about throwing gay marriage under the bus – again. I mean, really – in a state that sanctions gay marriage, on the same evening that two of America’s most famous lesbians are getting married, he denigrates it, but magnanimously suggests he would be willing to extend civil rights to us. Why thank ya so MUCH, Senator Obama, but they are not YOURS to CONFER (read a whole bunch of expletives right about there).

Oh, but wait – Obama does have SOMEONE who thinks that he did a SWELL job at this event on Sat. night. Yes, Sally Quinn of the Washington Post, in her piece, “Worlds Apart,” essentially claimed that while she wants to live in McCain’s world, that she thought Obama did a good job. And it wasn’t a debate, dammit! She actually said, “There was not a winner or a loser.” Um, yeah, Sally, there really was. And it was McCain. The one who reminded you of your father in your recurring dream of him flying in with a winged horse’s body to save you from an earthquake (I am NOT making this up, people – I swear, she really SAID this! Click on the link – you’ll see!!!!). He was the winner because he was able to talk coherently, succinctly, and knowledgeably. Obama? Not so much. And so what did he do? Attacked McCain as soon as it was over. Gee – who could have seen THAT coming??

Well I can tell you someone who could have seen all of this coming, the attack on McCain as soon as the cameras were off of their big hug. Oh, yes – the person who has seen him for who he is – the sorest loser on the face of the planet. Hell, I have seen athletes in the Olympics who have trained for years and years and YEARS handle defeat with a TON more grace than Obama can even imagine. Yes, that would be Hilary Clinton. Here she is speaking to her supporters after a debate in which she, once again, schooled Obama:

Yes, no doubt she could have warned McCain, as this article shows, Clinton: Obama Going Negative After Bad Debate:

Her explanation for Obama’s recent negativity? A poor performance in last week’s debate. “It’s no wonder that my opponent has been so negative these last few days of the campaign. Because I think you saw a big difference between us,” she said. “It’s really a choice of leadership: I’m offering leadership you can count on. You know where I stand.”

Well, there is no doubt about that. She said what she meant, and meant what she said:

“While my opponent says one thing and his campaign does another, you can count on me to tell you where I stand, and you can count on me to tell you very specifically the solutions that I offer for America,” she said.

While the final quote has to do with a Clinton ad that was about to come out, I think the content sums up the issues surrounding Obama PERFECTLY:

At the same time, the Clinton campaign announced a brand new :30 second ad in PA making the same argument. “He couldn’t answer tough questions in the debate. So Barack Obama is making false charges against Hillary’s health care plan,” says the narrator. “There are more and more questions about Barack Obama. Instead of attacking, maybe he should answer them.

(Italics mine.) Amen. Couldn’t have said it better myself. Yes, maybe he SHOULD answer the questions about him (passport? birth certificate??? Citizenship????), and actually tell the TRUTH for once. Now THAT would be a Change (not sure I could believe it though, but hey – I’m willing to give it a shot!). Frankly, we deserve nothing less!

In a previous post I suggested that there was an urgent need to make known and make use of the stunning information revealed by TexasDarlin and researchers regarding the potential ineligibility of Barack Obama to serve as President of the United States because of certain “technical” matters related to his legal name, birth certificate, and multiple citizenship. 

These mere “technical” issues are those which may result in his removal from the ballot, but unless these are covered and widely reported, Senator Obama/Soetoro will never fully be vetted and a potentially fraudulent candidate will be nominated.  At the same time that I support all efforts to get to the media, print and otherwise, I think it may also have strategic value to work at your state level too, in a way that by-passes the Obots.

This would be our last chance, before the convention, to convince the superdelegates that something is wrong with “The One”–something that is perilously wrong.  So far they have been impervious to solid, factual arguments of policy, his use of the race card, his arrogance, shocking lack of knowledge, his flip flops, misogyny, and friends and associates.  I’d like to send them a little shock and awe…

My thinking is that if we immediately initiate a few state-based efforts to challenge Obama-Soetoro’s technical qualifications–legal name, birth certificate, citizenship–that these efforts will begin to generate calls to the DNC and Obama campaign, and state-based research, that will call attention to weaknesses of Obama-Soetoro.  And if we launch this effort in a few key states-say Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Indiana—and enough questions are raised, Senator Obama-Soetoro and the DNC are going to have to comply with this information or risk having his name removed from the ballot. 

Already there have been efforts initiated to the Secretary of State (SOS) of New York, and suggested efforts to the Attorney General of the state of Hawaii. These letters form good “templates” for work in your state, and are posted at TexasDarlin.

In otherwords, Barack-Barry, it’s put up, or shut up and step down time. You know, fish or cut bait. Lead or be led right out of here. If you can prove it and explain who you are, fine. I still won’t vote for you. But its more than time for you to be forthright with the American people.

Below is a draft of a letter to a Secretary of State of your state that can be used as a template for a letter to your SOS, letters to the editor, letters to delgates, etc.  This letter draws upon and references, as required, the work of TexasDarlin, and would include some of the articles at her site.  Of course, no letter should be copied verbatim, to protect the original author and effort, but it does contain what could be used and a short summary of the findings to date. 

All should modify this letter as a tool with the new information that is posted almost daily at Texasdarlin and here at NOQuarter.  Already I see places this letter could be refined, as you will too. My hope was to put up an “action tool” for your working pleasure.

Depending on how comfortable you feel, you may or may not want  your name publicised with this effort.  It is our right as American citizens to have this information and to know who we are voting for. Good Luck!

Subject: Eligibility of Senator Barack Obama

Dear Secretary___________:

I am writing to express my concerns about, and request your assistance in certifying, whether Senator Barack Obama is eligible under Article II of the U.S. Constitution to be placed on the Presidential ballot in the State of ________. I understand that the Secretary of State’s office (SOS) relies primarily on the state and national republican and democratic parties to certify a nominee’s eligibility, although it retains the final authority on eligibility along with other SOS offices. Respectfully, it appears in the case of Senator Obama, a full verification of eligibility may not have been conducted.

I do not write this letter in frivolity and without basis, and set forth in the pages below and attached references the reasons why I am concerned. I believe that serious questions remain unanswered, and although I am a life-long registered democrat, my pleas for information from the campaign, and local and national headquarters of the Democratic Party have been met with deafening silence.

Respectfully, I seek your review of the following materials, and if you believe it to be significant, your assistance in verifying Senator Obama’s eligibility to be placed on the ballot in __________.

Background

Article II of the U.S. Constitution states , in part, that:

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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

That “natural born” citizenship can be passed to children who are born abroad by one or more parents who are American citizens is not in doubt. The requirement to be a “Citizen of the United States” is interpreted to mean allegiance: as the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, the President must have only one allegiance, and that is to the United States.

It is my understanding that the singular purpose of Article II is to ensure that the President of the United States has absolute allegiance to the United States. Naturalized citizens are specifically excluded from serving as President by virtue of having had or having citizenship from another country, that is, divided loyalties. U.S. law says nothing about dual citizenship; only that some people have it. However, if naturalized citizens cannot be President because they have previously had another allegiance, then dual citizens by nature would not meet the test of Article II.

Statement of the Problem

Given this background, the major concern I and many others have is whether Senator Obama meets both criteria, as to “natural born” and “American citizenship”. To wit:

1. Falsified Birth Certificate? In June, Senator Obama published an electronic image of his Hawaii Certification of Live Birth (COLB) on his campaign website next to the words “the truth about Barack’s birth certificate.” It is still there (see http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/birthcert). Since that time, at least two independent forensics and documents experts have concluded that this image of a COLB, proffered by Sen. Obama as his true birth certificate, is a forgery (references attached). Furthermore, the image that Senator Obama proffered appears to be a forgery of his half-sister’s Hawaiian birth certificate, although she was actually born in Indonesia. I have attached reference documents containing the original reports.

   a. As you know, the falsification of COLB-style forms is relatively simple because of technological advancements in digital and computer applications. However, the very existence of the computer-generated black block where the Certificate Number should be on the proffered form is suspect and, in accordance with the document’s own language about alterations, would invalidate the certificate. For this reason alone, investigation is warranted.

   b. Researchers believe that Sen. Obama’s birth records in Hawaii may reveal a different legal name—“Barry Soetoro”– as a result of his adoption by an Indonesian citizen; that adoption would have resulted in Mr. Obama’s subsequent acquisition of Indonesian citizenship. I am concerned that Sen. Obama may be intentionally concealing these facts from the electorate.

2. Dual and/or Multiple Citizenship? The Rocky Mountain News reported that Senator Obama had and may still have Kenyan citizenship. Other reports, which are attached, indicate that Senator Obama had at one time, and may still have, Indonesian citizenship resulting from his adoption by an Indonesian citizen in 1965. As is required by Article II, the President must not have divided loyalties; he must have only one allegiance.
3. Use of the 14th Amendment to Claim Eligibility instead of Article II? Senator Obama’s official campaign website states that the Senator “is a U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment”. Section I of this amendment states: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. Why was there a need to mention the 14th Amendment instead of Article II as an eligibility criterion? Is Senator Obama a naturalized citizen?

Notwithstanding the fact that Congress cannot change the Constitution, Senator Claire McCatskill, along with Senators Obama and Leahy, sponsored a successful, but unnecessary resolution “certifying” John McCain’s eligibility to serve as President that contained these clauses:

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President ; and

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 it

Resolved, that John Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

Frankly, this resolution, and the use of the 14th Amendment on Senator Obama’s website does not sit well with me; and the disturbing “coincidence” of this information with the forged birth certificate and potential multiple citizenships—without any explanation from Senator Obama or the Democratic National Committee–is what motivated me to write to you.

  Summary

As a voting American, I am not satisfied that I have enough information on Senator Obama to measure whether he is eligible for the Presidency. I worry for our Country should a candidate who does not meet the Article II criteria win the Presidency. Senator Obama must at the very least provide adequate documentation of his background to have his named placed on Wyoming’s Presidential ballot.

Mr. Secretary, I am prepared to accept that my concerns are unfounded if Senator Obama or the Democratic Party can provide these assurances to the voting public, or if your research can prove conclusively that he meets the eligibility criteria. Unfortunately, ordinary citizens like me cannot take on the burden of certifying presidential candidates, and in the presence of compelling information to suggest he may be ineligible for the office he seeks I urge your consideration of the attached materials.

I must emphasize that this request is not racially or religiously motivated, nor is it out of some partisan desire to have another candidate nominated. My concern is that of an American who loves her Country and believes in the rule of law.

Because of the hostility I have already experienced, and the threats to my safety and career that I may incur by openly challenging Senator Obama’s eligibility for the Office of the President, I respectfully request that my name be withheld from the public, democratic or republican party officials, or other public officials in any discussion of this issue. I can be reached by you or your staff at ____________________.

Thank you in advance for consideration of these issues.

Sincerely yours,

Enclosures–These are the 12 papers on TexasDarlin’s site by Judah Benjamin & Texas Darlin regarding (a) the birth certificate, and (b) citizenship. See text and list below.

 Footnotes to letter–these were the footnotes to the letter above, mainly documenting references.  I was unable to place them in the text here (unskilled at html!), but you can probably guess where they go in the text of the letter.  I am happy to clarify as needed.

1. This was clarified by the United States Naturalization Act of 1790 (1 Stat. 103,104) stating that the “children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens.” In this way, birth and allegiance are linked.

 2. “Divided Loyalties: Obama’s Eligibility Problem: Part I”. Author Judah Benjamin. Report attached to this paper.

 3.See Israeli Insider, online edition, August 8, 2008, “Claim: Obama’s birth certificate forged from sister Maya’s.”

 4. Because of the intimidation and threats that Obama critics face, the authors of these articles have thus far remained anonymous. However, your office should have other means of verifying the authenticity of these reports, and could consult with them if required.

 5. Although much is known about Senator Obama’s Kenyan roots from his writings, little is mentioned in his own writing or others about his Indonesian background.

 6.Even if Senator Obama took steps to renounce earlier citizenship, there may still be problems under Article II, but these should be handled in a court of law or some other forum, not concealed from the voting public.

  7.See: http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/041008c.html . Senator McCain’s eligibility to serve as President was challenged and successfully resolved in 2000 and in 2008, and was a matter of U.S. law long before these two challenges. Thus the resolution could not have been solely about Senator McCain. Did the first clause above attempt to create a blanket allowance for foreign born citizens to be labeled “natural born”?

  8.George Romney (Mexico); Barry Goldwater (Arizona Territory). Romney did not advance to nomination, and Goldwater was defeated by Lyndon Johnson in 1964.

  9.I have no explanation for why the Democratic Party, the Obama campaign, the mainstream media, or the Republican Party are not forthcoming with all the necessary documentation for an office that requires extreme scrutiny of all personal alliances, health status, selective service registration, eligibility criteria, academic records and publications, and other information. In addition, I am just one of hundreds of thousands of people across the country who are asking for the same information. Perhaps in the excitement of the 2008 primary season, some of these basic questions were overlooked, and perhaps these data will be provided to each SOS once Senator Obama is officially nominated.

Here is the Enclosure disclaimer and list of articles:

ENCLOSURES

The following enclosures are articles representing significant research conducted by various authors that began in June 2008 with the investigation of Senator Barack Obama’s web-posted “official” birth certificate. The research led to more serious questions of Senator Obama’s eligibility, under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, to serve as President of the United States.

Please be aware that throughout the critical examination of Senator Obama on the internet—which has not been covered by the main-stream media—individual authors on Democratic/Progressive blogs have had to remain anonymous, post under pseudonyms; have been threatened physically, stalked over the internet (a federal crime), and have had their websites or personal computers hacked, attacked, or shut down. It appears that there are many people who do not want this information to be made available to the general public.

Therefore, before the information is dismissed automatically because it is internet-based, please take a look at the content. Your office should have the same resources, and more, to independently confirm all of the material herein.

****

Birth Certificate

1. Forensics Expert: Obama Birth Certificate is a Forgery, Techdude, July 20, 2008

2. *Breaking* Techdude Finds Original Text on Alleged Obama Birth Certificate, Techdude, August 3, 2008.

3. *Breaking* Obama Hides Indonesian Identity: Fake Birth Certificate Explained, TexasDarlin, July 31, 2008

4. *Breaking*: Sister Maya’s Name Uncovered on Alleged Obama Birth Certificate [Update], TexasDarlin, August 5, 2008

5. Obama: The Forged COLB and a New Mystery, Judah Benjamin, August 5, 2008

Citizenship and Eligibility

6. Divided Loyalties, Obama’s Eligibility Problem—Part I, Judah Benjamin, July 25, 2008

7. Divided Loyalties, Obama’s Eligibility Problem—Part II [Revised], Judah Benjamin, July 26, 2008

8. Links and Bibliography, Divided Loyalties Parts 1 & 2, Judah Benjamin, July 1 2008

9. Obama the Indonesian: Citizen of the World?, Judah Benjamin, July 28, 2008

10. The Paper Trail: Obama’s Indonesian Background [Revised], Judah Benjamin, July 30, 2008

11. Obama: A Disaster Waiting to Happen, Legal Challenges Imminent?, Judah Benjamin, August 2, 2008

12. Obama’s Dual Citizenship Disaster: An Overview, TexasDarlin, August 10 2008

The “surprise” attack by the Japanese should not have caught the US fleet at Pearl Harbor unawares. There were advanced warnings that people in key positions ignored or shrugged off as unimportant. Well, guess what boys and girls? Similar warnings are now in the hands of the Democratic leadership and they are choosing to ignore the flashing red lights that signal danger ahead.

Just today, courtesy of the Rocky Mountain News, we confirmed that Barack aka Barry Soetoro Obama was a citizen of Kenya since 1963. Barack has yet to stipulate when he renounced or relinquished that citizenship. That will be a distracting issue in the upcoming campaign. Americans don’t want to elect a Kenyan as President. It is that simple.

But then there is the Indonesian problem and his Hawaiian birth certificate.

I confirmed today that several teams/individuals visited Jakarta during the last six months to gather up critical documents regarding Barack. It is amazing what money can buy. The information includes details of how Barack made his way to Pakistan. Oh! Did I mention there have been similar efforts underway in Pakistan. There are several lessons and warnings in the John Edwards affair for Obama. First and foremost, you cannot hide your past.

Did I also mention how small Hawaii is? Republican operatives, with help from their own island backers, have unearthed critical information on Obama and are just biding their time until after the convention to drop it on him. Such as? Having a birth certificate that lists you as Barry Soetoro.

Barack aka Barry Soetoro might have escaped scrutiny back in 1960 when there was no internet. Controlling information back then was so much easier. Not today. It is there for the taking and the Democrats foolishly chose to trust this clown just as they trusted John Edwards.

Who would have thought that John Edwards and his wife would be so arrogant and so disconnected with reality that they would embark on a presidential campaign even though they knew about his affair and the crazy nature of his paramour. Well, that kind of audacity and bamboozlement is not limited to the Edwards family. Meet the Obamas. You don’t know them? Don’t worry, Republican operatives are loaded for bear and you are going to meet a Barack Obama that was hidden and disguised during the Democratic primary. And when the introduction is over the Obama supporters will wish the only thing they had to worry about was a video with Michelle saying disparaging things about caucasians.

Dems. You’ve been warned. Don’t be surprised when the attacks come.