Archive for December, 2008

Obama’s Vague Promises = Inevitable Leftist Dismay

December 20, 2008

The deepening disenchantment on the far Left with Barack Obama has sparked a campaign here in New England to track Mr. Obama’s appointments and moves as he prepares to take office. Folks at The Phoenix group of alternative newspapers (Boston,Providence, Portland) have started a site named Take Back Barack.

Jeff Inglis, a commentator at the site, writes yesterday (excerpts,emphasis added):

….I’ve come to a deeper understanding of this visceral feeling I have of worry about Obama….

….Only time will tell whether Obama will do the right things, the things we voted for him to do – withdraw from Iraq, improve our education system, fix healthcare, green the economy. Many liberals and progressives are counseling us to wait and see, to give Obama a chance to make change.

That is the wrong path. We cannot sit back on whatever laurels we may have heard by electing Obama and let him do what he and his advisors want. We must remain constantly involved, a constant force to push Obama, his advisors, and Congress to do what we know needs to be done.

He might just do the right things, even if we left him alone. But we can’t take that chance – especially with the advisors he has chosen. Maybe he can take the Clinton out of Hillary and the McCain out of Jim Jones. Maybe they will come around – or even already have – to share Obama’s views on many topics. But I’m not willing to bet my future, my country’s future on that….Obama called on us to stand up and take our country back. We need to do that – and we start by Taking Back Barack.

Ralph Nader is not happy either. On Democracy Now (Dec 5) here is Nader in an exchange with Amy Goodman (excerpts):

…after appointing all the heavyweights, keeping Gates as Secretary of Defense, Hillary Clinton at State Department, and other positions—Treasury, for example, coming from Wall Street—the article said, well, it’s time now to consider some liberal appointees….Well, what’s left?….As long as liberals and progressives gave Obama a pass during the election and didn’t demand anything in return, he knew that he had their votes and he had their support regardless and moved right, moved to the corporate. And that’s reflected in the appointments that he has been putting in place….Now we look forward to the second level. Who’s going to be Food and Drug Administration head? Who’s going to be the head of the Auto Safety Agency or EPA? Will so-called liberals and progressives get their share of the Obama administration at that second level? It remains to be seen. But the signs are not very auspicious.

….(Obama) defeated Hillary Clinton in a close race, and now he’s reinstalling the Bill Clinton administration. Now, there are two interpretations, briefly, here. One, it could reflect his insecurity. That way, by putting Clintonites all over the government and keeping Gates, he is basically eliminating a lot of potential centers of criticism and challenge to his administration after January 20….

Amy Goodman asks about the Marine General Jim Jones nomination as National Security Adviser:

Jim Jones is basically the representative of what President Eisenhower cautioned us about, the military-industrial complex. He is experienced. He’s clever. And now he’s in the White House. So the question is, who’s going to run what? Is Obama going to transform Jim Jones? Is Obama going to transform all these establishment appointees? Or are they going to, in effect, transform him, in contrast to his more liberal rhetoric?

Code Pink activist Medea Benjamin is with Nader in this discussion and she has much to say about Iraq and Afghanistan; we’ll leave that for a later post. Stay tuned.

h/t Brian Maloney: Radio Equalizer

Obama Dismays the Left

Advertisements

Leo Donofrio’s Biggest Gamble: The Lawyer as Artist….

December 14, 2008

….the Defense Attorney who is defending human beings against the assaults of Satan*
donofrios-biggest-gamble1

I say there’s nothing wrong with tireless self promotion as long as there is some ingenuity and talent to back it up. Such is the case with Leo C. Donofrio, most recently in the blogger news (not much in the main stream news anyway) with his lawsuits before the SCOTUS regarding the eligibility of Barack H. Obama. I had heard of his skill at poker. He took top prizes at two “hold ’em” tournaments earlier this year.

Donofrio’s biggest gamble however is his attempt to remove ineligible candidates (Obama, McCain, Calero) from the presidential ballot for failing to meet the “natural born” test. His first suit “Donofrio v. Wells” was conferenced by the Justices on Dec 5 but they declined to order oral arguments. The next test comes tomorrow (Dec 15) in the Wrotnoski v. Bysiewicz when the Court will announce if it will hear that case. Today, on his blog, Natural Born Citizen, we learn that Donofrio is also an artist ,”damn it to hell”!

From Olberman at MSNBC and right on down the line with very few exceptions, I’ve been labeled a tin foil hat sporting freak show loony toon… and for what? I questioned whether a man – who admits his birth status was governed by the laws of Great Britain – is a “natural born Citizen” under our Constitution.
Well, I don’t really give a rats booty product what the media says. It’s all lies and spin anyway. But what does bother me is that they’ve insulted my artistic abilities. I am an artist, damn it to hell!

He goes on to spin a conspiracy yarn he calls “Obama Has a Twin”. He has also written a song with that title which he performs on his MySpace page where he is called The Paraclete. One reference to Paraclete on Wikipedia defines the term as “as the Defense Attorney who is defending human beings against the assaults of Satan (the Prosecuting Attorney, the Accuser, the fomenter of violence).”* He also plays in a band called Schizo Fun Addict.

Donofrio is an excellent writer and researcher and somewhat of a sleuth. His article titled The Mystery of Southern Pines Golf Club is an interesting read, even if you don’t care about golf.

I think I will come down on the side of those, and there are many, who praise his legal talent and his gutsiness in taking on a potentially huge constitutional issue. One can only wish him well in that regard, self promoter or not.

Oh No! Glass Ceiling Repaired: Hillary Takes Pay Cut

December 12, 2008

We reported earlier (12/04/08) that Hillary Clinton’s nomination as Secretary of State was in jeopardy for constitutional reasons:

There is a long history of controversy and litigation regarding the provision in the U.S. Constitution prohibiting members of Congress from subsequently attaining to federal offices offering increased monetary compensation due to the largess of the Congress in which they sat. The most recent example is that of Hillary Clinton who has been nominated to the office of Secretary of State. In Clinton’s case the salary for the position was increased, not by Congress, but via an executive order by President Bush as a COL increase.

In any event the Constitutional provision comes in to play: (CNS reports)…the Senate’s senior member and staunchest constitutional advocate on the Democratic side of the aisle, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, is exploring whether Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) is eligible to become secretary of state in the Obama administration. (CNS reporting again)

Since the bill passed both houses of Congress unanimously, we are guessing that Senator Byrd chose to approve this end run around the constitution.Here is James Taranto at WSJ online writing today:

As if she hasn’t already suffered enough indignities at the hands of the unfairer sex, Hillary Clinton will make “about $4,700 less as secretary of state than her predecessor, Condoleezza Rice,” the Associated Press reports:

Congress late Wednesday lowered the salary for the nation’s top diplomat to keep Mrs. Clinton’s nomination from running afoul of the Constitution.An obscure section on compensation for public officials, the Emoluments Clause, says that no member of Congress can be appointed to a government post if that job’s pay was increased during the lawmaker’s current term.In other words, Clinton, D-N.Y., might have been ineligible to serve in the post because she was serving in Congress when Rice’s salary was raised to its current level of $191,300. So late Wednesday, the House and Senate quietly rolled the secretary of state’s salary back to $186,600, its level in January 2007 when Clinton began her second Senate term.So as a result of the emoluments clause–written by dead white males–Mrs. Clinton will be earning less than a man would for the same job. She’ll even be earning less than another woman now makes! (emphasis added)

Glass-Ceiling-Still-Intact

Leo Donofrio: “The Propaganda Ponies of the Fourth Estate”

December 12, 2008

The Connecticut version of the Obama “natural born citizen” cases is before the Supreme Court for conferencing today. The title is, Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz, docketed here. Cort Wrotnowski is a Greenwich CT attorney store owner (see comment below) and Susan Bysiewicz is Connecticut’s Secretary of the State. Leo Donofrio is the New Jersey attorney whose own case Donofrio v. Wells was declined a hearing before SCOTUS last week. Donofrio has assisted Wrotnowski in strengthening this case.

In his blog, Natural Born Citizen, Donofrio takes the press to task for their failure to recognize what this suit is about: namely, the removal of the ineligible candidates (Obama, McCain, Calero) from the ballot because they fail the “natural born citizen” test and not because of their various places of birth. Donofrio fires off this salvo:

This week has been quite enlightening as to the blatantly obvious fact that our “Fourth Estate” press corps have been transmogrified into propaganda ponies polly wanna crackering whatever may be handed down to them from “The One Corporation – your source for everything…” (cue eery theme tune). They don’t report the news anymore. No. Now they tell you what they want the news to be. There’s a huge difference.

For the record, my law suit was brought to remove three candidates from the ballots – three candidates who have big Constitutional issues as to their eligibility.

At the time of his birth, Obama was a British/Kenyan citizen by descent of his father. Because I pointed out pesky international laws which governed his citizenship due to the fact that a father has every legal right in the world to have the laws of his nation apply to his son, I have been labeled a conspiracy freakoid of nature.

Never mind that I included demands for Panama John McCain and the Nicaraguan born Roger Calero to also be removed from our ballots. No, they don’t want to talk about that do they – because it would blow the “he’s just another Obama hater” mantra clear out of play.

A citizen (me) raised the Constitutional issue of first impression as to the meaning of “natural born Citizen” in Article 2, Section 1, of the United States Constitution – that ultimate pesky legal document for those who would rather “be” the law instead of following it.

What are the Fourth Estate propagandists worried about? Thou doth protest too much. Me thinks so. Why? Because the law is against their man – it indicates Barack Obama is not a natural born Citizen of the United States. And most of the media pundits have basically agreed by default. I say this because when yelling and mocking the issue, their main argument is not that the law is on their side (they know it isn’t), but rather that the law shouldn’t be discussed at all.

The gist of Donofrio’s argument regarding Barack Obama:

Like it or not, rich or poor, great or strong, Democrat or Republican, Obama was born under the jurisdiction of Great Britain via Kenya. There is nothing conspiratorial about saying that. Obama has it posted on his own web site. It’s this very definition which I included in Cort’s Wrotnowski’s brief. Here’s what it says at Obama’s web portal, Fight The Smears:

When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children. (Emphasis added.)

There it is. Obama is telling you his status was “governed” by a foreign jurisdiction. This is no theory. This is a fact.

Propaganda-Ponies-of-4th-Estate

WROTNOWSKI v. BYSIEWICZ Moves Forward, Supplemental Brief Tomorrow

December 8, 2008

Attorney Leo C. Donofrio reports in an update this evening that the SCOTUS docket item WROTNOWSKI v. BYSIEWICZ is scheduled for conferencing among the justices on Friday Dec 12. This was submitted by Justice Scalia. Recent discoveries about President Chester A. Arthur and one of his Supreme Court appointees may have a bearing on the present case according to Donofrio. Therefore:

Tomorrow, Dec. 9 – Cort Wrotnowski will submit a supplemental brief concerning the newly discovered ineligibility of twenty-first President Chester Arthur due to his having been born as a British subject. This is relevant to the case at hand in that Justice Gray – who wrote the seminal opinion in United States v. Wong Kim Arc – was appointed by Chester Arthur.

We reported on the Arthur business yesterday (The Liar Who Became President). Donofrio’s complete update is here. He concludes his report:

Leo Donofrio will accompany Cort Wrotnowski to Washington D.C. tomorrow and both will be available for comment at 11:00 AM on the steps of the Supreme Court. This is not a rally, protest or vigil. If the media would like to discuss this historical brief and the issues discussed above, Donofrio and Wrotnowski will be available to answer any questions thereto.

Donofrio v. Wells Not Heard, Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz Still Docketed

December 8, 2008

The Barack Obama citizenship case emanating from courts here in Connecticut is still docketed at SCOTUS. Cort Wrotnowswki v Susan Bysiewicz, CT Secretary of State, raised much the same issues as his own case (Donofrio v. Wells) reports Leo C. Donofrio this morning.The U.S. Supreme Court declined to accept the Donofrio suit for oral arguments. Regarding the Wrotnowski case Donofrio states:

I don’t know if it’s significant that Cort’s case was not denied at the same time as mine. His case argues the same exact theory – that Obama is not a natural born citizen because he was a British citizen at birth…..

If Cort’s application is also denied then the fat lady can sing. Until then, the same exact issue is before SCOTUS as was in my case. Cort’s application before SCOTUS incorporates all of the arguments and law in mine, but we improved on the arguments in Cort’s quite a bit as we had more time to prepare it.

I was in a rush to get mine to SCOTUS before election day, which I did do on Nov. 3.

Cort’s case has a much cleaner lower court procedural history….

Regarding his own case Donofrio says:

The main stream media should stop saying SCOTUS refused to hear the case. It was distributed for conference on Nov. 19. They had the issue before them for for sixteen days. Yes, they didn’t take it to the next level of full briefs and oral argument. But they certainly heard the case and read the issues. The media is failing to acknowledge that. The case and issues were considered. Getting the case to the full Court for such consideration was my goal. I trust the Supreme Court had good reason to deny the application. Despite many attempts to stop their full review, my case was placed on their desks and into their minds. Please remember that. It’s important for history to record that.

Court Won’t Hear Donofrio v Wells….

December 8, 2008

This just in from Yahoo News via Drudge…

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court has turned down an emergency appeal from a New Jersey man who says President-elect Barack Obama is ineligible to be president because he was a British subject at birth.

The court did not comment on its order Monday rejecting the call by Leo Donofrio of East Brunswick, N.J., to intervene in the presidential election. Donofrio says that since Obama had dual nationality at birth — his mother was American and his Kenyan father at the time was a British subject — he cannot possibly be a “natural born citizen,” one of the requirements the Constitution lists for eligibility to be president.

Donofrio also contends that two other candidates, Republican John McCain and Socialist Workers candidate Roger Calero, also are not natural-born citizens and thus ineligible to be president.

At least one other appeal over Obama’s citizenship remains at the court. Philip J. Berg of Lafayette Hill, Pa., argues that Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii as Obama says and the Hawaii secretary of state has confirmed. Berg says Obama also may be a citizen of Indonesia, where he lived as a boy. Federal courts in Pennsylvania have dismissed Berg’s lawsuit.

The Liar Who Became President ….

December 7, 2008

Once upon a time there was a politically ambitious man who told many lies about himself and his family. We shall call him Mr. X. During one of his early political campaigns a political enemy circulated rumors that Mr. X was born in a foreign country and therefore ineligible for high elective office. Mr. X denied the charge saying his father was a British subject but that he (X) was born here.

Mr. X claimed that his mother had always lived in the U.S. which was untrue as she had lived in another country with her husband and had (a child) there. Mr. X realized early on that he was not a “natural born citizen” because he knew that he was born before his father was naturalized. X told lie upon lie about his father’s age, the year the father came to America, even his own age; and he destroyed most of his papers all in the effort to conceal the fact that he was ineligible for high office. Who is Mr. X?

As strange as this may sound, we are not discussing Barack Obama here. Mr. X is Chester A. Arthur, the 21st President of the United States who succeeded to the Presidency upon the assassination of President James Garfield. Due to the diligent research of Leo C. Donofrio with the assistance of Arthur biographer Greg Dehler we learn that Chester A. Arthur was a usurper, never eligible for POTUS. Talk about an amazing confluence of events: just as we are ready to install the ineligible Barack Obama as POTUS we learn that this has happened before. As Donofrio says in his report on the matter; “… it’s no precedent to follow.”

The political enemy mentioned in the lead paragraph was, in reality, one Arthur P. Hinman (see footnote below)*, who may have been hired by the Democrats to smear Arthur. Interestingly, the charge of ineligibilty for POTUS brought by Hinman against Arthur was true, but for the wrong reason: Chester A. Arthur was a British subject at birth (just as Obama was) but by virtue of his birth prior to his father’s naturalization rather than birth on foreign soil. As in Obama’s case, who acknowledges on his website that he had dual citizenship at birth, we find the evidence in plain sight but too late discern its meaning.

President Chester A. Arthur

President Chester A. Arthur

*More interesting but entirely without foundation was the Hinman myth circulated in 1880 and 1881. This story asserted that Elder Arthur had three sons: William Chester Alan Arthur, born at the home of his mother’s parents in Dunham, Province of Quebec; Chester Abell Arthur, born at Fairfield; and William Arthur, Jr., born at Hinesburgh, Vermont. When William Arthur, Jr., was born, the oldest son dropped the William and retained the names Chester Alan, as he could do because of the death in infancy of his brother, Chester Abell. He later, according to the Hinman story, appropriated the birth record of the second son in order to sustain his American citizenship. No death record existed to prove this substitution because the father had sold the infant’s body to a medical school! On the basis of these allegations, the American public were assured that Arthur was a British subject and in consequence disqualified for the Vice Presidency or Presidency. It was a political maneuver, and, as such, ineffective. (from “Chester A. Arthur-A Quarter-Century of Machine Politics” by George F. Howe)

Sen. Byrd: Staunch Constitutionalist Re Hillary, But Obama?

December 4, 2008

There is a long history of controversy and litigation regarding the provision in the U.S. Constitution prohibiting members of Congress from subsequently attaining to federal offices offering  increased monetary compensation due to the largess of the Congress in which they sat. The most recent example is that of Hillary Clinton who has been nominated to the office of Secretary of State. In Clinton’s case the salary for the position was increased, not by Congress, but via an executive order by President Bush as a COL increase. In any event the Constitutional provision comes in to play: (CNS reports)

The question of eligibility arises from Article 1, Section 6 of the Constitution. It says that no member of Congress can be appointed to a civil office that benefited from a salary increase during the time that House or Senate member served. On Jan. 4, 2008, President Bush signed an executive order raising the salaries of cabinet secretaries from $186,600 to $191,300, a cost of living adjustment….

Meanwhile….

The Senate’s senior member and staunchest constitutional advocate on the Democratic side of the aisle, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, is exploring whether Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) is eligible to become secretary of state in the Obama administration. (CNS reporting again)

Now Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) has a long history in the Senate and consequently a long history in looking at this particular issue. In speaking of a 1973 case during the Nixon administration when there was a circumvention of the  Constitution by lowering the salary in question, Byrd said:

(The Constitution) “is so clear it can’t be waived…In my judgment, the bill itself shouldn’t be passed. We should not delude the American people into thinking a way can be found around the constitutional obstacle.”

From a Washington Post story at the time via CNS

One wonders if the distinguished Senator from West Viginia will be as diligent in his constitutional fervor when it comes to the issue of Obama’s eligibility.

The Quest for Truth: Nothing Conspiratorial About That….

December 4, 2008

While the SCOTUS may very well brush aside (Dec 5) the pleas of Leo Donofrio et al, there is no way the issue of Barack Obama’s eligibility for president is going to go away anytime soon. Unless,of course, Mr. Obama has a change of heart and releases his birth certificate vault copy, his medical records, and his college records. That’s all the American people are asking and the matter could be put to rest so simply that the mind boggles at the thought of what he could be hiding. The Chicago Tribune, where this full page ad (PDF) appeared twice this week, weighs in today with a debunking article:

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama’s U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama’s election.

The meeting of justices will coincide with a vigil by the filer’s supporters in Washington on the steps of the nation’s highest court.

The suit originally sought to stay the election, and was filed on behalf of Leo Donofrio against New Jersey Secretary of State Nina Mitchell Wells.

Legal experts say the appeal has little chance of succeeding, despite appearing on the court’s schedule. Legal records show it is only the tip of an iceberg of nationwide efforts seeking to derail Obama’s election over accusations that he either wasn’t born a U.S. citizen or that he later renounced his citizenship in Indonesia.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air goes out of his way to pooh pooh the whole affair and concludes by saying; “I’m sure the comments section will fill with various conspiracy theories over Indonesian school records, Kenyan births, and so on.” Morrissey was correct; he received a torrent of comments, most of them well thought out and on point. Nothing conspiratorial about them. Some sample comments:

–While this has been a tiresome episode, it seems to me that any and all persons seeking the highest office should provide evidence to support their eligibility for the office. The same goes for voter registrations; Self declaration of citizenship does not seem to be satisfactory in this day and age.

–While I agree this basically will fizzle out, why doesn’t he just release it to shut everyone up? Not doing so just looks bad, like there’s something to hide.

–Ed, if there is nothing to hide then why won’t Obama just show the long-form Certificate of Birth. Hawaii doesn’t even accept its own Certification of Live Birth for official proof for their Hawaii Homes Program (or whatever it’s called).Whether there is anything to this or not, if he doesn’t get transparent and just cough up the goods then his upcoming presidency will be even more tainted. It’s easy. Just show us, through the courts not freaking KOS or factcheck.org, the birth certificate. End of story.

–While he’s at it he ought to release his medical records, his tax records and his college records. If he’s gonna be our president we ought to finally get to know who he is and what he’s been up to.

–I had to provide a certified copy of my birth certificate to get a license, go to college, join the military, and get a civilian job. I had to provide high school transcripts to get into college, for my scholarship and to get into the military. I had to provide college transcripts to get into grad school.Why can’t the man who is about to enter the office of the President of the United States be required to do the same?!?!?! Why can’t he be expected to do what the average citizen has no problem doing?

And, on and on….conspiratorial my foot!

Also see Gateway Pundit

And, Bob Parks writing in Canada Free Press yesterday

And, AFRO today

Unite States Supreme Court Building

Unite States Supreme Court Building

.