Soldiers Challenge B. Hussein's Eligibility

This could get interesting!


WND Exclusive OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
2nd U.S. soldier in Iraq challenges eligibility
Says issue could decide if 'we are a Constitutional Republic'
Posted: February 24, 2009
8:30 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Another U.S. soldier on active duty in Iraq is joining a challenge to President Obama's eligibility to be commander-in-chief, citing WND's report on 1st Lt. Scott Easterling, who has agreed to be a plaintiff in a lawsuit over the issue, as his inspiration.

"I was inspired by 1LT Easterling's story and am writing you to inform you that I would like to be added as a plaintiff against Obama as well if you feel it would help your case," said the soldier, identified for this report only as a reservist now on active duty in Iraq.

His letter was directed to California attorney Orly Taitz who, along with her DefendOurFreedom.us Foundation, is working on a series of legal cases seeking to uncover Obama's birth records and other documents that would reveal whether he meets the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.

Easterling, who confirmed separately to WND that he is questioning Obama's authority, wrote to Taitz that, "As an active-duty officer in the United States Army, I have grave concerns about the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the office of president of the United States."

The second soldier wrote, "I am an Army reservist who was activated last August and am currently serving with a military police battalion in Camp Bucca, Iraq. I will be here until at least June 2009."

He continued, "When I enlisted last year I had to show my birth certificate, as well as my driver's license, high school diploma, college transcripts, social security card; I also filled out loads of paperwork to include listing the names, addresses and phone numbers of my family members and had to answer any questions regarding foreign travel.

Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 270,000 others and sign up now!

"I think it is reasonable for Obama to prove his citizenship status thus certifying his eligibility. I too raised my right hand and swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States," he told Taitz. "I believe the case you are filing could very well determine if we are in fact a Constitutional Republic or a nation of mob rule. I would be honored to be a part of your efforts."

Perhaps anticipating a wave of outrage from Obama supporters, he asked that he be given no "unnecessary publicity," although his name eventually would become public when a case is filed.

Taitz told WND she was making contingency plans that could include her travel to Iraq should a military case be brought against the soldiers who are speaking their minds about Obama.

"I told him if there is any prosecution, he can get in touch with me. I would even fly to Iraq and work with the attorney there to provide his defense," she told WND.

She said undoubtedly a part of the defense would be a demand for documentation on Obama's actual qualifications to serve as U.S. president.

WND has reported on multiple legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." While representatives for Obama has called such claims "garbage," the Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Several of the cases have involved emergency appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court in which justices have declined to hear arguments. According to a report from the Associated Press today, another such case has been rejected. The appeal by Cort Wrotnowski alleged Obama was a British subject at birth and, therefore, ineligible to be president.

There was no comment from the court, the same treatment the justices have given cases brought by several other lawyers, including Philip Berg, Leo Donofrio and Taitz.

WND reported yesterday when Easterling agreed to be a plaintiff in Taitz' case.


Soldier Scott Easterling

Taitz told WND she had advised Easterling to obtain legal counsel before making any statements regarding the commander-in-chief, but he insisted on moving forward. His contention is that as an active member of the U.S. military, he is required to follow orders from a sitting president, and he needs – on pain of court-martial – to know that Obama is eligible.

Taitz said other legal cases questioning Obama's eligibility filed by members of the military mostly have included retired officers, and courts several times have ruled they don't have standing to issue their challenge.

Easterling, however, is subject to enemy fire and certainly would have a reason to need to know the legitimacy of his orders, she argued.

"Until Mr. Obama releases a 'vault copy' of his original birth certificate for public review, I will consider him neither my Commander in Chief nor my President, but rather, a usurper to the Office – an impostor," Easterling's statement said.

Wheels Falling Off Due To Irresponsibility

Where did the wheels start falling off America? A good place to start would be the Clinton era. The president of the United States had a tawdry affair in the Oval Office / massage parlor, lied about it, and refused to accept any responsibility for his actions. The Republicans correctly pointed out that the president had acted beneath his office. The problem was that many of them were acting beneath their offices, too. In Washington, where the spirit of public service is supposed to reign, both Democrats and Republicans were using positions of power for private indulgence. Many things sprang from the Clinton impeachment. Confidence in authority was not one of them.

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, did briefly increase the public's trust in government and its elites. In the tense months following the attacks, the public rallied behind strong leaders like Bush, Rudy Giuliani, and Donald Rumsfeld. These men, who had many private failings, nonetheless were seen to be acting in the interests of the nation as a whole. We seemed to be on the verge of a new era of patriotism and civic renewal.

But it was not to be. The lack of accountability among the elites quickly caught back up.

There were dramatic instances of public corruption such as the Jack Abramoff scandal, but there were also remarkable examples of private corruption such as the Enron and Arthur Andersen accounting scandals. In the months after September 11, business titan after business titan came under indictment: Enron executives, Martha Stewart, Tyco CEO Dennis Kozlowski--the list goes on. Chief executives were massively compensated even when they drove their companies into a ditch. No surprise when populism started making a comeback. The private sector and the public sector were failing the common man. Neither acted with any sense of propriety.

The same was true of our cultural elites. The celebrity of the age was Paris Hilton, an exemplar of the inequality and promiscuity that characterize the present moment. Hilton was born into extraordinary wealth but did not achieve true fame until 2003, when her homemade porno movie made it to the Internet. Twenty or even fifteen years ago, Paris Hilton's behavior would have been a scandal. Not today. Why? Because the wealthy, famous, and well-connected can do as they please and suffer no consequences--as long as they possess no shame.

There are moments when it seems as though every figure who waltzes across the public stage is a cheat, a fraud, a liar, or a failure. Child abuse scandals have tarnished the image of Catholic bishops and priests. Steroid scandals have racked Major League Baseball, the Tour de France, and the Olympic games. And then there are the celebrities who write books, make music, and perform in film and television. Where to start?

On any given day, any public figure might be arrested, assaulted, admit to infidelity, go bankrupt, or break down emotionally in front of television cameras. Sometimes all of these things happen at once.

The next day the celebrity will be released from incarceration. He will go into a rehabilitation program or "spend time with the family" and emerge, weeks later, with a tell-all book and publicity tour that make him even richer than he was before. There are no consequences.

It wasn't until last fall that we saw how widely the rot had spread. Everyone was implicated in the financial meltdown. Everyone who took on a mortgage they couldn't afford, who lent to people who couldn't pay back the loan, who securitized the unpayable debts and resold them in ways even astrophysicists can't understand, and who instituted government policies that spurred a culture of easy money and consumption beyond one's means. All were responsible.

There has been a change in government, but the crisis persists. Political corruption has not disappeared. It has simply changed its partisan affiliation. The chairman of the House committee that writes the tax code is under investigation for cheating on his taxes. A leading House appropriator, John Murtha (d-PA), is under investigation for accepting illegal campaign contributions. The chairman of the Senate banking and housing committee is under fire for a sweet mortgage deal that he received. President Obama's commerce secretary-designate, New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, withdrew his nomination because of an investigation into his handling of state contracts. Obama's Treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, whose department includes the IRS, has admitted to not paying payroll taxes while he was an employee of the International Monetary Fund. Obama's Health and Human Services secretary-designate, Tom Daschle (former wannabe now has been), withdrew his nomination because he had not paid taxes on his limousine and driver. Another Obama appointee also withdrew because of tax problems. No wonder the federal government is in the red.

These days the enemies of the people are all over the place. For the left-wing populists, they are the titans of Wall Street, the bank executives, the CEOs who really botched things up but have suffered few consequences, and the business class's political allies in the Republican party. For the right-wing populists, they encompass all elites, from the CEOs whom John McCain criticized during the presidential campaign and the "liberal media" to central bankers and corrupt politicians.

Reagan was a success. He instituted public policies that spurred the economy, forced the collapse of the Soviet Empire, and reinstilled national pride among Americans. Since then the populists haven't been so lucky. The 1994 Republican Revolution ran aground shortly after it left the shore. The 2006 Democratic Restoration was inept and rapidly replaced Republican corruption with the Democratic version.

It's too early to judge Obama a success or a failure; but so far it looks like a failure in the making. If his inaugural address is any indication, Obama has figured out that a lack of personal accountability is the problem. But he hasn't figured out what to do about it.

Self-sufficiency. Modesty. Responsibility. Morality. Fidelity. Civility. These are the values that have, like the foundations of a fortress, supported American society for centuries. A cursory glance around the country today--and especially at the people who run it--reveals that our nation is sorely lacking in these staples of middle-class life. We are living through a drought of middle-class respectability. And that has led us to political and economic crisis.

Obama and the Democrats believe that the erosion of bourgeois values can be slowed or even reversed through public expenditure. But their efforts are doomed to fail. Public expenditure can't buy virtue. It may even crowd it out.

To preserve the American middle class, Obama and the Democrats want to transfer the burden of responsibility from the individual to the government. They want to raise taxes and finance expanded federal government intervention in education, health care, pensions, and the workforce.

The stimulus bill captures the ethos of this new liberalism perfectly. The dramatic expansion of government's share of the economy is geared toward specifically liberal ends. He has witnessed elites fail, yet he seeks to put more power in the hands of political elites. Nor is he alone.

Government has, time and again, proven itself inadequate to the immense challenges of the day. At times it seems impervious to reform. The Democrats' assumption is that this is because the GOP was in power during much of the last quarter century. It is a partisan fantasy. The failures of the elites aren't related to public expenditure. They are related to a spiritual torpor afflicting the affluent. In a rich society, as we pursue our individual ends, obligations--both private and public--fall to the wayside. The status game consumes all. Corners are cut. The higher we scale the ladder, the more material possessions become an end in themselves. We chase one pleasure after another. Our mantra is "eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die." The reigning ethic is every man for himself.

We can still fix things. Where to begin? Start with some exemplars of decency, professionalism, and ability. US Airways pilot Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger III riveted the nation with his dramatic crash-landing into the Hudson River. -Sullenberger's experience and stoicism meant that not a single life was lost during the dramatic and dangerous touch-down. It is no surprise that he has been lionized in the days since. When everything else seems to be crashing all around us, Sullenberger is a rock of common sense and soft-spoken modesty. Then there is General David Petraeus. At the recent Super Bowl, Petraeus received huge applause when he walked on field for the pregame coin toss. The crowd's response was no mystery. They were saluting the man who helped rescue the American war effort in Iraq, the man who did so without mincing words to the American people or their elected representatives.

Imagine--just imagine--if the men and women who represent us in Congress shared their character?

Bill Clinton and Paris Hilton, etal are the problem. Why couldn't Sully Sullenberger and David Petraeus be the answer?

Keep The Airways Free !

Printed on the Wall Street Journal editorial page 20 FEB 2009:

By RUSH LIMBAUGH

Dear President Obama:

I have a straightforward question, which I hope you will answer in a straightforward way: Is it your intention to censor talk radio through a variety of contrivances, such as "local content," "diversity of ownership," and "public interest" rules -- all of which are designed to appeal to populist sentiments but, as you know, are the death knell of talk radio and the AM band?

You have singled me out directly, admonishing members of Congress not to listen to my show. Bill Clinton has since chimed in, complaining about the lack of balance on radio. And a number of members of your party, in and out of Congress, are forming a chorus of

As a former president of the Harvard Law Review and a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, you are more familiar than most with the purpose of the Bill of Rights: to protect the citizen from the possible excesses of the federal government. The First Amendment says, in part, that "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." The government is explicitly prohibited from playing a role in refereeing among those who speak or seek to speak. We are, after all, dealing with political speech -- which, as the Framers understood, cannot be left to the government to police.

When I began my national talk show in 1988, no one, including radio industry professionals, thought my syndication would work. There were only about 125 radio stations programming talk. And there were numerous news articles and opinion pieces predicting the fast death of the AM band, which was hemorrhaging audience and revenue to the FM band. Some blamed the lower-fidelity AM signals. But the big issue was broadcast content. It is no accident that the AM band was dying under the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which choked robust debate about important issues because of its onerous attempts at rationing the content of speech.

After the Federal Communications Commission abandoned the Fairness Doctrine in the mid-1980s, Congress passed legislation to reinstitute it. When President Reagan vetoed it, he declared that "This doctrine . . . requires Federal officials to supervise the editorial practices of broadcasters in an effort to ensure that they provide coverage of controversial issues and a reasonable opportunity for the airing of contrasting viewpoints of those issues. This type of content-based regulation by the Federal Government is . . . antagonistic to the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment. . . . History has shown that the dangers of an overly timid or biased press cannot be averted through bureaucratic regulation, but only through the freedom and competition that the First Amendment sought to guarantee."

Today the number of radio stations programming talk is well over 2,000. In fact, there are thousands of stations that air tens of thousands of programs covering virtually every conceivable topic and in various languages. The explosion of talk radio has created legions of jobs and billions in economic value. Not bad for an industry that only 20 years ago was moribund. Content, content, content, Mr. President, is the reason for the huge turnaround of the past 20 years, not "funding" or "big money," as Mr. Clinton stated. And not only has the AM band been revitalized, but there is competition from other venues, such as Internet and satellite broadcasting. It is not an exaggeration to say that today, more than ever, anyone with a microphone and a computer can broadcast their views. And thousands do.

Mr. President, we both know that this new effort at regulating speech is not about diversity but conformity. It should be rejected. You've said you're against reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, but you've not made it clear where you stand on possible regulatory efforts to impose so-called local content, diversity-of-ownership, and public-interest rules that your FCC could issue.

I do not favor content-based regulation of National Public Radio, newspapers, or broadcast or cable TV networks. I would encourage you not to allow your office to be misused to advance a political vendetta against certain broadcasters whose opinions are not shared by many in your party and ideologically liberal groups such as Acorn, the Center for American Progress, and MoveOn.org. There is no groundswell of support behind this movement. Indeed, there is a groundswell against it.

The fact that the federal government issues broadcast licenses, the original purpose of which was to regulate radio signals, ought not become an excuse to destroy one of the most accessible and popular marketplaces of expression. The AM broadcast spectrum cannot honestly be considered a "scarce" resource. So as the temporary custodian of your office, you should agree that the Constitution is more important than scoring transient political victories, even when couched in the language of public interest.

We in talk radio await your answer. What will it be? Government-imposed censorship disguised as "fairness" and "balance"? Or will the arena of ideas remain a free market?

Mr. Limbaugh is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host.

What Kind of Leader is B. Hussein?

Today, around the world as well as domestically, President Barack Obama's every word, every action, every inaction is being scrutinized for signs of what kind of mind will be dealing with issues deciding their country's fate and their personal prosperity and safety.

Prior to the November election, the only evidence we had of B. Hussein’s managing style -- and that evidence was indirect -- was the management of his campaign, which was brilliant. But whether he was its active manager or merely took guidance from a shrewd Svengali remains to be known.

Since the election, we have begun to get hints of his management style in four items Mr. Obama himself has described as of the highest priority to him -- and thus, one presumes, items to which he would have given his personal attention: Cabinet selection, closing Gitmo, the stimulus package and bipartisanship.

Regarding the Cabinet selection, he famously said he "screwed up." But from a management perspective, the unanswered question is: How did he "screw up"? Did he actively design the failed vetting process and actively assess the various negative pieces of information and fail to see their significance? Or did he "screw up" by letting others design the failed system and assess the data inflow? The former would show poor substantive judgment. The latter would show he wasn't paying sufficient attention to a presumably vital matter. We don't know yet which kind of "screw-up" it was.

The second item, President Obama's performance at the Gitmo executive order, provided brief but revealing insight into the president's personal involvement in vital decision making. He had campaigned hard on closing Gitmo. His first public signing as president was that executive order to close it down. The central issue of Gitmo's closing was and is: What do we do with the dangerous inmates? President Bush kept it open primarily because his administration couldn't figure out an answer to that question.

Thus, it was breathtaking that at the signing ceremony, President Obama didn't know how -- or even whether -- his executive order was dealing with this central quandary.

President Obama: "And we then provide, uh, the process whereby Guantanamo will be closed, uh, no later than one year from now. We will be, uh. ... Is there a separate, uh, executive order, Greg, with respect to how we're going to dispose of the detainees? Is that, uh, written?"

White House counsel Greg Craig: "We'll set up a process."

To be at the signing ceremony and not know what he was ordering done with the terrorist inmates is a level of ignorance that is equivalent to being a groom at the altar in a wedding ceremony and asking who it is you are marrying.

Once again, in the third item -- the stimulus process -- his lack of personal involvement in its design is curious. He recently said that his presidency will be judged only on whether he fixes the economy or not. Thus, as he has identified the stimulus as essential to the recovery process, his willingness to let Dumb and Dumber (House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid) design a bill that, even now that it's passed, Mr. Obama has continued to criticize as needing improvement (on bank executive compensation) leaves one puzzled as to why he didn't use his currently vast political clout with his own party allies to shape a bill more to his liking.

The final item to examine here is his repeated campaign and post-campaign commitment to bipartisanship. Inviting leading Republicans to the White House for a Super Bowl party is not bipartisanship when he permits his congressional allies to completely shut out (except for the three collaborators) all Senate Republicans and all House Republicans, including their leadership and the GOP's titular leader, Sen. John McCain, in the drafting of the bill and the final conference committee.

He says he wants bipartisanship. Why, then,would he permit his congressional allies to kill any hope of bipartisanship by their egregious conduct?

Four possible explanations for this almost unprecedented presidential detachment from the decision making of policies the president publicly declared to be vital to the country and his presidency:

1) He is a very, very big-picture man, and he delegates decisions even on the central points of vital issues.

2) For tactical reasons, he decided these matters were not worth using up political chits.

3) He is either hesitant or unskilled at management, and he let matters drift until it seemed too late to intervene personally.

4) Or his personality type leaves him surprisingly uninterested in things that aren't personally about him.

Whatever the reason, this level of presidential detachment from high policy decision making is dangerous in a White House that has so many czars and other senior players (the West Wing staff is reputed to be more than 130 -- about double the usual number) combined with emissaries and strong-willed Cabinet secretaries.

This type of “Change” will do more harm than good!

"Loose Lips Sink Ships"

When reporters asked President Franklin Roosevelt where Lt. Col. Jimmy Doolittle's raiders launched their daring 1942 raid on the Japanese mainland, he puckishly answered, “from our new secret base at Shangri-La.”

Contrast Roosevelt's slyness with Sen. Diane Feinstein's (Democrat) recent comment regarding the secret location of the launch sites for Predator hunter/killer drones — “As I understand it, these are flown out of a Pakistani base.”

Sen. Feinstein's defense for discussing this highly sensitive information, that she was only repeating what she read in the papers, is,at best, unconvincing and, at worst, a clear and present danger to the security of the United States.

It is true that the Washington Post first reported Predators operating out of bases in Pakistan, and the senator's flak catcher and professional liar Philip J. LaVelle says that this report was what she was referring to. But there is a difference between making an allegation in a local paper and having the chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (an oxymoron in itself) confirm it. After all, her remark was “as I understand it,” not “according to the papers.”

If the U.S. is operating Predators out of Pakistan as the senator alleged, al Qaeda and its allies are certain to seek ways to take them out. Terrorists have lately been mounting increasing numbers of attacks inside Pakistan on the coalition support infrastructure. Once they determine where the Predators are based (near Islamabad, according to reports), they will no doubt make destroying them a high priority.

Fighting an intelligence war requires, at least, a smattering of intelligence in our elected leaders. Democrat Senator Feinstein is an example, one of many in Congress, of a lack of the same.

This incident reinforces the growing impression that when it comes to national security policy the Democrats are not ready for prime time.

Obamanomics and Terrorism

President B. Hussein has spent the last few weeks describing our economy as “on the brink”, “catastrophic”and“dire” unless we buy in to his socialist non-stimulus plan. A danger greater than this lurch to socialism exists. The danger is this:

Obama is playing right into Osama bin Laden’s hands by scaring the American people and destroying confidence in our economy in an attempt to support this disaster of a plan.

Osama bin Laden's videos, letters and Internet statements makes clear that Al Qaeda's goal is more than to terrorize Americans or to drive us out of the Middle East. Bin Laden believes that Al Qaeda can bring about the economic collapse of the United States -- and to achieve this goal, he has adopted a strategy of targeting America's financial centers and economic infrastructure.

Bin Laden cites the 9/11 attacks as proof that this strategy can succeed. In a November 2004 videotape broadcast on Al Jazeera, he boasted that Al Qaeda spent $500,000 on the event, while America lost, "according to the lowest estimate, $500 billion ... meaning that every dollar of Al Qaeda defeated a million dollars [of America] ... besides the loss of a huge number of jobs."

"America is a superpower, with enormous military strength and vast economic power," he concluded, "but all this is built on foundations of straw. So it is possible to target those foundations and focus on their weakest points, which, even if you strike only one-tenth of them, then the whole edifice will totter and sway."

These statements tell us something important about the enemy: Although Bin Laden has many skilled bomb-makers and propagandists working for him, he lacks a single competent economist. Yes, the 9/11 attacks did cost America billions of dollars -- but our resilient free-market economy replaced every lost job within a few years. We would similarly recover from any other attack Al Qaeda might pull off.

But the terrorists don't have to be right to be emboldened. Clearly the daily news reports of our economic turmoil feed into Bin Laden's deep-seated belief that America is teetering on the economic brink -- and that with one big push, we can be forced into collapse. The financial crisis can only be serving to convince Al Qaeda that the time to strike America is now.

We have some factors working in our favor. The enemy has been weakened by our seven-year offensive against them. Our military removed Al Qaeda's haven in Afghanistan in 2001. With the "surge," we drove Al Qaeda from the new sanctuaries it had established in Iraq. And over the last year, America has put increasing pressure on Al Qaeda in its Pakistani stronghold. At least five of Al Qaeda's top operational planners met their end in that country in 2008, culminating on Jan. 1 when Usama al-Kini, Al Qaeda's chief of operations in Pakistan, and his lieutenant, Sheikh Ahmed Salim Swedan, were killed. This is the highest pace of strikes against senior Al Qaeda operational planners since the war on terrorism began.

Another factor working in our favor is the severity of the 9/11 attacks. In striking the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, Al Qaeda set an extremely high bar for itself. If it launched an attack that did not meet that bar, it would be seen as a sign of weakness. This is likely why we have not seen smaller-scale attacks on shopping malls and other "soft" targets during the last seven years. By contrast, this also means that, whatever the terrorists are now planning, it likely will be on a scale to equal, or even dwarf, the attacks of 9/11.

Al Qaeda's failure to strike America after seven years creates pressure on the terrorists to act. The lack of another catastrophic attack on the United States, combined with the massive defeat terrorists have suffered in Iraq, sends a message to the Muslim world that Al Qaeda is losing its war with America. The terrorists need to pull off something spectacular to prove that they are still a force and a threat. Al Qaeda's growing desperation to strike America, and our perceived growing vulnerability, are a dangerous combination.

All this means that now is no time for President Obama to begin dismantling the institutions President Bush put in place to keep America safe. Nor is it time to play politics with the economy. Obama needs to recognize that, at this moment, somewhere in the world, the terrorists are watching the economic turmoil in our country -- and planning an attack they believe will bring our economy to its knees. In the face of this danger, America must not let down its guard.

Will Obama have the courage to stand up to the Left of his party and Bin Laden at the same time? The future of the United States hangs in the balance.

Inmates In Charge of the Asylum

The US Congress just rammed through the biggest piece of crap legislation that has ever been crapped. And that is quite a feat for this bunch! This thing makes a diarrhea ward look spic and span! It is so laden with bribes for votes for the next 20 elections that it puts Chicago’s mayor’s office to shame; a difficult task even for those with no shame!

The Democrat leadership broke every rule, promise, and appearance of responsible action along with at least eight of the seven deadly sins in order to purchase their hold on power with your hard earned money; money that not only will come from your pocket but from your children, grand-children and great-grand-children (if this country lasts that long). $1 Trillion in spending along with about $9 Trillion in interest on the $1 T. These numbers are so big, that no one, not even economists can wrap their heads around it.

After bribing three turncoat Republicans in the Senate to vote for this “Let’s Make America Socialist” bill, the House of Reprobates lead by Queen B*** Reprobate Pelosi, added back much of the waste that the Senate half-heartedly deleted and brought it to vote, all 1100 pages of it, without a single member of congress given a chance to read it; not even the 48 hours voted unanimously (as if half of them could read). I am convinced that at least half of the US Congress does not have the IQ of a kumquat (my apologies to the kumquat lobby). Folks, the inmates are now in charge of the asylum!

The actions of our “elected representatives” are, in most cases, just plain stupid; this one is down right criminal. Congress has been flooded with communications from Americans opposed to this spending bill and the fear-mongering way it was being sold to us. Instead of listening to and representing those who elected them, they ignored us voted into law (surely to be signed by B. Hussein next week) a disastrous social re-engineering bill disguised as a fiscal stimulus package.

They are now in breach of their contract with us and should all be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors of galactic proportions. They have been entrusted with our money and have a fiduciary responsible to use it wisely for our benefit…not theirs. If any Board of Directors in the country would treat shareholders money as the US Congress does (we taxpayers are shareholders in the country) they would be in prison.

It makes me almost physically ill to watch these hypocrites sit up there and berate business owners (bankers, auto execs) when they themselves are guilty of the most gross incompetence and malfeasance imaginable. Here is an idea: do not put caps on CEO’s pay…make Congress work for $1 per year until they get things right! Take away their perks like Pelosi’s private military luxury airliner. Make them walk to work instead of chauffeured limos. Let their compensation be a percentage of the amount of tax reduction and spending cuts they pass. Then you would see some responsibility.

Here are just a few jewels that this brain trust thinks will create jobs and stimulate the economy (after the President of the United States lying about there being absolutely no “pork” in this bill):

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s Railway to Sin City. Appointing yourself a Senate conferee has its perks. Roughly $8 billion in perks. Reid, you see, needs to stimulate his re-election bid, so he haggled with President Obama to tuck in a teeny, tiny, yes, porky amendment for high-speed rail lines. Reid has his eyes — and paws — on a proposed Los Angeles-to-Las Vegas magnetic levitation train. He has already sunk $45 million in previous earmarks into his, yes, pet project. Wasn’t it earlier this week that President Obama was lecturing companies not to travel to Las Vegas on the taxpayers’ dime?

But I digress. Along with these not-earmarks, not-pet projects, there’s $2 billion for impeached Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s pet FutureGen near-zero emissions power plant project, $300 million for souped-up “green” golf carts for government workers, $30 million for “smart appliances,” and the $65 million for digital TV coupons. According to Hill Republicans, money for basic highways and bridges was cut by $1 billion from the House-passed level, but:

· $9 billion for school construction was added back in (originally cut by the Nelson-Collins “compromise”);

· $5 billion was added to the state fiscal stabilization fund (originally cut by Nelson-Collins), making it a grand total of $53.6 billion;

· $1 billion was added back for Prevention & Wellness Programs, including STD education; and

· $2 billion for neighborhood stabilization program.

That “neighborhood stabilization” slush fund money will end up in the pockets of left-wing shakedown artists such as ACORN and the Massachusetts-based Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America (NACA), led by self-proclaimed “bank terrorist” Bruce Marks. There’s an additional $3.25 billion in HUD grants and Community Development Block Grants in the bill that will also inevitably find its way into the coffers of these housing entitlement lobbying groups.

Another egregious not-earmark earmark that survived untouched: $2 billion for the National Parks Service championed by House Democrat conferee and Appropriations Chairman Rep. David Obey. A report by the GOP minority on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee revealed that Obey’s son, Craig, lobbied the panel and advocated for the stimulus plan on behalf of the National Parks Conservations Association.

All told — and safely assuming that the major spending provisions become permanently enshrined — the final price tag of this government hogzilla of all hogzilla over the next 10 years will be a whopping $3.27 trillion with a “T.”

Folks, time is quickly drawing near for the peasants to take up torch and pitchfork, melt down the tar, pluck a few chickens and head for Washington!

The 'New' Culture of Corruption

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (d-San Fransissy) thought she was lambasting the Bush administration during the last election as promoting a “culture of corruption.” Little did she know (and she knows so very little) that she was foretelling the future of her own party.

The Obama administration is little more than a fortnight old and already features a swelling cast of ethically challenged characters.

Even the great contemporary philosopher, Jay Leno, has noticed. “There was a huge scientific breakthrough today,” said Leno. “Researchers say they are very close to finding someone from Obama’s Cabinet who’s actually paid their taxes.”

Mr. Leno was referring to former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, whose nomination for secretary of health and human services was withdrawn after it was disclosed that he didn't pay $101,000 worth of taxes owed for a car and driver, or $83,000 on consulting income, and Timothy Geithner, who was confirmed as treasury secretary despite his failure to pay payroll taxes for four years.

Hours before Mr. Daschle withdrew his nomination Tuesday, Nancy Killefer withdrew hers as chief compliance officer when it was revealed that the District of Columbia had placed a lien on her Wesley Heights mansion for failure to pay unemployment compensation tax for a household employee.

Rep. Hilda Solis, D-Calif, the nominee for secretary of labor, apparently violated House rules by failing to disclose she was an officer of a group lobbying Congress.

Eric Holder was confirmed as attorney general despite having circumvented Justice Department rules -- when he was deputy attorney general in the waning days of the Clinton administration -- to obtain a pardon for fugitive financier Marc Rich. In a 2002 report, the House Government Operations Committee described Mr. Holder's behavior in the Rich affair as "unconscionable."

On Jan. 6, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson withdrew as the nominee for secretary of commerce when it was disclosed that the FBI was investigating him in connection with a "pay-to-play" scandal.

Gov. Richardson was, many think, President Obama's second choice. Mr. Obama was thought to have wanted to name Penny Pritzker, his campaign finance chairman, to the commerce post, but feared that doing so might bring unwelcome scrutiny to her role in the subprime mortgage crisis. (Ms. Pritzker pioneered the nefarious instruments at her now defunct Superior bank in suburban Chicago.)

President Obama on Monday chose Republican Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire for the commerce post. So on Wednesday we learn that Mr. Gregg's former legislative director was tangentially involved in the Jack Abramoff scandal.

The most recent candidate in the malleable ethics sweepstakes is Ron Sims, chosen Monday to be deputy secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. As King County (Seattle) executive, Mr. Sims was fined $124,000 for "blatant" violations of Washington state's public records act for failure to release documents having to do with the financing of the stadium where the Seattle Seahawks play. Last month the state Supreme Court said the fine should be increased.

And this is just in the last three weeks. Folks, you just can’t make this stuff up!

But it is not just limited to the White House. Congress has turned a blind eye to these ethical lapses because there are many in Congress who are guilty of the same, or worse. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., remains chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee despite his failure to pay taxes on $75,000 in rental income, and -- according to a report issued Wednesday -- repeatedly failing to comply with congressional financial disclosure rules.

Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Countrywide Mortgage, remains as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee despite having received a sweetheart loan from one of the worst of the subprime mortgage villains.

No wonder the US Congress is known as America’s only professional criminal class.

The Charlotte Observer endorsed Barack Obama for president, but is having second thoughts:

"Two weeks into the Obama presidency, we like his campaign better than his administration," the Observer said Wednesday. "While some of his appointments are outstanding, others were either badly botched or reflect a half-hearted commitment to the change principle central to his ballot box success."

It just dosen’t get any better than this, folks. What a target rich environment for your humble scribe!

Sempre Vigilans - - - Always Vigilant!

Walking On Water Will Get Your Feet Wet!

A few days ago, liberal columnist E.J. Dionne tried to break it to us gently:

“No occupant of the White House has ever been able to walk on water.”

That is, no previous occupant of the What House has been able to walk on water – your Eisenhowers and Roosevelts, your Chester Arthurs and Grover Clevelands and so on. But B. Hussein Obama did not present himself as one of these old losers. He promised to heal the planet and lower the oceans. So, even if he couldn’t walk on water, you would think that at least he should be able to row a boat. “He is a community organizer like Jesus was,” said Susan Sarandon, actress and towering intellect, “and now we’re a community, and he can organize us.” (Barf bag, please.)

So, just how is that going, Barry? Instead of feeding the people with loaves and fishes, you want to take a trillion pieces of pork and feed it to a handful of Liberal Democrat Party interest groups. (Yes, the same ones that you vowed would be banished from the halls of government.) Instead of twelve disciples, you has picked the Dirty Dozen of tax cheats.

A president doesn't have to be able to walk on water. But he does have to choose the right crew for the ship, especially if he's planning on spending most of his time at the captain's table, schmoozing the celebrity guests with a lot of deep thoughts about "hope" and "change." Far worse than his Cabinet picks was President Obama's decision to make the "stimulus" racket the all-but-sole-priority of his first month and then outsource the project to Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank and Harry Reid.

The bloated non-stimulus bill and the taxed-challenged nominees are part of the same story. I can understand why Tom Daschle was reluctant to toss an additional $150,000 in personal taxes into the great sucking black hole of the federal Treasury. Who knows better than a former senator, who never passed up a chance to vote for a tax increase, that this money is entirely wasted? Tom Daschle, Tim Geithner, and Charlie Rangle, tax-challenged all, know they can do more good with their own money than the US Government can. Oh that they followed the logic of their behavior and recognized that what works for them would also work for every other tax-paying citizen.

Most new presidents get at least a few months honeymoon in office. It is amazing that B. Hussein’s lasted all of two and a half weeks. In that short time span he has succeeded in nearly igniting a trade war with Europe and the rest of the world (the Buy-American proposal in the Pork Bill); emboldening Russia, Iran, Venezuela and Hamas through perceived weakness and destroying any hope (there it is again) of a bi-partisan rule.

Congrats, Barry! You are off to a great start! Remember: Trying to walk on water only results in wet feet.

A Disaster of Galactic Proportions

President B. Hussein is desperate. He has started to play the “catastrophe” card to sell his economic non-stimulus spending spree plan. No one doubts, now with three squishy Republicans-In-Name-Only (RINOs) on board, that he will get his way; but the way he got it will come back and haunt him.


He is using the exact tactics that he railed against during the campaign. Fear. Liberals are used to playing the on fear in just about any election. Every four years they scare the elderly claiming conservatives are going to take away Social Security, They scare the welfare class that conservatives might require them to work for their keep, you know, actually produce something besides babies and votes!



B. Hussein is now doing the same thing. He tells is that we must accept his pork-parade disguised as a ‘stimulus’ bill or risk a “national catastrophe.”


So much for “Change!”


Everyone agrees that some kind of fiscal stimulus might help the economy, and that running budget deficits is appropriate in a recession. The stage was thus set for the popular President to forge a bipartisan consensus that combined ideas from both parties. A major cut in the corporate tax favored by Republicans could have been added to Democratic public works spending for a quick political triumph that might have done at least some economic good.

Instead, B. Hussein chose to let that colossal jewel of ignorance, Nancy Pelosi (d) Speaker of the House of Reprobates, write the bill. She, and her minions, did what comes naturally for liberals: They dusted off every item on a forty year liberal wish-list, changed the dates and called it a work of genius. This ‘wish-list’ is chocked full of things that would never see the light of day if they had to stand on their own merit, but shoved down the nation’s throat as part of an “emergency” action, just might get through. This thing is 90% social policy, and maybe 10% economic policy. It is designed to support incomes through the transfer of the money you earn to those who choose not to work, rather than grow incomes through job creation.

Speaking to a House Democratic retreat on Thursday night, Mr. B. Hussein took on those critics (people like you and me) "So then you get the argument, well, this is not a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill. What do you think a stimulus is? (Laughter and applause.) That's the whole point. No, seriously. (Laughter.) That's the point. (Applause.)"

So there it is: Mr. B. Hussein is now endorsing a sort of reductionist Keynesianism that argues that any government spending is an economic stimulus. This is so manifestly false that we doubt Mr. Obama really believes it; and if he does, he is more dangerous than we have feared. He has to know that it matters what the government spends the money on, as well as how it is financed. A dollar doled out in jobless benefits may well be spent by the worker who receives it. That $1 of spending will count as economic activity and add to GDP.

But that same dollar can't be conjured out of thin air. The government has to take that dollar away from someone else -- either in higher taxes, or by issuing new debt in the form of a bond. The person who is taxed or buys the bond will have $1 less to spend. If the beneficiary of that $1 spends it on something less productive than the taxed American or the lender would have, then the net impact on growth will be negative.

Some Democrats claim these transfer payments are stimulating because they go mainly to poor people, who immediately spend the money. Tax cuts for business or for incomes across the board won't work, they add, because those tax cuts go disproportionately to "the rich," who will save the money. But a saved $1 doesn't vanish from the economy, unless it is stuffed into a mattress. It enters the financial system, where it is lent to others; or it is invested in the stock market as capital for businesses; or it is invested in entirely new businesses, which are the real drivers of job creation and prosperity. Yet Mr. Obama, on Thursday, dismissed any such tax cuts as "the same tired arguments and worn ideas that helped to create this crisis." That's rhetoric for a campaign, not for a President hoping to rally bipartisan support.

This thing is going to be a disaster of galactic proportions.

An Embarrasement to Rube Goldberg !

The more that Americans, the ones that actually pay taxes, find out about so-called ‘Stimulus' bill being huckstered by the B. Hussein White House, the more we do not like they way they want to spend our money.

This thing is a rotting corpse of moldy liberal social-engineering, fiscally irresponsible, and totally non-simulative wet-dreams pent up in the deranged liberal mind for decades; and it smells to high heaven. To call this Pelosi-Reid monstrosity a Rube Goldberg contraption is an insult to Rube Goldberg!

The Democrat ruled House of Reprobates gave birth to this hideous thing and, so far, the Democrats in the Senate (America’s only professional criminal class) have put it on steroids and it keeps growing! Currently $920,000,000,000 (zeros included for 'shock and awe')

The stated purpose of this bill is to jump-start a slowing economy by creating jobs and restoreing confidence in our capitalistic system. In its present form, it is in reality a transformative step to a United States Socialist Republic that would put the likes of France to shame (and just how has that worked out for you Mr. Frenchie Frenchman?).

Some of the more imaginative ‘simulative’ (not) elements of this porcine pander-party include, but not, by any means, limited to:

Title VI, Financial Services and General Government, says that "not less than $6,000,000,000 shall be used for construction, repair, and alteration of Federal buildings." There's enough money there to name a building after every Member of Congress. Sen. Robert Byrd would be proud!

The Bureau of Land Management gets $325,000,000 to spend fixing federal land, including "trail repair" and "remediation of abandoned mines or well sites," no doubt left over from the 19th-century land rush. If they have been around since the 19th-century, what is the rush now?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are getting $462,000,000 for "equipment, construction, and renovation of facilities, including necessary repairs and improvements to leased laboratories." If these labs are leased, shouldn’t the landlord kick in here?

The National Institute of Standards gets $357,000,000 for the "construction of research facilities." Just what exactly does the National Institute of Standards research? The Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration gets $427,000,000 for that. The country is in an economic meltdown and the federal government is redecorating.

The FBI gets $75,000,000 for "salaries and expenses." Inside the $6,200,000,000 Weatherization Assistance Program one finds "expenses" of $500,000,000. How many bureaucrats does it take to "expense" a half-billion dollars?

The current, Senate-amended version now lists "an additional amount to be deposited in the Federal Buildings Fund, $9,048,000,000." Of this, "not less than $6,000,000,000 shall be available for measures necessary to convert GSA facilities to High-Performance Green Buildings." High performance? What the . . . . ?

Such as the amendment to Section 2(3)(F) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, which will permit payments to guys employed to repair "recreational vessels." Under Incentives for New Jobs, we find a credit to employ what the bill calls "disconnected youths," defined as "not readily employable by reason of lacking a sufficient number of basic skills." If these ‘disconnected youths’ have lack basic skills, just where have the BILLIONS gone in the name of public education? Hmmmmm?

Sen. Tom Coburn is threatening to read the bill on the floor of the Senate. I have a better idea: Read it on "Saturday Night Live."

All this type of stuff is not ‘stimulative’; it is more useless government spending. The Democrats are trying, to paraphrase Sarah Palin, put lipstick on this pig and sell it to us as a pony!

If all this ‘spending’ is good, then introduce it as separate bills and let it stand on its on merit. Of course, the Democrats cannot do this because it has no merit upon which to stand!

Fear-mongering and hoodwinking are not exactly the ‘change and hope’ Americans were promised!

So this is the ‘Change’ America wanted?

Yesterday would have been a bad day for any administration. But for the Obama administration, which recently proclaimed a "new era of responsibility" and promised to be the most ethical administration in history, (now where have we heard that one before, ummmmm, Bill?) it was a complete public relations disaster!

Within the span of just a few hours Tuesday morning, President Obama saw two of his high-profile picks — HHS nominee Tom Daschle and performance czar Nancy Killefer — withdraw because they were discovered to be tax cheats.

The stunning fall of Daschle comes after Timothy Geithner, the man Obama singled out to run the Treasury Department (which runs the IRS, by the way), was confirmed by the Senate after equally embarrassing revelations that he is also a tax cheat having failed to pay some $35,000 in taxes.

"The president has confidence in the process," press secretary Robert Gibbs said at Tuesday's press briefing. Now how would you like to have this guy’s job - - having to come out and lie to the press everyday with a straight face with a mouthful of crap sandwich? It's a good thing someone still has confidence in the process, because the rest of us are starting to wonder.

Obama spent most of Tuesday afternoon doing a series of previously scheduled network TV interviews that turned into a parade of presidential mea culpas. (For those of us who work and actually pay our taxes, that means ‘I screwed up!’) Wait! How is this possible? I thought America elected The One! An entity incapable of error! One who’s every action is perfect simply because the action is His!

"I don't want to send a message to the American people that there are two sets of standards," President B. Hussein Obama told CNN's Anderson Cooper, "one for powerful people and one for ordinary folks who are working every day and paying their taxes." Well, little Buckaroo, that is EXACTLY the message you are sending by supporting a new Treasury secretary who is no less guilty than Daschle for failing to live up to his tax obligations!

It's no wonder we're now starting to see even some Obama supporters questioning whether this is the kind of "change we can believe in." Hey, all you Obama supporters; you bought it – now you own it!

By the way, I just did some quick ciphering in my head and the way I figure it, if all the high-ranking Democrats and Obama appointees just paid their taxes, we would not have a deficit and would have the money for a stimulus bill!