THE LIST OF CONGRESS'S POWERS IN ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8 OF THE US CONSTITUTION GRANTS IT NO AUTHORITY TO FORCE EVERYONE TO HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE

LIBERTY
"In his address to Congress, President Obama made clear that he and his allies know how to spend your health-care money better than you do. It's a matter, you see, of 'shared responsibility': You share your dollars with the feds, and the feds are responsible for making your decisions. ... On 'shared responsibility,' the president brooks no dissent. 'Unless everybody does their part, many of the insurance reforms we seek -- especially requiring insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions -- just can't be achieved,' he said. 'That's why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance.' This requirement is known as the 'individual mandate.' The president's proposal is historic -- though not in a good way. Never before has Congress forced Americans to buy a private good or service. In fact, for those with a traditional understanding of the Constitution as a charter of liberty (as opposed to the 'living' version), the list of Congress's powers in Article I, Section 8, grants it no authority to require any such thing. ... Requiring everyone to buy government-specified health insurance, whether they need it or not, is an unacceptable violation of personal liberty. It is a way of taxing healthy people without calling it a tax. Since that is an irresistible temptation to politicians, the list of required benefits would be certain to keep expanding. The choice between freedom and responsibility, as the president and his congressional allies portray it, is a false choice. We can and should have both." --The Heritage Foundation's Robert Moffitt
THE GIPPER
"The Founding Fathers established a system which meant a radical break from that which preceded it. A written constitution would provide a permanent form of government, limited in scope, but effective in providing both liberty and order. Government was not to be a matter of self-appointed rulers, governing by whim or harsh ideology. It was not to be government by the strongest or for the few. Our principles were revolutionary. We began as a small, weak republic. But we survived. Our example inspired others, imperfectly at times, but it inspired them nevertheless. This constitutional republic, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, prospered and grew strong. To this day, America is still the abiding alternative to tyranny. That is our purpose in the world -- nothing more and nothing less." --Ronald Reagan
INSIGHT
"Do not blame Caesar, blame the people of Rome who have so enthusiastically acclaimed and adored him and rejoiced in their loss of freedom and danced in his path and gave him triumphal processions. ... Blame the people who hail him when he speaks in the Forum of the 'new, wonderful good society' which shall now be Rome's, interpreted to mean 'more money, more ease, more security, more living fatly at the expense of the industrious.'" --Roman statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.)

GOVERNMENT
"As Harvard economist Greg Mankiw writes, 'In light of the shifting baseline, it is impossible to hold the administration accountable for whether its policies are achieving their intended effects. The administration, however, has not been particularly forthright in admitting to this lack of accountability. Indeed, the act of releasing quarterly reports on how many jobs have been 'created or saved' gives the illusion of accountability without the reality'. This lack of accountability -- this claim of success no matter what happens -- should surprise no one. Many of us warned about it months ago. Remember, Obama didn't promise to create 3.5 million jobs. He promised to create or save that many. There is no way to test that. If you still have your job, does that mean Obama saved it? If an entrepreneur created a new job, in spite of Obama's destructive anti-business regulatory apparatus, does Obama still deserve the credit?" --columnist John Stossel
FOR THE RECORD
"[T]hough barely reported, Obama made this statement in his U.N. speech: 'We have fully embraced the Millennium Development Goals.' I'm not sure where he got the authority to make that unilateral declaration, but he nonetheless made it. I guess now that he's president, he can sometimes just issue fiats instead of having to deal with the cumbersome legislative process.... So why do you suppose the evil Bush administration opposed the innocuous-sounding 'Millennium Development Goals'? Well, how about its multi-pronged assault on America's national sovereignty? It commits participating nations to be bound by the International Criminal Court treaty; support regional disarmament measures for small arms and light weapons; and press for the full implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity, which Wikipedia describes as 'an international legally binding treaty' that includes among its goals a 'fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from genetic resources,' the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, described as 'an international bill of rights for women,' and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which purports to be a 'legally binding international instrument' that gives children the right to express their own opinions 'freely in all matters affecting the child' and requires those opinions be given 'due weight.' The Millennium Declaration also affirms the U.N. as 'the indispensable common house of the entire human family, through which we will seek to realize our universal aspirations for peace, cooperation and development.' Indeed, under President Obama, 'We Are the World.'" --columnist David Limbaugh
FAITH AND FAMILY
"In the midst of grappling with a scattering of thorny issues, President Barack Obama took time to lend a fatherly hand this week. Your little Jake, it seems, doesn't spend enough time under the gaze of the state. As it turns out, Jake is at a tragic disadvantage when competing against Yuri from Kazakhstan. If you believe this tale, the administration has an answer for you: Kill summer vacation, and add a few hours to the school day. 'Young people in other countries are going to school 25, 30 percent longer than our students here,' Secretary of Education Arne Duncan claimed. 'I want to just level the playing field.' He, generously, wants to level the playing field for your children. Hey, admittedly, I'm not a product of the dazzling Hungarian school system, yet I can't help but wonder: With the pitiful performance of so many of our school systems -- Duncan left Chicago's schools with a more than 40 percent dropout rate -- doesn't it seem counterintuitive to extend this interaction? Where, after all, is the evidence that longer days translate into smarter kids? We will hear all about Sweden, Belgium and Denmark's longer days and high test scores, but as The Associated Press points out, kids in the U.S. spend more 'hours in school (1,146 instructional hours per year) than do kids in the Asian countries that persistently outscore the U.S. on math and science tests -- Singapore (903), Taiwan (1,050), Japan (1,005) and Hong Kong (1,013).' In the U.S., we also piddle away more funding per student on education than nearly any other nation in the world. Employing Duncan's decidedly non-Singaporean calculus, this would necessitate a cut in education spending to achieve higher results and 'even the playing field.'" --columnist David Harsanyi
RE: THE LEFT
"Imagine how much worse our public schools would look -- assuming that were possible -- if we allowed other countries to exclude one-half of their worst performers! That's exactly what liberals are doing when they tout America's rotten infant mortality rate compared to other countries. They look for any category that makes our medical care look worse than the rest of the world -- and then neglect to tell us that the rest of the world counts our premature and low birth-weight babies as 'miscarriages.' As long as American liberals are going to keep announcing that they're embarrassed for their country, how about being embarrassed by our public schools or by our ridiculous trial lawyer culture that other countries find laughable?" --columnist Ann Coulter
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
(To submit reader comments visit our Letters to the Editor page.)
[1]"In Alexander's essay, 'Not yours to give', he wrote, 'Today, there are but a handful of Senate and House incumbents who dare support and defend the Constitution as Crockett did. But there are candidates emerging around the nation who, with our support, will deliver orations as brazen and eloquent, and stand firm behind those words.' Please, Sir, tell us who they are and we'll vote for them!" --Westby, Wisconsin
Editor's Reply: See the Republican Study Committee's members list and the American Conservative Union's Congressional Ratings.
[2]"The provenance of the Ellis account of Crockett's statements is questionable. Did Crockett say what Ellis attributed to him in 'Not yours to give'?" --Los Angeles, California
Editor's Reply: Ellis undoubtedly researched his account of Crockett's years in Congress, and his character in general, but as Alexander noted, "While the exact text of [Crockett's] speech was not transcribed (not the practice in those years), the spirit of his words in regard to those proceedings was captured in an 1867 Harper's Magazine article entitled 'Not yours to give' by Edward Ellis. There is, in fact, a congressional record of Crocket opposing a welfare bill similar to that referenced by Ellis. It is not known how much of Ellis's account is fact mixed with the annals of Crockett legend, but it is known that the account is consistent with Crockett's character, and his support for our Constitution."
[3]"Alexander wrote a fine article about David Crockett and his friend Sam Houston. Houston did serve as Governor of Texas, but prior to that he held two terms as PRESIDENT of the Republic of Texas. Texas is the only state authorized to fly it's flag at the same height (to the left of course) as the National Flag, because it is the only state to have been recognized as an independent nation by the United States government (for a period of 10 years). Keep up the good work!"
[4]"David Crockett said, he could 'eat a Mexican just put plenty of butter on his head.' Well, let me tell you, as much as I like Crockett, I disagree with him on eating a Mexican. I am a Mexican and I am full of real hot pepper. I eat hot pepper with my refried beans, my tortillas and my tacos. I eat very hot salsa in my pancakes and on eggs, and I eat four or five time a day. If he tried to eat me up, he would light up on fire." --Houston, Texas
Editor's Note: We did not make this up.

THE LAST WORD
"It's hard out there for a first lady of the United States. Take it from travel-weary Michelle Obama. On Tuesday night, she boarded a luxury 757 for Copenhagen. Think of the stairs she had to climb. Oh, the agony of the feet! Upon arrival, Mrs. O, her 'chit-chat buddy,' Chicago-based talk-show queen Oprah Winfrey, and Chicago powerbroker/interest-conflicted real estate mogul/senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett immediately embarked on a grueling, grip-and-grin campaign to secure the Olympics for their hometown. Our smile muscles ache in sympathy. You will be comforted to know that the gracious FLOTUS feels your pain for her pain. 'As much of a sacrifice as people say this is for me or Oprah or the president to come for these few days,' the first lady told a group of fellow Chicago 2016 boosters, 'so many of you in this room have been working for years to bring this bid home.' Translation: Thank me, thank you, for all we do. Never has self-congratulatory gratitude been raised to such an art form, but there was no time for loyal subjects to dwell." --columnist Michelle Malkin

*****

Veritas vos Liberabit -- Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus, et Fidelis! Mark Alexander, Publisher, for The Patriot's editors and staff.
THE PATRIOT POST. COM
MONDAY, 05 OCTOBER 09
********************************************************



BARRY SOETORO aka BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
IS A
USURPER

He is not eligible to be
President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five of the United States Constitution.

This is a fact REGARDLESS of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, Mecca or Mars).

He is not eligible
because he was not born of
TWO PARENTS
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH
as required by the Constitution.

Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is not eligible to be President of the United States because – according to public admissions made by him – his “birth status was governed” by the United Kingdom. Obama further admits he was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at birth.
Since Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was, if born in the state of Hawaii, a dual citizen, who – according to his own State Department – owed allegiance to the Queen of England and United Kingdom at the time of his birth – he cannot therefore be a “natural born” citizen of the US according to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution.
His father, who did not live in the United States for more than a couple of years, was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of Barack’s birth and afterwards, AND further, as Barack himself admitted on his website during the 2008 campaign, Barack was therefore born SUBJECT TO THE GOVERNANCE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Here is a direct quote from Obama's "Fight the Smears/Fact Check" 2008 website:

‘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…’ “

The FACT that he was not born of TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS is all that matters. The question of his birth certificate is a distraction (a distraction fostered by Obama’s supporters?) that ought not to occupy our time and resources. BUT if you are really convinced of the value of the COLB (certificate of live birth) that Obama posted on his website, see this:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9830547/Sun-Yatsen-Certification-of-Live-Birth-in-Hawaii

Also, it is possible that he is not a United States
citizen at all through his mother if he was born in Kenya, as three witnesses have testified. The reason is because his mother could not pass her US citizenship on to her son because she did not live continuously in the United States for five full years after her fourteenth birthday as required by the US immigration law in effect during that period of time.

Check it out:
http://www.TheObamaFile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

His usurpation can only be corrected (1) by Congress through his Impeachment and Removal [something which will never happen in a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid], or (2) it can be
corrected by his resignation, which could happen if the public presssure on him to resign becomes great enough, or (3) by his removal by the United States Supreme Court affirming a Quo Warranto decision of the United States Federal District Court for the District of Columbia [which process Attorney General Eric Holder would never allow to even begin] or (4) by an amendment to the Constitution,
which will never happen because that again would require the agreement of a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid.
_

HERE IS THE QUESTION WHICH EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN SHOULD BE ASKING HIS OR HER CONGRESSMAN AND SENATORS

“During the 2008 election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was ‘governed’ by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell me, and the American people, how a person governed - at birth - by British law, can be a natural born citizen of the United States and thus constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States?”

---
- Leo Rugiens

AN UNLIMITED POWER TO TAX INVOLVES, NECESSARILY, A POWER TO DESTROY." - CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN MARSHALL

"An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy." --John Marshall

Siege Warfare & Health Care Reform
Smelling what they rightly sense is their own blood in the water from the public backlash against the so-called "public option," congressional Bolsheviks (i.e., Democrats) have retreated to lick their wounds from the loss of their erstwhile health care reform centerpiece. Or have they?
Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) certainly doesn't think so. Using a tried-and-true leftist tactic -- two steps forward, one step back, gaining position under the guise of "losing" ground -- Baucus re-grouped by championing his health care bill, the core of which rests on mandatory health insurance and massive Medicaid spending. How massive? Weighing in at $1 trillion, the bill is threefold the total cost of Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" programs of the '60s.
Democrats want to cover everyone up to 33 percent above the federal poverty level (about $30,000 for a family of four), adding more than 11 million new bodies to Medicaid rosters by 2019. The total covered would be 70 million people, or roughly one-quarter of America's population. Oh yeah: "Everyone" includes illegal aliens, or so say at least 21 House Democrats who signed a statement from the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus affirming the same. The Congressional Anglo Saxon Caucus has yet to weigh in.
As an added bonus, those not covered under Medicaid must purchase health insurance (the so-called "individual mandate") or face fines up to $25,000 and/or one year in prison for tax evasion. You may recall the "individual mandate" as the "not-really-a-tax" tax (an IRS "excise tax," to be precise), which President Barack Obama lamely defended last week when confronted by ABC's George Stephanopoulos with his promise not to raise taxes on middle class families "by a single penny." At $1,900 per person for the tax-that's-not-a-tax, and not withstanding his creative wordsmithing, Obama would be into most Americans for a couple hundred thousand pennies' worth of broken promises.
However, since entitlements are leading the charge toward national bankruptcy with the lion's share of the nation's $12 trillion debt and $100 plus trillion in existing un-funded liabilities, isn't it required of citizens to ask whether more entitlement spending is warranted when we can't even fund existing programs? This question is even more relevant at the state level, where all but two states face either substantial or severe shortfalls. Notably, Medicaid is on average the second largest element of state budgets, trailing only slightly behind K-12 education.
Let's also not miss the salient lesson from this sordid vignette: The fight for freedom is a constant struggle against siege warfare. In this case, under the guise of health care "reform," statists would redistribute wealth while accruing power to the government, and if they can't accomplish their goal one way (the "public option"), they will do it another (Medicaid with the "individual mandate"). The only way to counter this constant siege against liberty is to remain vigilant and vocal against these Trojan horse ruses.
As if to punctuate this lesson, Sens. John Rockefeller (D-WV) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) both promised to raise amendments to the Baucus bill adding -- you guessed it -- the "public option."
This Week's 'Alpha Jackass' Award
"If you get sick, America, the Republican healthcare plan is this: die quickly. That's right. The Republicans want you to die quickly if you get sick. ... I apologize to the dead and their families that we haven't voted sooner to end this holocaust in America." --Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) on the health care takeover

Obama Seeks Olympic Fame
"Close your eyes, and pretend it's still the George W. Bush administration," writes columnist Larry Elder. "In Afghanistan, more American service members died in August than in any month since the war began. His top military commander says that without more troops, we run the risk of losing the war. Iran admits operating a second previously undisclosed nuclear facility. Unemployment stands at 9.7 percent, with consumer confidence lower last month after a brief uptick. An important domestic initiative -- one he campaigned on -- faces a likely make-or-break month in Congress."
Elder continues, "What does the President do? He flies to Copenhagen to personally lobby the International Olympic Committee to bring the Olympics to Crawford, Texas."
Substitute Barack Obama for George W. Bush and Chicago for Crawford and you have the news this week: Obama flew to Copenhagen to lobby the IOC to award the 2016 Olympics to his "home town" of Chicago. The First Lady flew separately to make her own pitch. Just think of the carbon footprint that generated.
Aside from massaging his narcissistic ego, Obama is obviously looking to generate a huge financial windfall for his Chicago cronies, though as we went to press the decision had not yet been made. And anyway, as Elder concludes, "Iran and Afghanistan can wait."
This Week's 'Braying Jenny' Award
"As much of a sacrifice as people say this is for me or Oprah or the president to come [to Copenhagen] for these few days, so many of you in this room have been working for years to bring this bid home, and you have put together a phenomenal set of ideas that, no matter what the outcome is, we should be proud of as a city." --Michelle Obama, "sacrificing" for Chicago to land the 2016 Olympic Games
To which Rush Limbaugh replied, "I'm thinking that Michelle Obama needs a little dictionary lesson. Let's not forget, this is the woman who is not proud of her country unless she's getting what she wants from it. She said during the campaign, the first time she'd been proud of her country was when Obama was nominated or done something. So she sacrificed herself to get in a big, luxurious jet -- a Boeing 757 -- to fly to Copenhagen, where she's pampered and treated like she were a goddess. Yes, this is a 'sacrifice.' Meanwhile, we have had at least four of our [volunteer] military men and women killed while living in tents in the most godforsaken spot on earth.... All the while she and her husband need a few more weeks to decide whether he can risk angering his base to send reinforcements to help them! So Michelle, you need to look at a Merriam-Webster Dictionary and study the word 'sacrifice' 'cause it's obviously a word you did not learn in your Ivy League education."
New & Notable Legislation
Hold on to your wallets. The Senate version of the cap-and-tax climate bill called for even deeper carbon emissions cuts by 2020 than the House version of the bill. While the House version allows for an open system of trading carbon credits, most of which would be given away by the government, the Senate has yet to settle on a distribution scheme.
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) slipped a $20 million piece of pork into the $360 billion defense bill that would, according to The Boston Globe, "help the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate realize its goal of building a repository for Kennedy's papers and an accompanying civic learning center on the University of Massachusetts at Boston campus in Dorchester, next to the John F. Kennedy Library and Museum." Obviously, that has nothing to do with defense, but Kerry and Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Chairman of Senate Appropriations, defended the earmark as a tribute to Kennedy's leadership in military technology and defense issues. No word yet on any actual examples of said leadership.
Not to be outdone by itself, the Senate also awarded $2.8 million in stimulus money for forest fire management to that hotbed of wildfires, the District of Columbia. Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) noted that Washington hasn't had to worry about a catastrophic fire since "the British burned down the White House in 1814," but that didn't stop the ridiculous earmark from making the cut.
In recent weeks, The Patriot has received numerous letters warning about SB 2099, legislation supposedly requiring gun owners to report their guns on their income tax returns beginning in 2010. The real Senate bill with this number and a registration requirement (though not on Form 1040) was indeed introduced -- nine years ago. It died without a vote way back when Bill Clinton was president. Please, verify those e-mail forwards before sending them on -- there's enough bad legislation to report as it is.Originally penned in 1912, "Wives of the Signers" is a historical reprint that showcases individual portraits of the fiercely courageous women who endured tremendous hardship as their husbands fought to build an independent nation. Paperback, 283 Pages.

Is a Lack of Vetting What Obama Meant by 'Transparency'?
Back on the campaign trail, Barack Obama vowed his would be the most "transparent" administration in U.S. history. Perhaps what he meant was that the mainstream media would look past the foibles of those he selects for high positions under his watch.
The latest "for instance" comes in the person of "Safe School Czar" Kevin Jennings. Apparently, in the eyes of Jennings, a "safe school" is one where it's safe for an adult male to pursue a homosexual relationship with a student. Jennings denied condoning a relationship between a 15-year-old student and an adult male and threatened to sue a fellow teacher who called his refusal to report the incident "unethical." But since then, an audiotape has surfaced on which Jennings related to an Iowa homosexual advocacy group that he told the student to make sure to use a condom when seeing the older man. To most of us, allowing -- and even promoting -- statutory rape is grotesque, unquestionably illegal and grossly negligent, but to Obama, it appears to be qualification for the job.
Meanwhile, a recent GOP amendment prohibiting the creation of "czar" positions unless Congress confirms appointees was killed by a procedural move made by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Chicago).
Judicial Benchmarks: Rather Suit Dismissed
The Associated Press has the latest on a disgruntled former newscaster: "A New York court on Tuesday dismissed Dan Rather's $70 million breach of contract lawsuit against CBS Corp., noting that the network continued to pay the anchor $6 million a year even after he left the evening news broadcast. Rather sued CBS and its top executives in 2007, claiming he had been removed from his 'CBS Evening News' anchor post over a report that examined President George W. Bush's military service." Rather, who now apparently produces a news program for a little-watched cable channel, was "disappointed."
One final note: The AP said Rather was fired largely because in that infamous hit piece on Bush, he "cited new documents CBS had obtained, but the authenticity of the documents later came under attack." They "came under attack" because they were fake. Apparently, the AP didn't consider that detail worth reporting.
Hsu Sentenced for Ponzi Scheme
Norman Hsu, a prominent fundraiser for Democrats, including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, was sentenced Tuesday to 24 years in prison for "illegally funneling money to U.S. political candidates and for defrauding investors in a multimillion-dollar Ponzi scheme," reports The Wall Street Journal. Clinton returned $850,000 in funds raised by Hsu, who had already been on the lam since 1992 after charges of grand theft. Knowing the Clintons, that was probably a résumé enhancement. Meanwhile, the operators of the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security remain at large.
NATIONAL SECURITY
Warfront With Jihadistan: Terrorist Plots Foiled
An unsettling string of arrests for terrorist plots within the U.S. occurred last week. In Springfield, Illinois, Talib Islam was arrested for allegedly trying to detonate explosives in a van outside a federal courthouse; in North Carolina, Daniel Patrick Boyd and Hysen Sherifi were indicted for planning to attack the Quantico Marine Corps base; in Dallas, Hosam Maher Husein Smadi was arrested in an FBI sting when he parked an SUV packed with what he thought were explosives outside a Dallas skyscraper and attempted to detonate it; and finally, in New York City, an Afghan immigrant, Najibullah Zazi, was arrested for planning to attack commuter trains on the anniversary of 9/11. Allegedly, at least three of his accomplices are still at large. All these arrests occurred soon after government officials issued a flurry of terrorism warnings for popular, crowded areas such as sports complexes, hotels and mass transit systems.
As troubling as this string of terrorism arrests is, even more disturbing is the reaction of the Obama regime and their minions in the Leftmedia. The federal government tried to play down the arrests, alleging there was absolutely no connection between the varied plots. (We're not sure, but the suspects' names seem to imply some sort of connection, if we could just lay our finger on it...) The Leftmedia also downplayed the arrests, with some even speculating that in spite of this increased terrorist activity, al-Qa'ida-type terrorism is actually in decline. Strangely, no one in the press noted that these kinds of incidents are not supposed to occur in the Era of Hope and Change™.
A more rational analysis could easily conclude that the reason there was no known link between the plots is that these are acts of individual terrorist sleeper cells here in the U.S. It also would appear that the intelligence community knew something was up, which led to earlier warnings and allowed anti-terrorism officials to take action before any of the plots could be effectively executed. We hope (but aren't holding our breath) that Obama now sees how effective the anti-terrorist policies put into place by President George W. Bush really are. It's interesting that these arrests coincide with the administration's announcement last Friday that the January deadline for closing Guantanamo Bay might not be met.
Oh No, Not Another Resolution!
The UN Security Council, led by President and Savior Barack Obama, approved Resolution 1887 this week. UNSCR 1887 calls for, inter alia nations that are not party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty to sign it and join; nations that are already parties to reaffirm their commitment to a world without nuclear weapons; all nations to agree to a treaty banning the production of fissile material suitable for use in nuclear weapons; dogs to stop harassing mailmen; all nations to provide the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) with the cooperation necessary to verify the peaceful nature of their nuclear programs; and nations should refrain from testing nuclear weapons. Furthermore, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty -- a treaty already rejected by a 95-0 vote in the US Senate -- should be ratified. This is a disarmament wish list plain and simple, which, thankfully, will go the way of most UNSC Resolutions -- into the UNSC ledger and then into the circular file.
It's also fantasy. Russia is more dependent on nuclear weapons than at any time in its history and will not agree to nuclear disarmament, in part because its conventional military is a mere shadow of its former self. North Korea, India and Pakistan have demonstrated that there is much to gain and little to lose by going nuclear. Israel remains surrounded by nations that openly wish its destruction. The U.S. nuclear arsenal will need refurbishing and renovating in the next decade or so, which will require testing new warheads and producing fissile material suitable for those weapons. How to square this reality with UNSCR 1887's lofty goals?
Iran, the centerpiece of UNSC nuclear discussion for the past six years, made headlines yet again when it rushed to announce a new nuclear enrichment site (in order to pre-empt Obama's announcement of the facility), tested multiple short- and medium-range ballistic missiles, declared for the thousandth time that it will never yield to outside pressure, and threatened potential attackers with a crushing response. Obama and the Europeans have been making noise about "tough new sanctions" on Iran while ignoring the 800-pound gorilla that is China's veto power. And even if the UNSC does place additional sanctions on Iran, the mullah-cracy is highly unlikely to change its mind or delay the production of enough highly enriched uranium to build a nuclear weapon within the 2010-2011 timeframe. UNSCR 1887 will not change this situation -- no matter how much its advocates keep Hopin' for Change.
Immigration Front: Border Patrol to Move Agents North
The U.S. Border Patrol, part of the Department of Homeland Security's Customs and Border Protection, is responsible for securing a total of 8,607 miles of border, including the U.S.-Mexico border, the U.S.-Canada border and some sectors of coastline. Each year, the Border Patrol sets a goal for "border miles under effective control (including certain coastal sectors)," defined as an area in which the Border Patrol detects an illegal border crosser and can be expected to succeed in apprehending that person.
In its May performance review, DHS said the Border Patrol's goal for fiscal 2009 was to have 815 of the 8,607 miles of border -- less than 10 percent -- under "effective control." The goal remains the same for fiscal 2010, meaning DHS does not plan to secure a single additional mile of border in the coming year. On Aug. 31, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report to Congress on the effectiveness of the Border Patrol. Its findings were not exactly encouraging.
For example, the Border Patrol established three performance measures to report the results of checkpoint operations, and while they provide some insight into checkpoint activity, they do not indicate if checkpoints are operating efficiently and effectively. Second, GAO found that a lack of management oversight and unclear checkpoint data-collection guidance resulted in the overstatement of checkpoint performance results in recent reports, as well as inconsistent data collection practices at checkpoints. Furthermore, individuals GAO contacted who live near checkpoints generally supported their operations but expressed concerns regarding property damage that occurs when illegal aliens and smugglers circumvent checkpoints to avoid apprehension.
Here's the kicker: The U.S.-Mexico border is 1,954 miles long, with only 697 miles under "effective control," but the Border Patrol plans to decrease the 17,399 Border Patrol agents on that border by 384 agents in Fiscal 2009. Some 414 will be added to the Canadian border for a total of 2,212. Maybe BO is concerned about the Canucks crossing the border for U.S. health care -- at least until ObamaCare ruins that option.Express how you feel with these best selling products, including our "Bitterly Clinging" T-shirts, bumper stickers, and poster.

Hope and Change, But Not For Youth
Young voters went for Barack Obama by a 2-1 margin but they seem to be the generation hardest hit on the job front, with an unemployment rate significantly above the national 9.8 percent mark. Economists and other experts blame the increase in the minimum wage for part of the problem, yet layoffs and decreased hours among older workers have also backed up the job market. Entry-level jobs once performed by youths are being filled by adults who are punctual, polite, professional and simply grateful to have a job, even at minimum wage.
The consequences of this trend may turn out to be severe. Youths who can't get that first opportunity may be held back economically for up to 15 years, according to a government study. This translates into slower economic growth down the road as a generation handicapped by high unemployment and jobs farther down the economic scale than their parents enjoyed at the same age attempts to scrape together funding to buy a house, a new car, or other needs and desires. Then again, as a demographic group, these young people are reaping exactly what they voted for.
The Savior Speaks
"We're putting Americans back to work doing the work that America needs done: Rebuilding roads, bridges and new schools, and all manner of construction projects across all 50 states. I'm not going to rest. I know the governors and candidates here are not going to rest, and I know that the American people are not going to rest until everybody who's looking for work can find a job." --The One, BO, just before the Labor Department announced another 263,000 lost jobs in September, which raised unemployment to 9.8 percent
Secret Fed Gold Swaps
It's no real surprise that Kellogg Corporation engages in strategies to minimize the risk associated with fluctuating commodity markets. After all, if you're in the business of making corn flakes and raisin bran, you want to know what you're going to pay for corn and raisins. We say it's no surprise because Kellogg Corporation discloses its utilization of hedges against future costs in its annual report. The disclosure of these details is part and parcel of the financial transparency that we expect from publicly traded companies and as prescribed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve Bank has admitted to concealing gold swap agreements that it maintains with foreign banks. The scope of that subterfuge has included, shall we say, material misstatements in official correspondence as well as public testimony, which appear to have been in practice for over a decade.
At first blush, the idea of a gold swap arrangement between central banks is perfectly logical. A primary objective of a central bank should be to maintain a stable currency. It is the secrecy of these agreements that is of greater concern. The line between maintenance and manipulation is ephemeral at best, with secrecy and subterfuge being the coin of the realm for the manipulator. Can anyone say "George Soros?"
For the past two decades, free trade advocates have criticized China's manipulation of its currency value to maintain its balance of trade. Now, the Federal Reserve admits to acting in the same manner.
That said, the Federal Reserve performs two functions critical to our modern economy --- performing as the clearinghouse for daily inter-institution financial transactions, and providing the ultimate source of liquidity. The efficiency of both functions requires a sound and stable currency. That the Federal Reserve had engaged in gold swaps to limit volatility and risk in support of the dollar's value is no different from Kellogg Corporation utilizing futures contracts to mitigate their exposure to fluctuating corn and raisin prices. The difference is the matter of transparency.
CULTURE & POLICY
Second Amendment: SCOTUS to Consider Gun Rights Again
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to Chicago's handgun ban. Last year, the court ruled in Heller v. District of Columbia that the Second Amendment does, in fact, mean what it says -- that law-abiding citizens have a right to keep and bear arms. The $64,000 question this time is whether the Second Amendment applies to states and local, not just federal, jurisdictions?
As we have pointed out before, few would question that the First Amendment applies to states and localities, even though it says, "Congress shall make no law..." [emphasis added]. The Second Amendment unambiguously applies to all jurisdictions: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Yet the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled earlier this year that the Constitution places no limits on state authority to ban guns. The Second Circuit ruled likewise in a similar New York case in which then-Second Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor ruled against the Second Amendment. But, now-Justice Sotomayor will be permitted to take part in the Supreme Court hearings of the Chicago case. We think we can guess which way she will vote.
Climate Change This Week: World to Get Really Hot, We Swear!
It's laughable. Despite the mounting evidence to the contrary (and perhaps in an effort to remain relevant on the world scene), the UN continues to outdo itself in perpetuating global warming hysteria. According to The Washington Post, a recent report released by the UN's Environmental Program claims Earth's temperature will climb 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century, even if nations adopt the most aggressive programs. This is even direr than the UN's 2007 Intergovernmental Program on Climate Change. That group took home a Nobel Prize, but then again, so did Yasser Arafat, Jimmy Carter and Mikhail Gorbachev.
One thing about the envirofascist movement is that it's becoming more and more transparent in its push for a "new world order," and this latest report is just another scare tactic ahead of the December climate change conference in Copenhagen. As former Enron adviser and current New York Times "economist" Paul Krugman frets, "[C]limate change is a problem that can only be addressed through government action."
The United States has already pledged to cut emissions by 73 percent from 2005 levels and the European Union by 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050. Yet even this is not enough for the green weenies.
Village Academic Curriculum: No Religion in Football
Another attack on religious liberty in schools took place this week -- in The Patriot's own backyard. The Chattanoogan reports, "For a number of years at [Lakeview-Fort Oglethorpe High School], cheerleaders have been making banners for the players to run through at the start of games with such Bible-based messages as 'commit to the Lord' and 'take courage and do it.' A parent last week complained to Catoosa County School Superintendent Denia Reese about the banners." School officials quickly caved, saying the signs would be prohibited at future games because it is "a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution for signs with Bible verses to be displayed on the football field." So according to these officials, charged with educating America's children, the First Amendment denies the freedom of religious expression in a public place. Perhaps school officials need a batch of Essential Liberty guides to clear up their confusion as to what the Constitution does and doesn't say.
Village Academic Curriculum II: Another Creepy Video
After last week's video of New Jersey kids singing praises to Barack Hussein Obama, another video surfaced of kids in North Carolina doing likewise. Great moments in public education, indeed.
Meanwhile, a gang of community organizers led by the "Gamaliel Foundation" is on video shouting, "Hear our cry, Obama!" and "Deliver us, Obama!" The O-cult continues.
From the 'Non Compos Mentis' File
New York City was once known for its encapsulation of Americans' love for individualism, capitalism and the freedoms of expression, worship and assembly. In recent decades, however, the trend toward leftism and its cultural degradation of all things has been pronounced. Now, the city's most recognizable building celebrates liberty's antithesis.
On Wednesday, the Empire State Building glowed red and yellow to mark the 60th anniversary of the founding of Communist China. This dreadful event followed the final victory of the Communist Chinese army over that of the Nationalist Chinese, who later fled to Taiwan and built a free capitalist society. The Empire State Building is often lit up in different colors to honor holidays and other milestones, such as St. Valentine's Day and the death of Frank Sinatra. But shining for a regime that holds the worst record of human rights violations in the world is unconscionable.
Under the Maoist regime, University of Hawaii historian R.J. Rummel estimates that nearly 77 million people were murdered. Rummel said, "These numbers alone do not measure the pain and suffering involved. For each person murdered, there remain grieving relatives and possibly broken homes and children. How many more died as a consequence is itself unknown and un-estimated here. Then many of those killed did not die easy; often it was by inches, under torture, through starvation, overwork and exposure, or from painful wounds. These statistics only reflect in small measure the monstrous human misery." Perhaps the lights would be better understood as representing the red blood of millions of the yellow man.
And Last...
When Hollywood celebrities weren't busy defending director Roman Polanski for raping a 13-year-old girl 30 years ago ("It wasn't rape-rape," Whoopi Goldberg helpfully explained), they were fighting for the government takeover of health care. Funded by MoveOn.org, comedian Will Ferrell and other wealthy Hollywood celebrities recently put together a satirical public service announcement (PSA) in which the shtick was to feign sympathy for insurance executives in order to gain support for the so-called "public option." Of course, the celebs claim the public option already has the support of "80 percent of Americans." Such a claim is obvious horse pucky, as we non-celebrity types say down here in Tennessee. And the actors may not have noticed, but many, if not most, insurance executives are lobbying for ObamaCare. Ferrell, who makes about $20 million per film but can't seem to find it in his heart to buy insurance for a single family, wants you to do it by government coercion.
The PSA contained such over-the-top garbage that it was ripe for parody. A group of conservatives did just that in a spectacular frame-by-frame mocking of these Hollywonks. Examples include, "Celebrities keep us informed so we don't have to ask silly questions," and, "If I had a kid and he had a bike and he broke his leg, my neighbor's kid should have to pay for it" because "how else will our children learn that they're entitled to other people's money?" Finally, they conclude, "Join overpaid celebrities in fighting for legislation they don't understand. They may not be real doctors, but they play one on TV."

*****
Friday Digest
THE PATRIOT POST
by Lamar Alexander
patriotpost.com
October 2, 2009

*************************************

BARRY SOETORO aka BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
IS A
USURPER

He is not eligible to be
President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five of the United States Constitution.

This is a fact REGARDLESS of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, Mecca or Mars).

He is not eligible
because he was not born of
TWO PARENTS
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH
as required by the Constitution.

Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is not eligible to be President of the United States because – according to public admissions made by him – his “birth status was governed” by the United Kingdom. Obama further admits he was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at birth.
Since Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was, if born in the state of Hawaii, a dual citizen, who – according to his own State Department – owed allegiance to the Queen of England and United Kingdom at the time of his birth – he cannot therefore be a “natural born” citizen of the US according to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution.
His father, who did not live in the United States for more than a couple of years, was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of Barack’s birth and afterwards, AND further, as Barack himself admitted on his website during the 2008 campaign, Barack was therefore born SUBJECT TO THE GOVERNANCE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Here is a direct quote from Obama's "Fight the Smears/Fact Check" 2008 website:

‘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…’ “

The FACT that he was not born of TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS is all that matters. The question of his birth certificate is a distraction (a distraction fostered by Obama’s supporters?) that ought not to occupy our time and resources. BUT if you are really convinced of the value of the COLB (certificate of live birth) that Obama posted on his website, see this:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9830547/Sun-Yatsen-Certification-of-Live-Birth-in-Hawaii

Also, it is possible that he is not a United States
citizen at all through his mother if he was born in Kenya, as three witnesses have testified. The reason is because his mother could not pass her US citizenship on to her son because she did not live continuously in the United States for five full years after her fourteenth birthday as required by the US immigration law in effect during that period of time.

Check it out:
http://www.TheObamaFile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

His usurpation can only be corrected (1) by Congress through his Impeachment and Removal [something which will never happen in a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid], or (2) it can be
corrected by his resignation, which could happen if the public presssure on him to resign becomes great enough, or (3) by his removal by the United States Supreme Court affirming a Quo Warranto decision of the United States Federal District Court for the District of Columbia [which process Attorney General Eric Holder would never allow to even begin] or (4) by an amendment to the Constitution,
which will never happen because that again would require the agreement of a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid.
_

HERE IS THE QUESTION WHICH EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN SHOULD BE ASKING HIS OR HER CONGRESSMAN AND SENATORS

“During the 2008 election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was ‘governed’ by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell me, and the American people, how a person governed - at birth - by British law, can be a natural born citizen of the United States and thus constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States?”

---
- Leo Rugiens

SARKOZY'S UNSPOKEN WORDS AT THE UN LAST WEEK: "SACR? BLEU, OBAMA IS SITTING ON QOM!!!!"

President Obama, I supoport the Americans' outstretched hand.
But what did the international community gain from these offers
of dialogue? Nothing!"
- French President Nicolas Sarkozy speaking at the UN on Sept. 24.

When France chides you for appeasement, you know you're scraping bottom. Just how low we've sunk was demonstrated by the Obama administration's satisfaction when Russia's president said of Iran, after meeting President Obama at the United Nations, that "sanctions are seldom productive, but they are sometimes inevitable."


You see? The Obama magic. Engagement works. Russia is on board. Except that, as The Post inconveniently pointed out, President Dmitry Medvedev said the same thing a week earlier, and the real power in Russia, Vladimir Putin, had changed not at all in his opposition to additional sanctions. And just to make things clear, when Iran then brazenly test-fired offensive missiles, Russia reacted by declaring that this newest provocation did not warrant the imposition of tougher sanctions.


Do the tally. In return for selling out Poland and the Czech Republic by unilaterally abrogating a missile-defense security arrangement that Russia had demanded be abrogated, we get from Russia . . . what? An oblique hint, of possible support, for unspecified sanctions, grudgingly offered and of dubious authority -- and, in any case, leading nowhere because the Chinese have remained resolute against any Security Council sanctions.


Confusing ends and means, the Obama administration strives mightily for shows of allied unity, good feeling and pious concern about Iran's nuclear program -- whereas the real objective is stopping that program. This feel-good posturing is worse than useless, because all the time spent achieving gestures is precious time granted Iran to finish its race to acquire the bomb.


Don't take it from me. Take it from Sarkozy, who could not conceal his astonishment at Obama's naivete. On Sept. 24, Obama ostentatiously presided over the Security Council. With 14 heads of state (or government) at the table, with an American president at the chair for the first time ever, with every news camera in the world trained on the meeting, it would garner unprecedented worldwide attention.


Unknown to the world, Obama had in his pocket explosive revelations about an illegal uranium enrichment facility that the Iranians had been hiding near Qom. The French and the British were urging him to use this most dramatic of settings to stun the world with the revelation and to call for immediate action.


Obama refused. Not only did he say nothing about it, but, reports Le Monde, Sarkozy was forced to scrap the Qom section of his speech. Obama held the news until a day later -- in Pittsburgh. I've got nothing against Pittsburgh (site of the G-20 summit), but a stacked-with-world-leaders Security Council chamber it is not.


Why forgo the opportunity? Because Obama wanted the Security Council meeting to be about his own dream of a nuclear-free world. The president, reports the New York Times citing "White House officials," did not want to "dilute" his disarmament resolution "by diverting to Iran."
Diversion? It's the most serious security issue in the world. A diversion from what? From a worthless U.N. disarmament resolution?


Yes. And from Obama's star turn as planetary visionary: "The administration told the French," reports the Wall Street Journal, "that it didn't want to 'spoil the image of success' for Mr. Obama's debut at the U.N."


Image? Success? Sarkozy could hardly contain himself. At the council table, with Obama at the chair, he reminded Obama that "we live in a real world, not a virtual world."
He explained: "President Obama has even said, 'I dream of a world without [nuclear weapons].' Yet before our very eyes, two countries are currently doing the exact opposite."
Sarkozy's unspoken words? "And yet, sacr? bleu, he's sitting on Qom!"


At the time, we had no idea what Sarkozy was fuming about. Now we do. Although he could hardly have been surprised by Obama's fecklessness. After all, just a day earlier in addressing the General Assembly, Obama actually said, "No one nation can . . . dominate another nation." That adolescent mindlessness was followed with the declaration that "alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War" in fact "make no sense in an interconnected world." NATO, our alliances with Japan and South Korea, our umbrella over Taiwan, are senseless? What do our allies think when they hear such nonsense?


Bismarck is said to have said: "There is a providence that protects idiots, drunkards, children, and the United States of America." Bismarck never saw Obama at the United Nations. Sarkozy did.


OBAMA'S FRENCH LESSON
By Charles Krauthammer
THE WASHINGTON POST
Friday, October 2, 2009

**************************************************

BARRY SOETORO aka BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
IS A
USURPER

He is not eligible to be
President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five of the United States Constitution.

This is a fact REGARDLESS of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, Mecca or Mars).

He is not eligible
because he was not born of
TWO PARENTS
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH
as required by the Constitution.

Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is not eligible to be President of the United States because – according to public admissions made by him – his “birth status was governed” by the United Kingdom. Obama further admits he was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at birth.
Since Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was, if born in the state of Hawaii, a dual citizen, who – according to his own State Department – owed allegiance to the Queen of England and United Kingdom at the time of his birth – he cannot therefore be a “natural born” citizen of the US according to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution.
His father, who did not live in the United States for more than a couple of years, was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of Barack’s birth and afterwards, AND further, as Barack himself admitted on his website during the 2008 campaign, Barack was therefore born SUBJECT TO THE GOVERNANCE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Here is a direct quote from Obama's "Fight the Smears/Fact Check" 2008 website:

‘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…’ “

The FACT that he was not born of TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS is all that matters. The question of his birth certificate is a distraction (a distraction fostered by Obama’s supporters?) that ought not to occupy our time and resources. BUT if you are really convinced of the value of the COLB (certificate of live birth) that Obama posted on his website, see this:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9830547/Sun-Yatsen-Certification-of-Live-Birth-in-Hawaii

Also, it is possible that he is not a United States
citizen at all through his mother if he was born in Kenya, as three witnesses have testified. The reason is because his mother could not pass her US citizenship on to her son because she did not live continuously in the United States for five full years after her fourteenth birthday as required by the US immigration law in effect during that period of time.

Check it out:
http://www.TheObamaFile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

His usurpation can only be corrected (1) by Congress through his Impeachment and Removal [something which will never happen in a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid], or (2) it can be
corrected by his resignation, which could happen if the public presssure on him to resign becomes great enough, or (3) by his removal by the United States Supreme Court affirming a Quo Warranto decision of the United States Federal District Court for the District of Columbia [which process Attorney General Eric Holder would never allow to even begin] or (4) by an amendment to the Constitution,
which will never happen because that again would require the agreement of a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid.
_

HERE IS THE QUESTION WHICH EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN SHOULD BE ASKING HIS OR HER CONGRESSMAN AND SENATORS

“During the 2008 election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was ‘governed’ by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell me, and the American people, how a person governed - at birth - by British law, can be a natural born citizen of the United States and thus constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States?”

---
- Leo Rugiens

"President Obama, I support the Americans' outstretched hand. But what did the international community gain from these offers of dialogue? Nothing." - French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Sept. 24

When France chides you for appeasement, you know you're scraping bottom. Just how low we've sunk was demonstrated by the Obama administration's satisfaction when Russia's president said of Iran, after meeting President Obama at the United Nations, that "sanctions are seldom productive, but they are sometimes inevitable."

You see? The Obama magic. Engagement works. Russia is on board. Except that, as The Post inconveniently pointed out, President Dmitry Medvedev said the same thing a week earlier, and the real power in Russia, Vladimir Putin, had changed not at all in his opposition to additional sanctions. And just to make things clear, when Iran then brazenly test-fired offensive missiles, Russia reacted by declaring that this newest provocation did not warrant the imposition of tougher sanctions.

Do the tally. In return for selling out Poland and the Czech Republic by unilaterally abrogating a missile-defense security arrangement that Russia had demanded be abrogated, we get from Russia . . . what? An oblique hint, of possible support, for unspecified sanctions, grudgingly offered and of dubious authority -- and, in any case, leading nowhere because the Chinese have remained resolute against any Security Council sanctions.

Confusing ends and means, the Obama administration strives mightily for shows of allied unity, good feeling and pious concern about Iran's nuclear program -- whereas the real objective is stopping that program. This feel-good posturing is worse than useless, because all the time spent achieving gestures is precious time granted Iran to finish its race to acquire the bomb.

Don't take it from me. Take it from Sarkozy, who could not conceal his astonishment at Obama's naivete. On Sept. 24, Obama ostentatiously presided over the Security Council. With 14 heads of state (or government) at the table, with an American president at the chair for the first time ever, with every news camera in the world trained on the meeting, it would garner unprecedented worldwide attention.

Unknown to the world, Obama had in his pocket explosive revelations about an illegal uranium enrichment facility that the Iranians had been hiding near Qom. The French and the British were urging him to use this most dramatic of settings to stun the world with the revelation and to call for immediate action.

Obama refused. Not only did he say nothing about it, but, reports Le Monde, Sarkozy was forced to scrap the Qom section of his speech. Obama held the news until a day later -- in Pittsburgh. I've got nothing against Pittsburgh (site of the G-20 summit), but a stacked-with-world-leaders Security Council chamber it is not.

Why forgo the opportunity? Because Obama wanted the Security Council meeting to be about his own dream of a nuclear-free world. The president, reports the New York Times citing "White House officials," did not want to "dilute" his disarmament resolution "by diverting to Iran."
Diversion? It's the most serious security issue in the world. A diversion from what? From a worthless U.N. disarmament resolution?

Yes. And from Obama's star turn as planetary visionary: "The administration told the French," reports the Wall Street Journal, "that it didn't want to 'spoil the image of success' for Mr. Obama's debut at the U.N."

Image? Success? Sarkozy could hardly contain himself. At the council table, with Obama at the chair, he reminded Obama that "we live in a real world, not a virtual world."
He explained: "President Obama has even said, 'I dream of a world without [nuclear weapons].' Yet before our very eyes, two countries are currently doing the exact opposite."
Sarkozy's unspoken words? "And yet, sacr? bleu, he's sitting on Qom!"

At the time, we had no idea what Sarkozy was fuming about. Now we do. Although he could hardly have been surprised by Obama's fecklessness. After all, just a day earlier in addressing the General Assembly, Obama actually said, "No one nation can . . . dominate another nation." That adolescent mindlessness was followed with the declaration that "alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War" in fact "make no sense in an interconnected world." NATO, our alliances with Japan and South Korea, our umbrella over Taiwan, are senseless? What do our allies think when they hear such nonsense?

Bismarck is said to have said: "There is a providence that protects idiots, drunkards, children, and the United States of America." Bismarck never saw Obama at the United Nations. Sarkozy did.


Obama's French Lesson
By Charles Krauthammer
THE WASHINGTON POST
Friday, October 2, 2009

**************************************************

BARRY SOETORO aka BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
IS A
USURPER

He is not eligible to be
President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five of the United States Constitution.

This is a fact REGARDLESS of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, Mecca or Mars).

He is not eligible
because he was not born of
TWO PARENTS
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH
as required by the Constitution.

Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is not eligible to be President of the United States because – according to public admissions made by him – his “birth status was governed” by the United Kingdom. Obama further admits he was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at birth.
Since Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was, if born in the state of Hawaii, a dual citizen, who – according to his own State Department – owed allegiance to the Queen of England and United Kingdom at the time of his birth – he cannot therefore be a “natural born” citizen of the US according to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution.
His father, who did not live in the United States for more than a couple of years, was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of Barack’s birth and afterwards, AND further, as Barack himself admitted on his website during the 2008 campaign, Barack was therefore born SUBJECT TO THE GOVERNANCE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Here is a direct quote from Obama's "Fight the Smears/Fact Check" 2008 website:

‘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…’ “

The FACT that he was not born of TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS is all that matters. The question of his birth certificate is a distraction (a distraction fostered by Obama’s supporters?) that ought not to occupy our time and resources. BUT if you are really convinced of the value of the COLB (certificate of live birth) that Obama posted on his website, see this:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9830547/Sun-Yatsen-Certification-of-Live-Birth-in-Hawaii

Also, it is possible that he is not a United States
citizen at all through his mother if he was born in Kenya, as three witnesses have testified. The reason is because his mother could not pass her US citizenship on to her son because she did not live continuously in the United States for five full years after her fourteenth birthday as required by the US immigration law in effect during that period of time.

Check it out:
http://www.TheObamaFile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

His usurpation can only be corrected (1) by Congress through his Impeachment and Removal [something which will never happen in a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid], or (2) it can be
corrected by his resignation, which could happen if the public presssure on him to resign becomes great enough, or (3) by his removal by the United States Supreme Court affirming a Quo Warranto decision of the United States Federal District Court for the District of Columbia [which process Attorney General Eric Holder would never allow to even begin] or (4) by an amendment to the Constitution,
which will never happen because that again would require the agreement of a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid.
_

HERE IS THE QUESTION WHICH EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN SHOULD BE ASKING HIS OR HER CONGRESSMAN AND SENATORS

“During the 2008 election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was ‘governed’ by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell me, and the American people, how a person governed - at birth - by British law, can be a natural born citizen of the United States and thus constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States?”

---
- Leo Rugiens

IF THE OLYMPICS WERE TO GIVE MEDALS FOR HYPOCRISY, OBAMA WOULD BE SURE TO WIN THE GOLD MEDAL

eIBD Investor's Business Daily Digital Edition

Access recent eIBD issues easily:

• PDF Version: Recent issues are listed under the bookmark menu
  
  
• Web Version: Recent issues are listed under the date menu

Go to PDF Version | Go to Recent Issues

To save time in the future, you may select one of the preferences below. You may update your eIBD preferences at any time by going into My IBD and selecting Update Your eIBD Preferences.

Set Web-Based Version as Default Set PDF Version as Default Set Recent Issues as Default

Add to your lists:

INSTEAD OF LOBBYING OLYMPICS OFFICIALS
TO BRING THE GAMES TO HIS HOMETOWN OF CHICAGO,
PRESIDENT OBAMA SHOULD BE HUDDLING WITH LOCAL
OFFICIALS TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO CONTROL VIOLENCE THERE.

Some say Chicago is too broke to host the Olympics. Others say it's too corrupt. Above all, it's too dangerous. Crime is out of control, and the president shares some blame for the trend.

As an Illinois state senator representing South Side Chicago, he helped pass one lenient crime bill after another — and now he wants to go even further at the federal level.

Chicago is the new Murder Capital USA, passing New York with close to 500 homicides last year.

Teen gang violence is horrific, as the nation witnessed this week with the beating of an honor student outside a South Side high school. Derrion Albert was clubbed to death with a two-by-four, then kicked and stomped by a pack of crazed youth.

Following that, a 14-year-old boy was chased down in the same area and hit with a pipe, fracturing his skull. The teen was found lying in the road in a pool of blood. In the past year, school violence in Chicago has claimed the lives of 30 students.

This violent crime wave has gone unabated since actress Jennifer Hudson's mother, brother and nephew were gunned down last year in a triple homicide in Chicago.

As his hometown turned into a killing field, Obama remained silent until the Albert video inconveniently went viral in the middle of his and the first lady's courtship of Olympic honchos. Now he expresses belated shock through a spokesman.

Maybe there's a reason for his silence. As a local legislator, Obama was soft on violent gang crime, as we repeatedly noted on these pages before the election. He voted to weaken penalties on gangbangers who deal drugs in schools. He also blocked a bill that would send youth who commit a second violent felony to prison. He fought to keep even the most violent juvenile offenders out of the adult system.

Now at the federal level, he wants to repeal mandatory minimum sentences for crack and other drug offenders to stop what he calls the "warehousing" of such criminals. He also wants to "reform" the death penalty and outlaw police profiling of criminals.

Also on his and Attorney General Eric Holder's agenda: restoring voter rights for felons, expunging their criminal records and helping them get jobs at taxpayer expense.

About the only areas where he's not soft on crime involve "predatory lenders" and those who commit "hate crimes." He's ordered Holder to make their prosecution top priority.

Meanwhile, brutal homicides are exploding across the country. Nationwide homicide data from 2000-07 show a rate of increase among black teens more than twice that among white teens. An overwhelming share of the killings involve black-on-black crime.

Experts attribute it to the prison and "gangsta rap" culture that glamorizes juvenile violence.

Over the past few months, Obama has given major speeches to the NAACP and Congressional Black Caucus. He spoke a lot about the legacy of racism. He spoke nothing of the epidemic of black-on-black crime. The situation may only worsen as the black teen jobless rate, already at record levels, climbs even higher.

Part of the reason for the record unemployment is the 40% jump in the minimum wage that Democrats enacted in the middle of a recession. The last raise to $7.25 — one of three over three years — took effect in July, triggering a spike in teen joblessness in August.

Study after study shows hikes in the minimum wage kill jobs. Retailers operating on already thin margins are forced to cut payrolls to avoid losses from the higher mandated cost. Since most workers earning minimum wage are students and other youth, they suffer most. Recessions never saw the jobless rate for young workers break 50% — until now.

Just weeks before Obama took office, we warned readers about "The Coming Crime Wave." Now it's upon us. We need policies that will fight it, not feed it.

Chicagoland

BY THE EDITORS OF THE INVESTORS BUSINESS DAILY

INVESTORS.COM

THURSDAY, 01 OCTOBER 09

*********************************************************

BARRY SOETORO aka BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
IS A
USURPER

He is not eligible to be
President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five of the United States Constitution.

This is a fact REGARDLESS of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, Mecca or Mars).

He is not eligible
because he was not born of
TWO PARENTS
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH
as required by the Constitution.

Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is not eligible to be President of the United States because – according to public admissions made by him – his “birth status was governed” by the United Kingdom. Obama further admits he was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at birth.
Since Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was, if born in the state of Hawaii, a dual citizen, who – according to his own State Department – owed allegiance to the Queen of England and United Kingdom at the time of his birth – he cannot therefore be a “natural born” citizen of the US according to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution.
His father, who did not live in the United States for more than a couple of years, was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of Barack’s birth and afterwards, AND further, as Barack himself admitted on his website during the 2008 campaign, Barack was therefore born SUBJECT TO THE GOVERNANCE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Here is a direct quote from Obama's "Fight the Smears/Fact Check" 2008 website:

‘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…’ “

The FACT that he was not born of TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS is all that matters. The question of his birth certificate is a distraction (a distraction fostered by Obama’s supporters?) that ought not to occupy our time and resources. BUT if you are really convinced of the value of the COLB (certificate of live birth) that Obama posted on his website, see this:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9830547/Sun-Yatsen-Certification-of-Live-Birth-in-Hawaii

Also, it is possible that he is not a United States
citizen at all through his mother if he was born in Kenya, as three witnesses have testified. The reason is because his mother could not pass her US citizenship on to her son because she did not live continuously in the United States for five full years after her fourteenth birthday as required by the US immigration law in effect during that period of time.

Check it out:
http://www.TheObamaFile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

His usurpation can only be corrected (1) by Congress through his Impeachment and Removal [something which will never happen in a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid], or (2) it can be
corrected by his resignation, which could happen if the public presssure on him to resign becomes great enough, or (3) by his removal by the United States Supreme Court affirming a Quo Warranto decision of the United States Federal District Court for the District of Columbia [which process Attorney General Eric Holder would never allow to even begin] or (4) by an amendment to the Constitution,
which will never happen because that again would require the agreement of a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid.
_

HERE IS THE QUESTION WHICH EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN SHOULD BE ASKING HIS OR HER CONGRESSMAN AND SENATORS

“During the 2008 election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was ‘governed’ by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell me, and the American people, how a person governed - at birth - by British law, can be a natural born citizen of the United States and thus constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States?”

---
- Leo Rugiens

ATTORNEY LEO DONOFRIO CONTINUES HIS BRILLIANT LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THE COVER-UP BY THE HAWAII HEALTH DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR

TerriK INVESTIGATION, Part 3: Hawaii AG Mark Bennett Approved Fukino’s Natural-Born Citizen Statement; All Records Should Be Made Public According To Law.

Hawaii Department of Health Director Chiyome Fukino’s press release of July 27, 2009 was a public statement. The UIPA (Hawaii open records law) at 92F-12(a)(15) states:

§92F-12 Disclosure required. (a) Any other provision in this chapter to the contrary notwithstanding, each agency shall make available for public inspection and duplication during regular business hours:

(15) Information collected and maintained for the purpose of making information available to the general public;

Fukino’s July 27th press release stated:

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”

There were two very important pieces of information made available to the public in the above statement:

- “…Obama was born in Hawaii…”

- “…Obama…is a natural-born American citizen…”

It cannot be disputed that this information was made available to the public. Therefore, under 92F-12(a)(15), all “Information collected and maintained for the purpose of making” the July 27th statement available to the public must be disclosed.

TerriK locked onto 92F-12(a)(15) and applied it to the July 27th press release by requesting all relevant records thereto. It was a very intelligent and savvy analysis, especially for a lay person. I tend to believe the application of this provision was overlooked by Hawaii officials and this will be the game changer leading to full disclosure.

Everything specifically listed in section 92F-12 is required by law to be made public. There is no discretion involved. Furthermore, no other provision of the UIPA may work as an exception to the mandatory disclosure mandated by 92F-12. Therefore, none of the exceptions listed in 92F-13 to the UIPA’s general rule of disclosure are applicable.

The only exceptions to mandatory disclosure of records listed in 92F-12(a)(15) are confidentiality laws listed in other chapters of the Hawaii Revised Statutes. This would specifically include Haw. Rev.Stat. 338-18 which makes vital records maintained by the DoH confidential.

As to Fukino’s July 27th press release, 92F-12(a)(15) and 338-18 may be in conflict as to disclosure of Obama’s vital records. The resolution of this potential conflict will be the subject matter of Part 4 of this report where we will comprehensively analyze whether vital records viewed by Fukino in making her July 27th statement must be disclosed.

I will tell you in advance that when such a conflict exists, the law requires that authorities give effect to both provisions where possible as “repeal by implication is disfavored”. OIP OP. Ltr. No. 00-02 citing Mahiai c. Suwa 69 Haw. 349, 356-57 (1987). My conclusion stated in advance of Part 4 is that those vital records must be disclosed.

That being said, this section of the report will be limited to issue of which records must be disclosed by the DoH, the Hawaii Attorney General, and any other official – state or federal – pertaining to the definition of the term “natural-born American citizen” as used by Fukino in her July 27th, 2009 press release.

NEW UIPA REQUESTS

Unfortunately, TerriK’s requests for records on this issue were very broad. This doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have yielded some disclosure. But the DoH seized on the broadness and issued a very confusing response which did not exactly conform to the OIP administrative rules.

Therefore, I have begun the process of making very specific UIPA requests on my own behalf for the records discussed. Other researchers I am in touch with are doing the same. Below is comprehensive legal analysis which strongly indicates full disclosure must be provided.

HAWAII ATTORNEY GENERAL MARK BENNETT APPROVED FUKINO’S JULY 27th PRESS RELEASE.

Justin Riggs sent the following email to DoH Communications Director Janice Okubo on July 29, 2009:

From: Justin Riggs [email address redacted]
Date: Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:03 PM
To: …janice.okubo@doh.hawaii.gov, [redacted other recipient]

…Ms. Okubo,

I am currently a masters degree candidate at …

The reason that I am contacting your organizations is that you are, as far as I can tell from my research, the only two groups that have openly stated that President Obama is a natural born citizen (one of the Article II, Section I qualifications for being President). I would like to document how you came to that conclusion: i.e. what the criteria is for your organization, what evidence the candidate provides, etc.

I thank you for your time, and look forward to receiving a response in the near future.

Sincerely,

Justin W. Riggs

Janice Okubo responded later that day:

From: Okubo, Janice S..
Date: Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:20 PM
To: Justin Riggs [email address redacted]…

Aloha Justin,

The statement was reviewed and approved by our Attorney General Mark Bennett. I am unable to provide further comment.

Janice Okubo
Communications Office
Hawaii State Department of Health…

So, we know that Hawaii Attorney General Mark Bennet “reviewed and approved” Fukino’s July 27th press release. Bennet may have prepared the entire press release or perhaps just the “natural-born” part. We don’t know. Okubo states that she is unable to provide further comment, so the rest is a mystery at this point. But we certainly have another public statement here which makes information available to the public.

The public is therefore entitled to all records maintained by Hawaii officials which pertain to this July 29th statement by Okubo. For example, any emails between Okubo and AG Bennett, between Okubo and Fukino, between Bennett and Fukino, Governor Lingle, etc. which guided Okubo’s statement to Justin Riggs must be disclosed along with memos, letters, transcripts, video and telephonic conference recordings and any other records maintained thereto.

The same goes for any records maintained documenting dialogue between Hawaii officials and federal officials as to this issue.

But more important is that all of the above records pertaining to Fukino’s July 27th press release must also be disclosed.

WHAT DEFINITION OF “NATURAL-BORN” CITIZEN DID FUKINO RELY UPON?

The statement, “…Obama…is a natural-born American citizen…”, contains both a factual determination as well as a legal definition. In order to decipher the factual determination made public by that conclusion, we must first know the legal definition of “natural-born America citizen” that Fukino determined Obama conformed to.

Without that legal definition, we can’t analyze the factual determination.

For example, if she used a definition which alleges anyone born on US soil is therefore a natural-born citizen, then the factual determination for this statement might only be concerned with records she viewed which led her to believe Obama was born in the US.

If, on the other hand, she used a definition which required that Obama was born in the US to parents who were citizens, then the factual determination involved with the “natural-born” part of her statement would have taken into account records she viewed which stated who his parents were.

Hawaii Attorney General Mark Bennett reviewed and approved the July 27th press release so we should assume that an Attorney General opinion letter exists. I personally issued a UIPA request for this letter to DoH Director Fukino on Sept. 28, 2009.

While the following analysis centers on disclosure of Attorney General opinions letters, it equally applies to all other government records kept by any state official or body covered by the UIPA – ie, emails, memos, photographs, minutes, etc. – which pertain to the July 27th press release.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION LETTERS CANNOT BE A SWORD AND A SHIELD.

Haw. Rev. Stat. 28-3 imposes an affirmative duty upon the Attorney General to document and make public all opinions he gives upon a question of law submitted by the head of an agency:

§28-3 Gives opinions. The attorney general shall, when requested, give opinions upon questions of law submitted by the governor, the legislature, or its members, or the head of any department. The attorney general shall file a copy of each opinion with the lieutenant governor, the public archives, the supreme court library, and the legislative reference bureau within three days of the date it is issued. Opinions on file with the lieutenant governor, the public archives, and the supreme court library shall be available for public inspection.

The word “shall” signifies an affirmative duty to document the opinion as well as make it public. This means that even if no Attorney General opinion letter currently exists, since a question of law was submitted to AG Bennet by the head of a state agency – DoH Director Fukino – the opinion received by her must be put in letter form and made available to the public.

If necessary, this may be accomplished via a writ of mandamus. However, I do believe such an opinion letter already exists along with accompanying emails and other records kept thereto. It would be highly suspicious for the DoH Director and the Attorney General to claim that no records whatsoever exist concerning Bennet’s review and approval of the July 27th press release.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL LETTER MUST BE DISCLOSED.

In a case before the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit (State of Hawaii) – Akaku v. Bennett – involving current Attorney General Mark Bennett, the head of a state agency sought to keep an opinion letter prepared by AG Bennett from being disclosed:

Pursuant to HRS § 28-3, the Attorney General’s duty to disclose legal opinions in response to questions of law posed by any head of department is not discretionary. If the head of any department poses a question of law, the Attorney General’s response must be filed in accordance with HRS § 28-3 absent other considerations set out in HRS §§ 92F-13 and 14. [FN] 3.

Footnote 3 from that opinion states:

§ 28-3 provides that the “attorney general shall file a copy of each opinion.., within three days of the date it is issued” (emphasis added). Generally, the legislature uses the word “shall” to Indicate its intention to make the provision mandatory and not discretionary. State v. Shannon, 118 Haw. 15, 25 (2008).

NO ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE APPLIES.

The court went on to discuss that once the existence of the opinion letter and the conclusion of the letter are made public, no attorney client privilege applies:

Under the Hawaii Rules of Evidence (”HRE”), Rule 511, “[a] person upon whom these rules confer a privilege against disclosure waives the privilege if, while holder of the privilege, the person or the person’s predecessor voluntarily discloses or consents to disclosure of any significant part of the privileged matter. “… Commentary to HRE, Rule 511 further provides that “[a]ny intentional disclosure by the holder of the privilege defeats [the purpose of HRE 503] and eliminates the necessity for the privilege in that instance…

[I]t has been widely held that voluntary disclosure of the content of a privileged attorney communication constitutes waiver of the privilege as to all other such communications on the same subject.

This next part is very important since it discusses that a press release was the basis for a waiver of the attorney client privilege:

A sophisticated, well-counseled party who intentionally discloses an important part of an otherwise privileged communication acts in a manner that is thoroughly inconsistent with preserving the confidentiality of that communication. See Electro Scientific Indus. v. Gen. Scanning, Inc. , 175 F.R.D. 539, 543 (N.D. Cal, 1997) wherein it was held that where a party issues a “news release” disclosing that counsel advised him that the opposing party’s patents were invalid, waiver was effectuated because the party voluntarily disclosed an important and substantive part of what would have been a confidential attorney-client communication.

DoH Director Fukino is an M.D., and she certainly must be considered a “sophisticated, well-counseled party”. She disclosed an important part of the communication between herself and AG Bennet – the conclusion. And by virtue of an eloquent metaphor, the court provides illumination upon the policy which demands disclosure once such a conclusion is made public:

Defendant Reifurth disclosed to the public both the purpose for which he contacted the Attorney General– he wanted a legal opinion…and [he] also disclosed the essence of the legal opinion provided by the Attorney General… The disclosure of the legal opinion of the Attorney General amounted to a disclosure of a significant or important part of the attorney-client communication…

Defendant Reifurth has put two important statutory provisions in competition by using the attorney-client privilege as both a sword and a shield. (Emphasis added.)

Therefore, Fukino can’t use the Attorney General’s opinion as a sword to justify an official determination by her office that Obama is a “natural-born American citizen” while at the same time using the attorney client privilege as a shield to prevent public disclosure of AG Bennet’s opinion which is required by HRS 28-3.

As long as Attorney General Bennett’s opinion was recorded in a letter (or email, memo, note etc.), that record must be disclosed under 92F-12(15) as well as 92F-12(b)(2). The court in Akaku v. Bennett made reference to 92F-12(b)(2) in its holding:

The Uniform Information Practices Act (”UIPA”), directs agencies to disclose “[g]overnment records which, pursuant to federal law or a statute of this State, are expressly authorized to be disclosed to the person requesting access…” HRS § 92F-12(b)(2).

The holding in Akaku v. Bennett also contained the following findings of law:

In this instance, if the Attorney General could avoid publication of his response to a question of law by denominating the opinion as an “advise and counsel” letter, the mandatory disclosure provisions of HRS § 28-3 would be rendered meaningless…

Defendant Reifurth and the DCCA disclosed a significant part of the Attorney General Opinion thereby waiving the attorney-client privilege on communications on the same subject matter.

Since Attorney General opinion letters are expressly authorized to be made public by Haw. Rev. Stat. 28-3, it follows that 92F-12(b)(2) demands disclosure by law.

If Attorney General Bennett is given a question of law by DoH Director Fukino, his opinion in response thereto must be documented and made available to the public. If he has failed to make a record of this opinion, he will be compelled to do so and any resulting recording must be made available to the public.

NO SECRET LAW

We should also assume that DoH Director Fukino didn’t rely exclusively upon Attorney General Bennett’s opinion. She may have done her own research and she may have been influenced by other sources including officers of the federal government. 92F-12(a)(15) demands that all information she collected and maintained for purposes of making the July 27th press release be disclosed to the public. But there is another provision of 92F-12 which provides illumination on this issue, 92F-12(a)(2):

§92F-12 Disclosure required. (a) Any other provision in this chapter to the contrary notwithstanding, each agency shall make available for public inspection and duplication during regular business hours:

(2) Final opinions, including concurring and dissenting opinions, as well as orders made in the adjudication of cases, except to the extent protected by section 92F-13(1);

This is also known as the “law of the agency” which is specifically discussed in various OIP opinion letters and case law as having the purpose of preventing the issuance of “secret law”.

The most instructive analysis of 92F-12(a)(2) is provided by OIP Opinion Letter 90-40 which provides multiple statutory interpretations which are applicable here as well as to Part 4 of this report. I will quote extensively from this opinion letter:

The UIPA, the State’s new open records law, generally provides that “[a]ll government records are open to inspection and copying unless access is restricted or closed by law.” Haw. Rev. Stat.  92F-11(a) (Supp. 1989). In addition to this general rule of agency disclosure, in section 92F-12, Hawaii Revised Statutes, the Legislature enumerated a list of records, or categories of records, which must be made available for inspection as a matter of law. [FN 3.]

Footnote 3 includes an important provision we’ve seen before in Part 1 of this report:

3 As to the records, or categories or records set forth at section 92F-12, Hawaii Revised Statutes, the legislative history of the UIPA indicates that the Act’s exceptions to public access, “such as for personal privacy and for frustration of legitimate government function are inapplicable.” See S.Conf. Comm. Rep. No. 235, 14th Leg., 1988 Reg. Sess., Haw. S.J.689, 690 (1988); H.R. Conf. Comm. Rep. No. 112-88, 14th Leg., 1988 Reg. Sess., Haw. H.J. 817, 818 (1988). (Emphasis added.)

OIP Opinion Letter 90-40 then goes on to explain that the purpose of 92F-12(a)(2) – aka “the law of the agency” – is to prevent “secret law” from being issued:

Paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 92F-12(a), Hawaii Revised Statutes, were adopted in their entirety from section 2-101 of the Uniform Information Practices Code (”Model Code”) drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. The UIPA’s legislative history directs those construing its provisions to consult the Model Code’s commentary, where appropriate, to guide the interpretation of similar UIPA provisions. See H.R. Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 2580, 14th Leg., 1988 Reg. Sess., Haw. H.J. 969, 972 (1988). The commentary to section 2-101 of the Model Code states:

Under this section, the “law of the agency” must be made available to the public. In other words, an agency may not maintain “secret law” relating to its own decisions and policies. This section is similar in general requirement to Sections (a)(1), (2) and (3) of the federal Freedom of Information Act 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1), (2) and (3). . . . The affirmative disclosure responsibility extends to agency policies, rules and adjudicative determinations and procedures. (Emphasis added.)

OIP Opinion Letter 90-40 then goes on to discuss what specific actions taken by an agency fall under the no secret law of the agency provision of 92F-12(a)(2):

Additional guidance in determining the meaning of the term “order” for purposes of the UIPA, may be gleaned from the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws’ State Administrative Procedure Act of 1981 (”Model Act”). Section 1-102(5) of the Model Act defines the term “order” as:

[A]n agency action of particular applicability that determines the legal rights, duties, privileges, immunities, or other legal interests of one or more specific persons.

Model Act  1-102(5) (1981). (Emphasis added.)

Please note that an “order” is defined above as “an agency action that determines “the …legal interests of one or more specific persons.”

Applying that definition to Fukino’s July 27th statement, it is clear the press release was an agency action - issued on DoH letterhead directly from her office and bearing her title of DoH Director- which determined Obama’s “legal interest” concerning his (publicly disputed) eligibility to be President. The press release did this by stating that Fukino’s review of Obama’s “vital records” determined that he was a “natural-born American citizen”.

By taking official agency notice of Obama’s vital records and issuing an official opinion as to his Presidential eligibility, Fukino’s actions fall under “the law of the agency” pursuant to 92F-12(a)(2). And by refusing to inform the public concerning how she came to define the term “natural-born American citizen”, she is guilty of making “secret law”.

OIP Opinion Letter 90-40 provides further guidance on this issue:

In our opinion, the definition of the term “order” set forth in the Model Act provides a more practical and workable definition of this term. This definition clearly describes the action of an agency when acting in a quasi-judicial or adjudicatory capacity, by determining the legal rights, duties, privileges or other legal interests of specific persons. In our opinion, an agency may act in such a quasi-judicial, or adjudicatory capacity, in contexts other than”contested case” hearings under chapter 91, Hawaii Revised Statutes…

[W]e agree with the decision of the court in Sigler, that like section (a)(2) of the FOIA, by its terms, nothing would support a conclusion that section 92F-12(b)(2), Hawaii Revised Statutes, only applies to “adjudications pursuant to a formal hearing.” Sigler, 390 F. Supp. at 792.

Accordingly, DoH Director Fukino’s July 27th press release is covered by 92F-12(b)(2). The only remaining issue is whether the exception listed therein as to 92F-13(1) applies:

§92F-13 Government records; exceptions to general rule. This part shall not require disclosure of:

(1) Government records which, if disclosed, would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;

Generally, no exceptions listed in other provisions of the UIPA (Chapter 92F of the Haw. Rev. Stat.) apply to 92F-12. But as to subsection 92F-12(b)(2), the above exception from 92F-13(1) is explicitly included. However, please take note that the 92F-13(1) exception does not apply to our analysis of required disclosure under 92F-12(a)(15).

Regardless, as I have limited discussion in this section of the TerriK Investigation report to disclosure issues attached to records pertaining only to the definition of “natural-born American citizen” incorporated by DoH Director Fukino (and approved by Attorney General Mark Bennett) in her July 27th press release, the privacy exception of 92F-13(1) does not apply.

There can be no privacy interest as to the definition of the term “natural-born American citizen”.

The very notion is absurd.

Leo C. Donofrio, Citizen Attorney http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com

October 1, 2009

---

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

• TerriK INVESTIGATION, PART 2: OIP Staff Attorney Linden Joesting’s Respon…
• Clarity!
• FERPA v. open records
• Mark Sanford opposes the Real ID

This entry was posted on October 1, 2009 at 12:29 pm and is filed under Uncategorized . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.