RECIPE FOR A UNITED NATIONS: TAKE A QUART OF ICE CREAM AND A QUART OF DOG FECES AND MIX 'EM TOGETHER

Half a decade or so back, I wrote:

"It's a good basic axiom that if you take a quart of ice cream and a quart of dog feces and mix 'em together the result will taste more like the latter than the former. That's the problem with the U.N."

Absolutely right, if I do say so myself. When you make the free nations and the thug states members of the same club, the danger isn't that they'll meet each other half-way but that the free world winds up going three-quarters, seven-eighths of the way.

That's what happened in New York last week. Barack Obama is not to blame for whichever vagary of United Nations protocol resulted in the president of the United States being the warm-up act for the Lunatic-for-Life in charge of Libya.

But it is a pitiful reflection upon the state of the last superpower that, when it comes to the transnational mush drooled by the leader of the free world or the conspiracist ramblings of a terrorist pseudo-Bedouin running a one-man psycho-cult of a basket-case state, it's more or less a toss-up as to which of them is more unreal.

To be sure, Col. Gadhafi peddled his thoughts on the laboratory origins of swine flu and the Zionist plot behind the Kennedy assassination.

But, on the other hand, President Obama said: "No nation can or should try to dominate another nation."

Pardon me? Did a professional speechwriter write that? Or did you outsource it to a starry-eyed runner-up in the Miss America pageant? Whether any nation "should try" to dominate another, they certainly "can," and do so with effortless ease, all over the planet and throughout human history.

And how about this passage?

"I have been in office for just nine months — though some days it seems a lot longer. I am well aware of the expectations that accompany my presidency around the world. These expectations are not about me. Rather, they are rooted, I believe, in a discontent with a status quo that has allowed us to be increasingly defined by our differences ... ."

Forget the first part: That's just his usual narcissistic "But enough about me, let's talk about what the world thinks of me" shtick. But the second is dangerous in its cowardly evasiveness: For better or worse, we are defined by our differences — and, if Barack Obama doesn't understand this when he's at the podium addressing a room filled with representatives of Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Venezuela and other unlovely polities, the TV audience certainly did when Col. Gadhafi took to the podium immediately afterward.

They're both heads of state of sovereign nations. But if you're on an Indian Ocean island when the next tsunami hits, try calling Libya instead of the U.S. and see where it gets you.

This isn't a quirk of fate. The global reach that enables America and a handful of others to get to a devastated backwater on the other side of the planet and save lives and restore the water supply isn't a happy accident but something that derives explicitly from our political systems, economic liberty, traditions of scientific and cultural innovation, and a general understanding that societies advance when their people are able to fulfill their potential in freedom.

In other words, America and Libya are defined by their differences.

What happens when you pretend those differences don't exist? Well, you end up with the distinctively flavored ice cream I mentioned at the beginning.

By declining to distinguish between the foreign minister of Slovenia and the foreign minister of, say, Sudan, you normalize not merely the goofier ad libs of a Gadhafi but far darker pathologies.

The day after the U.S. president addressed the U.N., the prime minister of Israel took to the podium and held up a copy of the minutes of the Wannsee Conference at which German officials planned the "Final Solution" to their Jewish problem.

This is the pathetic state to which the U.N. has been reduced after six decades: The Jew-hatred of Ahmadinejad and others is so routine that a sane man has to stand up and attempt to demonstrate to lunatics that the Holocaust actually happened.

One sympathizes with Benjamin Netanyahu. But he's missing the point.

Ahmadinejad & Co. aren't Holocaust deniers because of the dearth of historical documentation. They do so because they can, and because it suits their own interests to do so, and because in the regimes they represent, the state lies to its people as a matter of course and to such a degree that there is no longer an objective reality, only a self-constructed one.

In Libya and Syria and far too many "nations," truth is simply what the thug in the presidential palace declares it to be.

But don't worry, Obama assures them, we're not "defined by our differences." Hey, that's great, isn't it? Yet if you can no longer distinguish between the truth and a lie, why be surprised that the lie metastasizes and becomes, if not yet quite respectable, at least semi-respectable and acceptable in polite society?

Some Western nations walked out of Ahmadinejad's speech: Canada was first; Austria stuck around; America left somewhere in between. "It is disappointing that Mr. Ahmadinejad has once again chosen to espouse hateful, offensive and anti-Semitic rhetoric," huffed U.S. spokesman Mark Kornblau.

Oh, come off it, you ludicrous poseur. President Obama's position is that he's anxious to hold talks "without preconditions" with his Iranian colleague. How can you do that if you're going to flounce out like a big drama queen at the first itsy-bitsy pro forma Judenhass?

Although he affects a president-of-the-world manner, I don't think Barack Obama cares much about foreign affairs one way or the other. He has a huge transformative domestic agenda designed to leave this country looking much closer to the average Continental social democracy.

His principal interest in the rest of the planet is he doesn't need some nutjob nuking Cleveland before he's finished reducing it to a moribund socialist swamp. And so, like many European nations, when it comes to the global scene, Obama has attitudes rather than policies. If you're on the receiving end — like Israel, Poland, Honduras — it's not pleasant, and it's going to get worse.

It was striking to hear Gadhafi and Chavez profess their admiration for Obama, call him "our son." and declare their fond hope that he remain president for life.

The Chinese and Russians are more circumspect in public, and laughing their heads off in private. As for the saner members of the U.N., many Europeans still think they've got the American president they've always wanted: They would agree with John Bolton's indictment — that this was a post-American speech by a post-American president — but mean it as high praise.

As the contours of the post-American world emerge, they will have plenty of time to reconsider their enthusiasm.

by Mark Steyn

Syndicated Columnist

Saturday, 26 September 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

THE TENTACLES OF THE OBAMANATION CONTINUE TO SPREAD THROUGHOUT AMERICA

"The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse." --James Madison

GOVERNMENT & POLITICS

Yosi Sergant and Obama

Scandals Continue for Obama Allies

First, it was the Obamaphilic gang of community organizers at ACORN generating controversy. Now, it's the lapdogs at the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). And once again, an Andrew Breitbart Web site blew the cover off. At BigHollywood.com, Patrick Courrielche, an artist and NEA grant recipient, released a full transcript of an August conference call hosted by "the National Endowment for the Arts, the White House Office of Public Engagement, and the Corporation for National and Community Service" during which strategy was discussed with a "handpicked arts group" that had worked with Obama's campaign, including the artist who created the ubiquitous "Hope" poster.

So what, you say? Well, Courrielche reports, "Later in the call, 'specific asks' were delivered by Yosi Sergant, then Communications Director of the National Endowment for the Arts," requesting that the art group "create art on several hotly debated political issues, including health care." They were also asked to join "United We Serve," a public-service project led by Michelle Obama. Buffy Wicks, who oversees Obama's national service initiative at "Serve.gov" (which directs activists to ACORN) at the White House's Office of Public Engagement, told participants in the call, "[W]e're going to need your help." Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund writes, "Within two days of the phone call, 21 arts organizations endorsed President Obama's health-care reform plan."

Sergant

To summarize, a taxpayer-funded organization (NEA) was "asking" taxpayer-funded artists to help the Obama administration enact a government takeover of our nation's health care system. Courrielche notes, "This practice has never been the historical role of the NEA. The NEA's role is to support excellence in the arts, to increase access to the arts, and to be a leader in arts education. Using the arts to address contentiously debated issues is political subversion. And the fact that the White House played a role in encouraging the arts to address contentious issues should also be considered a government overreach." Indeed, to Barack Obama, every government bureaucracy is a potential campaign arm. The community organizer has now morphed into a government organizer.

After being caught red-handed, the NEA first "reassigned" Sergant, though when that didn't work, he resigned on Thursday. The White House also pushed out new guidelines to ensure such politicization doesn't happen again. Try not to spew coffee on your keyboard.

From the Left: ACORN Sues

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) has filed suit in Maryland against James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles, the young conservative activists who posed as a pimp and a prostitute to video tape, in secret, ACORN employees giving illegal tax and loan advice for the creation of a child-prostitution ring using illegal immigrants. Also named in the suit is Andrew Breitbart, whose Web site posted the videos. ACORN alleges illegal wiretapping. However, ACORN claims that one office turned away O'Keefe and Giles and two offices called the police, though one of the latter waited until after advising them. O'Keefe and Giles deny that they were ever turned away. Regardless, assuming that five out of seven offices offered to help two supposed sex-traffickers set up shop and evade taxes, the episode doesn't exactly paint a pretty picture of ACORN. Furthermore, the nuthouse might have committed a grave tactical error since their lawsuit now opens their organization to further discovery.

Meanwhile, the IRS followed Congress (legislation still pending) and the Census Bureau in severing ties with ACORN, saying it would no longer use the organization in its tax assistance program. ACORN offered free advice to some three million low- and moderate-income tax filers in 2009, though as Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto quipped, "[J]ust to be fair to Acorn, we should point out that the majority of those 3 million people do not practice sex slavery."

Overexposed Obama

Just before Barack Obama and the G-20 prepared plans for a major shift in the way nations manage their economies, the president displayed his eagerness to takeover one-sixth of the U.S. economy by booking himself on five Sunday talk shows to defend ObamaCare -- ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and even Univision. Fox News Channel was conspicuously absent from the list, probably because the man of hope-n-change isn't too "fair and balanced."

Recording five shows back to back made more news than what he actually had to say. Which gives rise to the adage: If Barack Obama says nothing five times over in the media forest, has he still made a noise?

George Stephanopoulos of ABC News challenged Obama's ridiculous assertion that a government-imposed penalty for not purchasing insurance is not a tax. "[T]he government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don't [buy insurance]. ... How is that not a tax?" Stephanopoulos inquired. Obama filibustered with one of his classic long-winded answers claiming that the penalty is not a tax simply because -- well, he says it's not. He remained undeterred, even accusing his interlocutor of making up a definition when Stephanopoulos grabbed his Merriam-Webster and recited the definition of the word "tax." Obama's response? "My critics say everything is a tax increase." Word is Obama's picture will be included beside the "tax" entry in the next Merriam-Webster's edition.

News From the Swamp: Health Care Debate

While BO hogged the cameras, the Senate Finance Committee debated the health care bill proposed by Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT). Democrats and the White House are eagerly displaying their definition of "transparency" by rushing through proposed amendments so that the public doesn't have a chance to see up close how completely this shoddy and unconstitutional legislation will ruin health care and bankrupt the country. Republicans are attempting to shed light on the subject by begging as much time as the "bipartisan" Democrats will afford them, but many of their proposals are falling short on party-line votes.

The major issue at this point is just how big a blow seniors will be dealt by the new plan. Part of the cost savings for Baucus's $800 billion plan derive from making real cuts in Medicare funding, and Democrat support is already starting to drift away at the prospect of seniors being asked to sacrifice a portion of their benefits. The traditional Democrat supporters in Big Labor are also concerned about the 35 percent tax to be imposed on so-called "Cadillac plans," health insurance packages valued at more than $8,000 for individuals or $21,000 for families. This tax is supposed to help fund the rest of the program, but the costs will hit hard for middle-class union families with generous insurance packages, though not necessarily generous salaries.

Government Stomps on Private Insurer

Humana Inc., principal insurance provider for the Medicare Advantage program, drew the ire of Democrats this week for having the temerity to advise its customers that they could see significant cuts to their benefits and services if ObamaCare becomes law. The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, under Sen. Max Baucus's urging, ordered Humana to cease and desist in its letter campaign. The company is now the target of a federal investigation for violating a conveniently vague rule against scaring seniors with its communications. We wonder if Baucus has ever heard of the AARP.

Baucus denies that his program will have any adverse effect on Medicare coverage for seniors. The Congressional Budget Office disagrees, noting that Medicare Advantage will see $100 billion in cuts, ultimately leading to reduced benefits. This particular Medicare program is targeted because Advantage actually allows consumers to work with private insurers. Democrats, of course, hate this free-market idea.

The government's action against Humana is just a taste of what Hope and Change will bring. Today, they control through intimidation the message of private companies; tomorrow they control the companies completely.

New & Notable Legislation

Surprising no one, the Senate voted down an amendment by Jim DeMint (R-SC) that would have removed federal funding for an airport in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, that The Wall Street Journal calls "Congressman Jack Murtha's Airport for No One." The airport serves fewer than 30 people each day for three commercial flights to Washington, DC, but it has devoured more than $150 million in Murtha pork over the last 20 years, including $800,000 in "stimulus" cash this year for -- get this -- a second runway. DeMint complained that "if we can't cut funding for this project, we can't cut anything in Washington." Flight 150000000 for DC is now boarding with plenty of seats available.

The House voted 406-18 Thursday to halt premium increases for Medicare Part B, given that Social Security recipients will not see a cost of living increase in 2010. Most Medicare recipients are already exempt from increases if there is no boost in Social Security payments, but many others would face monthly premium increases of $8 to $23 without action by Congress.

The Associated Press reports, "The Senate has unanimously condemned the release of the Libyan terrorist convicted in [the] Pan Am bombing over Lockerbie and called upon Libya to apologize for celebrating his return." The 1988 bombing killed 270 people, including 189 Americans. Scotland released Abdel Baset al-Megrahi last month on "compassionate" grounds because he is dying of cancer. He was greeted in Libya as a national hero by cheering throngs.

Last, hang on to your wallet -- due to plummeting readership and flat-lined advertising revenues, Barack Obama is open to a newspaper bailout. "I haven't seen detailed proposals yet, but I'll be happy to look at them," he said this week. And we thought the press was already in the tank for Obama.

Judicial Benchmarks: Campaign-Finance Law Struck Down

A three-judge panel of the DC-based Second Circuit Court of Appeals struck down prohibitions on campaign spending by independent political groups, a move one observer warned "could lead to a more negative campaign season." The rules, which were put into effect following the 2004 campaign, prohibited outside entities from the unfettered use of so-called "soft money" -- money not used in direct advocacy for the election of a particular candidate or issue. These rules came in the wake of a huge wave of political spending by tax-exempt organizations recognized under IRS Code, Section 527, such as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and Club for Growth.

While some think that this ruling will largely benefit conservative groups given the recent overwhelming participation in the Tea Party movement, left-leaning groups also stand to prosper, as unions will once again be free to distribute their massive political war chest to a number of new and existing 527 groups such as Moveon.org. In fact, it was the pro-abortion group Emily's List that filed the suit, claiming the rules restricted their First Amendment rights. We agree -- on that point.

Another victory against current unconstitutional campaign-finance rules is pending in the Supreme Court, where the provision banning corporate purchases of political ads 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election is undergoing scrutiny through the case of "Hillary: The Movie." We won't comment on the merits of the film, but given the withering questioning from several justices, it's possible that McCain-Feingold itself may be on the ropes.

From the Leftjudiciary: Indiana Court Tosses Voter ID

Despite a significantly higher voter turnout last year than in most previous presidential elections, as well as Barack Obama's narrowly carrying the state, the Indiana State Court of Appeals threw out the state's voter identification law -- a statute that had already passed muster with the U.S. Supreme Court -- claiming the law wasn't equally applied to those casting absentee ballots. The 3-0 ruling, made by a panel of judges appointed by Democrat governors, was blasted by Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels as "an act of judicial arrogance" and "transparently" partisan.

Predictably, state Democrat leaders hailed the ruling, claiming, even in the face of those increased turnout numbers, that the law requiring voters to present a form of identification bearing their photo "disenfranchised hundreds if not thousands of voters." Heaven forbid, after all, that voters are who they say they are and vote only once.

Hyper-Hypocrisy: Massachusetts Grants Kennedy's Last Wish

Honestly, we're only surprised the votes were that close. In a move state Republicans called "a stunning example of Democrat hypocrisy," the Massachusetts legislature voted to reverse a 2004 law that permitted filling vacancies in the United States Senate only through a special election. This power play immediately paved the way for Democrat Governor Deval Patrick to name former Ted Kennedy aide Paul Kirk as the former's successor, thus preserving the Democrats' 60-seat majority in the United States Senate. Kirk will occupy the seat at least until a Jan. 19 special election.

The 2004 law providing for a special election was hastily passed as a backup plan in the event that John Kerry won the White House because a Republican, then-Gov. Mitt Romney, would have selected his successor. Ironically, Bay State Republicans submitted a similar bill back in 2006, but it was defeated in the Massachusetts House by the overwhelmingly Democrat majority because Romney was still governor. Only when the governor's chair was safely in Democrat hands could such a bill be considered, despite the current high-minded Democrat rhetoric of maintaining two voices for the state in the United States Senate. Such hypocrisy, unfortunately, will only be rewarded by Massachusetts voters. Republicans have called the move unconstitutional and have taken the matter to court.

Essential Liberty Project

Support the restoration of constitutional integrity and Rule of Law. As a primer on liberty, as "endowed by our Creator" and codified by our Founders in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, these pocket reference guides have a proven record as an essential resource for Patriots of all ages. That success is attributed to its comprehensive introduction on the history of American Liberty by Mark Alexander, while its high-quality binding and size make it durable, easy to carry and inexpensive to distribute.

Help us distribute millions of Essential Liberty booklets to students, grassroots organizations, civic clubs, political alliances, military and public service personnel, and other groups.

If you are a parent or grandparent of a high school or college student, please consider providing these Essential Liberty Constitution booklets to your student's entire class, grade or school. The booklets are available in bulk from PatriotShop.US.

If you would rather sponsor the distribution of Essential Liberty booklets to student groups, organizations, clubs, military units, et al., you can do so at our Essential Liberty Project sponsorship page.

To support the Essential Liberty Project by mail, make checks payable to "Essential Liberty Project" and send to Essential Liberty Project, PO Box 407, Chattanooga, TN 37401.

NATIONAL SECURITY

Warfront With Jihadistan: Requesting More Troops

Is Obama preparing to run up the white flag in Afghanistan? Unfortunately, recent actions point in that direction. Just a month ago, Obama told the Veterans of Foreign Wars at their convention in Phoenix that Afghanistan was "not a war of choice" but "a war of necessity." A few months prior to that, he had grandly announced his new strategy for victory there, telling the Taliban and the terrorists, "We will defeat you." On this past Sunday's talk-show circuit, however, Obama openly wondered if the U.S. was "pursuing the right strategy" and further said he would not send more troops to Afghanistan unless "we've got the right strategy." Defense Secretary Robert Gates reportedly told his top commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, to delay submitting a request for more troops and wait for the Obama administration to rethink its strategy.

A confidential report put together by Gen. McChrystal was strategically leaked, however, bluntly warning that without more troops, the eight-year Afghan war "will likely result in failure" within a year. The report also says that the Taliban have become a sophisticated enemy, using modern communication techniques and propaganda to recruit new members and plan attacks. McChrystal seems poised to request 40,000 more troops, for the first time bringing the total to more than 100,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

Trying to downplay the report, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Monday said that while she has "respect" for Gen. McChrystal's conclusion, she countered, "I can only tell you there are other assessments from very expert military analysts who have worked in counter-insurgencies that are the exact opposite." She left people scratching their heads as to exactly who these unnamed "very expert military analysts" might be.

When Gen. David Petraeus presented President George W. Bush with a similarly dire scenario in Iraq, Bush resolutely ordered the troop surge that turned Iraq around. But it now appears that a weak-kneed Obama may ignore his leading commander's advice and instead listen to his increasingly raucous leftist base. During the presidential campaign, these double-talkers called Afghanistan the "real" war and Iraq just a "distraction." Well, Mr. President, it's time to put your money where your mouth is.

More Shenanigans in Honduras

It seems there really is no rest for the weary Hondurans. Nearly three months after the country's major legal institutions determined that former President Manual Zelaya had committed treason with his Hugo Chavez-esque grab for power, the tiny nation is still being pressured to allow Zelaya to resume his role as leader.

Now, Zelaya, likely aided by Venezuela's Chavez, has snuck back into the Honduran capitol of Tegucigalpa where, from the safety of the Brazilian embassy, he has called for his supporters to converge on the city with "peaceful" demonstrations. And they have done so, despite interim President Roberto Micheletti's declaration of a curfew, roadblocks and a closed airport. Meanwhile, Zelaya bizarrely complains of assassination attempts by "Israeli mercenaries" who he claims are using toxic gases and high-frequency radiation to torture him. Apparently, the "gas" has gone to his head.

The Obama administration has repeatedly ignored Honduras' right to self-determination with measures that make the Left's cry of "American imperialism" during the Bush years seem like child's play. The U.S. State Department has cut off vital aid to Honduras and has denied its citizens U.S. visas, all to make it bend to the will of Obama, Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro. "It is imperative that dialogue begin," Hillary Clinton declared, and "that there be a channel of communication between President Zelaya and the de facto regime in Honduras." Memo to Hillary: Zelaya is no longer president, his legal term in office has expired, and the "de facto regime" is a legitimate transitional government until elections can take place.

Regardless, the U.S. State Department has declared that it will not recognize the outcome of the upcoming elections on Nov. 29 unless Zelaya is returned to power.

Lt. Col. Chessani Faces BOI over Haditha Incident

United States Marine Corps Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani will face a Military Board of Inquiry (BOI) before year's end. The question is whether Chessani should be demoted in rank due to his role in the November 2005 Haditha incident, in which 24 Iraqis, including nine insurgents, were killed by Marines after an IED struck their convoy. All charges have been dropped against seven of the eight Marines involved. Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich still faces possible court-martial. Chessani, who was not present for the convoy's actions, first reported that the deaths resulted from a firefight between Marines and insurgents. He was originally charged with dereliction of duty for not ordering an investigation, but those charges were dismissed, albeit on technical grounds.

Chessani is a highly regarded Marine, having served his third combat tour in Iraq in 2005 and also having served in Panama and the First Persian Gulf War. But the Thomas More Law Center warns, "The Board can consider files without the benefit of a cross examination; they will consider the tainted record of the Article 32 Hearing; LtCol Chessani cannot subpoena witnesses; and the government need only prove misconduct by a preponderance of the evidence (50.1%) rather than beyond a reasonable doubt." In short, those who would short-circuit the war effort are seeking to do something -- anything -- that would punish those Marines.

BUSINESS & ECONOMY

Regulatory Commissars: Stuck in Neutral

Citing the need to "level the playing field" for broadband wireless access, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Julius Genachowski explained the renewed push for so-called "net neutrality," saying, "This is not about government regulation of the Internet. We will do as much as we need to do, and no more, to ensure that the Internet remains an unfettered platform for competition, creativity and entrepreneurial activity."

As we've warned many times before, anytime a liberal vassal claims, "This is not about [X]," it's exactly about [X] -- in this case more regulation and more government power. Likewise, the phrase, "level the playing field" simply means increased government intrusion into the "field" in the middle of the game. To those familiar with the underlying tactic (commonly referred to as lying), any repetitively uttered phrase crafted by Demo-Statists is certain to be teeming with doublespeak.

At face value, net neutrality sounds appealing enough: Open access to broadband wireless services for all with no single provider able to restrict information flow. Proponents liken the policy to an interstate highway, on which everyone happily motors along, sharing equal access to all lanes. The problem with this analogy is that it doesn't go far enough. A more accurate analogy would be to think of that interstate populated with roughly 80 percent "normal" traffic, and 20 percent of its traffic consisting of incredibly large, multi-lane semi rigs pulling, say, a few hundred trailers behind each.

"Net neutrality" is thus destined to rank with "congressional ethics," "abortion doctor," "death benefit," "liberal culture" and "government efficiency" as a favorite among leftist oxymorons.

Automotive Fool Economy

The Obama administration has released tentative new fuel economy standards for cars and trucks. With a phase-in period beginning in 2012, automaker fleets would have to average 35.5 miles per gallon. Rules for 2009 mandate new cars to average 27.5 mpg and 23.1 mpg for trucks (2009's new cars actually average 32.6 mpg, while trucks clock in at 24.2 mpg).

To hit the targets set by the federal bureaucracy, automakers plan to market much smaller vehicles with technology imported from European market units. Since government rules can never be simple, also required are reductions in certain greenhouse gases -- a mini cap and trade for qualifying automakers. The government doesn't seem to mind that, as is unavoidable through simple physics, passengers in smaller and lighter vehicles suffer greater physical injuries (including more deaths) in collisions. In fact the bodies have piled high since the CAFE standards were first passed.

Coinciding with the 2012 implementation of higher mileage standards is the White House's delaying until then new rules to permit oil drilling in the 300 million acres opened by the expiration of the 25-year-old ban on drilling. The administration's sudden lack of urgency in regard to our energy security makes no sense unless we factor in his desire to restrict the supply of disfavored energy sourc

Hope 'n' Change in Fiscal News

It was only four years ago that Democrats stopped George W. Bush's plan to reform Social Security (a case in which the word "reform" actually did mean making it better). At the time, then-Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) claimed, "Social Security, if we don't do anything, [is] safe for approximately the next 50 years." But time flies when you're spending other people's money. The Congressional Budget Office has determined that Social Security, for the first time since 1983, will have a cash deficit next year, though even that assumes overly optimistic payroll growth. By 2016, it will be running permanent deficits.

That being said, according to CNS News, "President Obama's welfare spending will reach $888 billion in a single fiscal year -- 2010 -- more than the Bush administration spent on [the] war in Iraq from the first 'shock and awe' attack in 2003 until Bush left office in January." During the campaign, of course, Obama used the federal debt as a bludgeoning tool against his opponent. "Because of the Bush-McCain policies, our debt has ballooned," Obama warned in March 2008. "This is creating problems in our fragile economy. And that kind of debt also places an unfair burden on our children and grandchildren, who will have to repay it." The Heritage Foundation's Brian Riedl estimates, "President Obama's budget will likely produce $13 trillion in deficit spending over the next 10 years -- nearly $4 trillion more than forecast." That's about 10 times Bush's last deficit.

Obama also complained about the cost of Iraq -- "When Iraq is costing each household about $100 a month, you're paying a price for this war" -- but this doesn't compute either. As another report from The Heritage Foundation indicates, "Applying that same standard to means-tested welfare spending reveals that welfare will cost each household $560 per month in 2009 and $638 per month in 2010." Witness liberal "compassion."

CULTURE & POLICY

Climate Change This Week: UN Summit

Despite promises that the Obama administration is "determined to act" on climate change, mercifully little progress was made at this week's huge UN carbon footprint, er, climate summit, much to the disappointment of EU nations which are pressuring the United States to push through cap-n-tax legislation. China, current world champion polluter, made many promises at the summit to reduce its emissions, most notably by planting trees. However, "It would be 'ironic' indeed," said Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, "if China has figured out how to grow its economy at 9% per year while increasing energy use by only 3% and decarbonizing its economy at an even lower amount. If this were true, then China would have discovered the holy grail of emissions reductions and we can all forget about the challenges of climate policy."

Even if the United States were to pass the massive tax burden of cap-n-tax along to its citizens, "U.S. action alone will not impact CO₂ levels," Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson recently told the Senate. With China seeming to pay mere lip service to the idea of curbing emissions, "the different U.S. policies have relatively small effects on the CO₂ concentration if other regions do not follow the U.S. lead," according to an MIT study.

Failure of formal progress is likely a deathblow to climate talks at December's Copenhagen Climate Conference. Obama insisted, "We understand the gravity of the climate threat ... and we will meet our responsibility to future generations." Perhaps Obama should also realize the gravity of his own country's economic circumstances before bankrolling the earnings of future generations for government schemes that have zero scientific basis.

In other climate change news, the sun is nearing record levels of low sunspot activity, a possible explanation for the cooler summer many regions of the U.S. experienced this year. According to research hydrologist Charlie Perry, the earth may be entering a period of extended cooling due to decreased sun spot levels. Imagine, the sun being responsible for the earth's temperature -- who'd have thunk?

This Week's 'Braying Jackass' Award

"Later this week, I will work with my colleagues at the G-20 to phase out fossil fuel subsidies so that we can better address our climate challenge." --Barack Obama on Tuesday at the UN global warming summit

We would love to see subsidies end for fossil fuels, as well as ethanol -- because we believe in markets free of government intervention, not because of the global warming hoax.

From the 'Non Compos Mentis' File

"I congratulate our son the president, 'Obama' ... and commend him because he is the [leader of the] host country. ... We are content and happy if Obama can stay forever as the president of the United States of America... The American presidents used to say to us, they shall terrorize us.... What our son Obama said is completely different today." --Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi, yet another Obama ally he probably wishes would hold his tongue

Village Academic Curriculum: Praise Obama

Obama fits right in with Uncle Joe Stalin

It would be enough to make Joe Stalin and Joe Goebbels blush. A video recently posted on YouTube shows a class at B. Bernice Young Elementary School in Burlington, New Jersey, learning to sing the praises of Barack Obama. The kids laud his "great accomplishments" and his "great plans" to "make this country's economy number one again." The song also quotes from the children's spiritual "Jesus Loves the Little Children" -- except Jesus' name is replaced with Obama's: "He said red, yellow, black or white/All are equal in his sight. Barack Hussein Obama." Oddly enough, children in public schools can't sing the actual song "Jesus Loves the Little Children" for fear of the ACLU. It must first be adulterated with the name of a cult leader. And liberals couldn't understand why so many parents didn't want their children subjected to the speech The One gave to schools earlier this month.

Income Redistribution: Rich to Blame if Poor Get H1N1

A new United Nations report states that unless "wealthy" countries (i.e., the United States and the United Kingdom) cough up $1.5 billion for H1N1 vaccines and medicines, we will in effect be responsible for millions of deaths in developing countries. That's in addition to the $67 billion a year we're supposed to give to offset the effects of global warming. But that's as it should be, right? The rich have had a "good run of it," after all.

The UN's source is the World Health Organization, which is concerned that it will not be able to raise even half the money needed given the global economic climate. The report includes the needs of 75 countries, including the likes of North Korea and Cuba, which would gladly do us in if they thought they could get away with it.

The U.S. and Britain have already promised to give 10 percent of their vaccine supply, and the UK has pledged £23 million, or about $37 million. The WHO says that's not enough. But then again, it never is. "The money is a trickle," one official said, "not a flood. It is going to be a struggle. If we are not careful, the virus could destroy a burgeoning economy or democracy."

Faith and Family: Christian Convert Fears for Life

While most 17-year-old girls dream of high school proms, Fathima Rifqa Bary fears for her life. The Ohio teen fled her parents' home after her father allegedly threatened to kill her for converting from Islam to Christianity. Now in foster care in Florida, she awaits a court decision that could force her to return to Ohio, to the father she fears.

Rifqa's father denies threatening her life, yet his disclaimer is suspicious, especially given his attorney's work for the Council on America-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which denies any connection at all between Islam and "honor" killings -- a denial contradicted by Islamic law itself and by documented cases of such murders here in the United States.

Of course, Rifqa's conversion would be a non-issue if it were from Christianity to Islam. And it is an interesting contrast to our recent report of a New Hampshire court's ordering of a Christian homeschooled girl to attend public school for "exposure to different points of view." Parental rights remain an issue not to be taken lightly -- indeed, too often, they are when the shoe is on the other foot -- but Rifqa's very life could be at stake. Florida authorities argue her concern is "subjective and speculative," but if she is returned to Ohio and murdered, what then? Who would be held accountable? Florida officials? Not likely.

In related news, Muslims held a prayer rally at the U.S. Capitol Friday. One of the chief organizers was Hassen Abdellah, a lawyer who has previously represented Islamic terrorists, including some involved with both the 1993 and 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center. The objective was to display their patriotism and religious freedom -- two things that non-Muslims definitely do not enjoy in Islamic countries.

And Last...

It wasn't long ago that Barack Obama was using the United States Postal Service as a shining example for how ObamaCare's "public option" would affect the competition. The Postal Service, Obama argued, hadn't driven its competitors out of business and neither would ObamaCare. In fact, he argued, it was the Postal Service -- and not FedEx or UPS -- that was having all the problems. Fast forward a couple of months, and Congress is considering a USPS bailout as part of a stopgap spending bill scheduled to come before Congress in the next week. According to David Rogers at Politico, it "would be allowed to defer $4 billion in payments due at the end of this month to cover retirement benefits for its employees." The deferment could last until 2017. It's no wonder Obama has shifted to comparing the public option to public universities. Then again, in California, college tuition is skyrocketing this year by 32 percent due to the state's crushing budget deficits. Looks like it's back to the drawing board, Barack!

by Lamar Alexander and the Staff of ThePatriotPost.Com

Friday, 25 September 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

IS THE TRUTH ABOUT OBAMA'S BIRTH IN HAWAII ABOUT TO COME OUT?

Chiyome Fukino, MD

1329 Lusitana St Ste 704

Honolulu, HI

96813

Phone: (808) 524-2100
Fax: (808) 534-0593

TerriK INVESTIGATION –

PART 1: Hawaii Department of Health

Directors Fukino and Akubo

Are Guilty of Misdirection.

Posted in Uncategorized on September 24, 2009 by naturalborncitizen

INTRODUCTION

The entire Presidential eligibility movement has been ridiculed as a fringe “conspiracy theory” by main stream media, members of Congress and even Judges speaking directly from the bench. This ridicule is largely due to public statements made by Hawaii Department of Health Director, Dr. Chiyome Fukino (see below) which testify that she has seen vital records maintained by her office which prove President Obama was born in Hawaii and that he has an original birth certificate on file there.

The ridicule has been broad, extending even to public investigators like myself who believe that President Obama was actually born in Hawaii. But reliance on Director Fukino and her Communications Director Janice Akubo are sadly misplaced. They are guilty of misdirecting the public away from vital records information made expressly available by statute where no privacy exceptions apply.

These accusations are not a matter of conjecture. They are a matter of fact and shall be proved. This, Part 1 of the full report, will illustrate multiple instances of misdirection.

Following reports in the days ahead will detail various information requests made by TerriK and their eventual resolution. The resolution involves official responses which – according to statutory application – admit the existence of amendments and/or corrections to President Obama’s vital records despite the continuing pattern of misdirection.

BACKGROUND

The state of Hawaii enacted the Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA) as a means by which the public may have free and open access to all information maintained by the Government. While some information is obviously restricted to protect the privacy of individuals, the intent of the statute is clear; to help the public access government held information.

Page 9 of the UIPA Manual states:

Given this direction that the UIPA be interpreted to promote open government, any doubt regarding disclosure of a record should likely be resolved in favor of access.

Unfortunately, officials at the Hawaii Department of Health (DoH) have been using the statute for the opposite purpose it was intended. This investigation will bear witness to blatant offensive abuses of the law which have clearly frustrated the purpose and scope of the statute, a statute intended to do just the opposite.

The UIPA Manual states in its introduction:

Democracy exists only when government functions in the open and protects the rights of its citizens to participate in that government. In 1988, the Hawaii State Legislature enacted the Uniform Information Practices Act (Modified) (the “UIPA”) to preserve and ensure that open government and public participation.

At the same time, it created the Office of Information Practices (“OIP”) to implement the UIPA and to serve as a resource for both the public and government agencies in interpreting and applying its provisions. The Legislature recognized, however, that the “proper functioning of any public records law is very much dependent upon the attitude of those who implement the law[,]” requiring “strong and active agency implementation of the records laws.” The Legislature thus urged “all agencies to accept this new law as a challenge and a mandate to ensure public access to the public’s government.”

Tactics used by Department of health Director Fukino and Communications Director Akubo have frustrated the true intent of the UIPA. TerriK and myself will request that the Director of the Office of Information Practices – an office created to enforce the UIPA – institute disciplinary proceedings against Fukino and Akubo based upon their wrongful conduct concerning multiple UIPA requests made by TerriK.

Whether intentional fraud was involved is an issue that must be looked into law by enforcement.

GENESIS OF THE TerriK INVESTIGATION

DoH Director Fukino issued the following statement in a press release dated October 31, 2008:

…I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

Eight months later, in a press release dated July 27, 2009, Director Fukino further 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.”

TerriK took immediate notice that the second statement mentioned “original vital records” (plural), whereas the first statement only referred to a single record; an “original birth certificate”. TerriK deduced that any definition of natural born citizen must refer to parentage and/or place of birth, both of which should have been contained in the original birth certificate.

Since Director Fukino viewed “vital records” in making her second public statement, TerriK then assumed that President Obama’s original birth certificate had been amended and/or corrected – in that had it not been so changed, only the original birth certificate (singular) would have required access by Fukino rather than “vital records” (plural).

TerriK’s research into the UIPA also revealed that if Obama’s records had been amended, Obama was required by the UIPA statute to make preliminary UIPA requests himself – to see his own records and also to amend or correct them.

UIPA requests are themselves government records maintained according to statute just as birth and other vital records are maintained.

TerriK, after assuming those UIPA requests had been made, then made a UIPA request herself requesting all information pertaining to – not just the actual amendments, if any – but also to the UIPA requests required to see records and amend them.

TerriK originally believed that the actual vital birth records were completely protected under Section 338-18 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes. But it wasn’t clear to her that UIPA requests for records, requests to amend and/or correct vital records, and fees paid thereto were also protected under the statutes.

Regardless, she simply requested those UIPA records as if they did exist and hoped for the best.

MISDIRECTED BY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH OFFICIALS

While TerriK did receive some accurate guidance from staff attorneys in the OIP (which will be discussed in following reports), the responses from Directors Fukino and Akubo in the DoH were misleading and deceptive. They failed to provide clear statutory guidance where such guidance was obviously proper.

The following statement was made by Director Fukino in an email to TerriK on August 6, 2009:

From: “Fukino, Chiyome L.”

Date: August 6, 2009 3:54:02 PM EDT

To: [MissTickly, real name and email redacted] oip@hawaii.gov

Subject: RE: Appeal for urgency

Dear [TerriK (real name redacted)],

State law prohibits the Department of Health from disclosing any information about a Hawaii vital record unless the requestor has a direct and tangible interest in the record. This includes verification of vital records and all the information contained in a record. For information on the law that governs vital records in the State of Hawaii, please refer to HRS §338 at http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/…

Sincerely,
Chiyome L. Fukino, MD
Director
Hawaii State Department of Health

The statute cited - HRS 338 – operates – according to Fukino’s statement above – to prevent the disclosure of “any information about a Hawaii vital record” to the public at large. Unfortunately, that is a blatantly false statement. In fact, it appears to be intentionally fraudulent having coming from an official who certainly knows it’s false.

The very same statute – at 338-18(d) – provides:

(d) Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public.

Had TerriK been made aware of this subsection, she could have specifically applied it to Fukino’s July 27, 2009 press release and requested the “index data” pertaining to all “vital records” kept by the state of Hawaii for President Obama.

As I write this, despite the fact that HRS 338-18(d) makes such index data available with no exceptions, the state of Hawaii Department of Health has never released to TerriK or, to my knowledge, anyone else, index data concerning vital records of President Obama other than the existence of an original birth certificate.

The public is entitled, with no exception provided by law, to examine all index data referred to in HRS 338-18(d) pertaining to each and every vital record on file in the state of Hawaii for President Obama.

Due to her lingering intuition, TerriK kept the investigation going, but it wasn’t until this week that she learned about and understood the importance of HRS 338-18(d). She was completely baffled when I brought it to her attention. Throughout her voluminous correspondence with the DoH and OIP, subsection (d) had never been mentioned to her.

The general public are not skilled in complex statutory interpretation. Nor are they generally skilled in legal and document research. The UIPA was created to assist the public in these difficult areas. Moreover, according to the UIPA Manual, a bias exists for public disclosure of information. Yet, Director Fukino not only failed to inform TerriK about the mandated availability of index data listed in 338-18(d), Fukino insisted that “State law prohibits the Department of Health from disclosing any information about a Hawaii vital record” to the public at large.

But “index data” is “information about a Hawaii vital record”.

Because of the ongoing misdirection, you might believe an exception to 338-18(d) exists. You would be wrong.

The DoH Communications Director, Janice Akubo, repeated the misdirection in an email sent to TerriK on September 09, 2009:

RE: Please add to my UIPA request
From: Okubo, Janice S. (janice.okubo@doh.hawaii.gov)
Sent: Thu 9/03/09 3:48 PM
To: Terri K (terri1958@hotmail.com)
Aloha Terri K,

I am responding to your latest e-mails on behalf of Dr. Fukino and the Department of Health.

Section 92F-13, Hawaii Revised Statutes, says that disclosure is not required for government records that are protected from disclosure by state law. Section 338-18, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is just such a law. It prohibits disclosure of vital statistics records to anyone who does not have a direct and tangible interest in the record. Those persons with a direct and tangible interest are listed specifically in the statute. Under section 338-1, Hawaii Revised Statutes, vital statistics records include registration, preparation, and preservation of data pertaining to births and other vital events, as well as related information.

Therefore, neither a birth certificate nor any information related to a birth certificate may be disclosed to a person who does not have a direct and tangible interest in it. You have not shown that you have such an interest in President Obama’s birth certificate, so we cannot disclose to you the birth certificate or any related information.

We now consider this matter closed. We do not plan to respond to further UIPA requests from you for President Obama’s birth certificate or any related information.

Janice Okubo
Communications Office
Hawaii State Department of Health
1250 Punchbowl Street
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Phone: (808) 586-4442
Fax: (808) 586-4444
email: janice.okubo@doh.hawaii.gov

This example of misdirection is even more egregious in that it specifically cites 338-18 while failing to acknowledge subsection (d) of the very same statute. The misdirection is found where Akubo states, “Therefore, neither a birth certificate nor any information related to a birth certificate may be disclosed to a person who does not have a direct and tangible interest in it”.

Again, “index data” most certainly is “information about a Hawaii vital record”.

The Department of Health has – through a continuing pattern of misdirection – kept the public in the dark regarding the identification of vital statistics records other than Obama’s original birth certificate by failing to acknowledge the open availability of “index data” to the public at large via 338-18(d).

I will detail another example of misdirection below, but first I must draw your attention to Office of Information Practices Opinion Letter No. 90-07. (Official citation is OIP Op. Ltr.No. 90-7.) (The prior link goes to the full text of 90-07 while the general page for all OIP opinion letters is here.) This letter will astound anyone familiar with the public statements of DoH Directors Fukino and Akubo.

The direct question presented to the OIP – and answered by Opinion Letter 90-07 was:

“Whether, under the UIPA, the DOE may disclose an individual’s birthdate and social security number contained in a government record to NASDTEC.”

While they denied NASDTEC access to the information requested on other grounds, the OIP included these conclusions concerning HRS 338-18(d) in OIP Opinion Letter 90-07:

We, however, recognize that an individual’s birthdate, social security number, or both are typically found in some government records required by law to be public, including index data on vital statistics, section 338-18(d), Hawaii Revised Statutes; voter registration affidavits, section 11-15, Hawaii Revised Statutes; and a general county register of registered voters, section 11-14, Hawaii Revised Statutes. Where a state or federal law expressly authorizes a government record to be disclosed, disclosure will be required by the UIPA notwithstanding an applicable exception. Haw. Rev. Stat.  92F-12 (b)(2) (Supp. 1989). If an individual’s social security number or birthdate is contained in a government record required to be public, this information is accordingly made public as part of that public government record.

Furthermore, an individual’s social security number or birthdate may be contained in the government records listed in section 92F-12, Hawaii Revised Statutes, which are expressly made public under the UIPA. For these particular records, the Legislature has essentially performed a “balancing” of competing privacy and public interests and has deemed that the public interest in disclosure is greater. The records listed in subsection 92F-12(a), Hawaii Revised Statutes, are records “which the Legislature declares, as a matter of public policy, shall be disclosed. As to these records, the exceptions such as for personal privacy . . . are inapplicable.” S. Conf. Comm. Rep. No. 235, 14th Leg., 1988 Reg. Sess., Haw. S.J. 689, 690 (1988).

I do not believe that index data available to the public at large via 338-18(d) still contains date of birth and social security number. But the available index data still contains information relevant to TerriK’s UIPA requests. Please read the last paragraph above again now. Specifically, the last line demands repeating, “the exceptions such as for personal privacy . . . are inapplicable.”

This will be a very important Opinion Letter as it demands that all records required by statute to be made available in 92F-12 under the UIPA are not subject to privacy exceptions. In my introductory report concerning the TerriK investigation, I asked you to take note of the UIPA at 92F-12(15), which lists the following as information which must be made public:

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

We will return to this provision when we discuss TerriK’s UIPA requests concerning the dual public statements made by Director Fukino on July 27, 2009; that Obama was born in Hawaii and that he is a natural born citizen. All information collected and maintained for purposes of making both of those statements must be released according to 92F-12(15). And by applying Opinion Letter 90-07 to that information, we can be sure that no exceptions exist which can deny public disclosure of the same.

OIP OPINION LETTER 07-07.

The following letter shall come as a big surprise to TerriK and the entire eligibility movement as it appears to compel the release of President Obama’s original birth certificate (or whatever vital records Director Fukino examined for the purpose of making the public statement that he was born in Hawaii) in redacted form.

In OIP Opinion Letter 07-07 (written on April 18, 2007 by current OIP staff attorney Cathy Takase, one of the officials who responded to TerriK in writing) (official citation is OIP Op. Ltr. No. 07-07), it was stated – in relation to index data made available to the public by DoH via 338-18(d) – that an individual has no privacy interest in information that the Department of Health has already made available to the public. Here is the relevant text:

“OIP further notes that, pursuant to statute, DOH itself discloses certain information in the vital records it maintains, and, therefore, individuals would not have a significant privacy interest in that information. Specifically, the statute provides that ‘[i]ndex data consisting of name and sex of registrant, type of vital event and other such information as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public.’ Haw. Rev. Stat. 338-18 (Supp. 2006). According to its director, DOH creates a daily list of the vital statistics records it receives and the public may inspect. The daily list consists of the name and sex of the registrant and the type of vital event.

Accordingly, OIP believes that DLNR should, upon request, disclose a copy of an individual’s vital record maintained by DLNR, but may redact out all information except…information of the type discussed by DOH.”

If we analyze OIP Opinion Letter 07-07 – in light of the index data available to the public and maintained by the DoH – as well as Director Fukino’s July 27, 2009 public announcement – offered in an official DoH press release, on DoH letterhead – that she had seen the vital records of President Obama and they prove he was born in Hawaii, then the public should be entitled to see – in redacted form – whatever vital records were used to expose his birth in Hawaii, as well as (if not the same document) original vital records – again in redacted form – which contain the viewable index data.

It’s quite amazing, but OIP Opinion Letter 07-07 clearly indicates that once information contained in a vital record is exposed, the person no longer has a privacy interest in the exposed information. And therefore, the relevant original vital records should be made public in redacted form when disclosure of the relevant information is mandatory according to statute – in this case more than one, specifically the UIPA at 92F-12(15) and Haw. Rev. Stat. 338-18(d).

Needless to say, TerriK was never directed to OIP Opinion Letter 07-07, OIP Opinion Letter 90-07, the UIPA at 92F-12(15) or Haw. Rev. Sta. 338-18(d). So much for the opening statement in the UIPA manual regarding the proper implementation of the statute depending on the “attitude” of state officials to embody the spirit in which the law was written; to “deliver on its ‘inherent promise’ to ensure implementation: educating the public of its rights and … assisting the public in gaining access to records…”

CONCLUSIONS

The actions of Director Fukino and Communications Director Akubo couldn’t be more blatantly opposed to the Hawaii legislature’s intention of “open government and public participation”. Certainly, since these officials are familiar with these statutes, it appears some of their false statements were intentional. Whether a pattern of fraud existed for the purpose of confounding genuine public investigations into government should be the subject of both disciplinary and criminal investigations.

“Part 1″ of this report now concludes with another example of misdirection given to TerriK by DoH Director Fukino.

In her email to TerriK dated August 6, 2009 (see above), Fukino makes reference to the specific practice of record “verification” (enacted by the Hawaii legislature in 2001). Verification is a mechanism which allows a person to have their vital records “verified” by Hawaii officials in lieu of obtaining a certified copy of those records. General access to the content of an official “verification” is not available to the general public. The same rules that govern access to vital records are applied.

So, if an ordinary member of the public were to be directed by an official to that part of the statute which defines a “verification” as a protected vital record, and that ordinary citizen was also not aware of HRS 338-18(d), then they might mistakenly assume that the restrictions enacted to access an official statutory “verification” might also apply to a UIPA request to simply confirm the existence of basic information pertaining to vital records, ie name of registrant and type of vital event.

Therefore, such a person might be led to believe such basic data is not made available to the public…when in fact it must be disclosed under 338-18(d). If so guided by a government official, that person might be persuaded to give up their research.

Knowing that TerriK had made numerous UIPA requests simply to inquire whether certain records even existed, please review Director Fukino’s August 6, 2009 e mail to TerriK once again:

State law prohibits the Department of Health from disclosing any information about a Hawaii vital record unless the requestor has a direct and tangible interest in the record. This includes verification of vital records and all the information contained in a record. For information on the law that governs vital records in the State of Hawaii, please refer to HRS §338…

First, as we’ve already discussed, the statement wrongly informed TerriK that “any information about a Hawaii vital record” must be denied to her. Second, rather than directing TerriK to that portion of the statute which would have helped her obtain some of the information she had properly and fairly requested – 338-18(d), Fukino’s statement misdirects TerriK to that part of the statute concerned with “verification” – which was no help to her as “verifications” are not available to the general public.

All of the above is evidence of an egregious pattern of misdirection. I will provide more examples of this pattern in follow up reports.

Report prepared by Leo C. Donofrio, Attorney. Published on September 24, 2009.

http://www.NaturalBornCitizen.wordpress.com

GOP CHAIRMAN STEELE IS DESTROYING REPUBLICAN PROSPECTS IN 2010

Chairman Steele Says Pro-Abortion Candidates "Absolutely" Welcomed by GOP

By Kathleen Gilbert

WASHINGTON, D.C., September 22, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele has again cast doubt on his professed loyalty to the pro-life movement by saying he "absolutely" believes there is room for a pro-abortion candidate in the GOP.

Steele gave the remarks during a brief interview with the Columbus Dispatch in a local restaurant Thursday after leading a Republican rally against President Obama's health care legislation.

Steele told the newspaper that a Republican candidate's view on legal protection for unborn children should reflect the views of their local constituencies. The GOP chair was then asked if there is room in the party for a pro-abortion candidate such as Steve Stivers of Ohio's 15th district, who is favored to win the Republican nomination next year.

"There absolutely is, there absolutely is," said Steele.

"The key thing right now - and I think this is true for Republicans across the country - is to have leadership that reflects the communities I live in, where we're from," he continued. "As we get ready for the battles that lie ahead from this district to all the districts surrounding the state, that you're going to find those candidates emerge and rise up who reflect those values in those communities, and that's a very important step for the party to take, I think, and I'm looking forward to help lead that charge in the future."

In response, Ohio Right to Life executive director Michael Gonadakis told the Dispatch: "I'm scratching my head, because I believe Republican candidates should reflect the views of the Republican platform."

According to his organization's survey, Gondakis noted that a majority of Ohioans are pro-life, even in the less conservative 15th district.

Though Steele has insisted that he is deeply pro-life, his comments on abortion appear largely guided by his stated priority of opening the party to a broader voter base - a tactic that has landed him on shaky ground with pro-life leadership.

In a March GQ interview, Steele called abortion an "individual choice" that should be decided by the states.

The remarks drew fire from organizations such as the Family Research Council and Americans United for Life, and prompting Indiana's Bishop Gerald Gettelfinger to protest Steele's presence at a Right to Life banquet in March.

While campaigning for the GOP chairmanship in January, Steele was also forced to retract statements he gave in a 2006 Meet the Press interview, in which he appeared to favor upholding Roe v. Wade.

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

Republican Party Elects Pro-Life, Pro-Family Michael Steele as New Chairman

By Kathleen Gilbert

WASHINGTON, D.C., February 2, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - When the Republican National Committee (RNC) elected Michael Steele as the next Chairman late Friday, many applauded the choice of Steele, a pro-life, pro-family Catholic, as sure to steer the party back to its conservative roots.

Steele, who studied for the priesthood as an Augustinian before leaving to earn a law degree, served as Lieutenant Governor of Maryland from 2003-07.

In an interview with CBN's David Brody last month, Steele responded strongly to conservatives who called into question his commitment to pro-life legislation.

“I was a monk for goodness sakes, ok? I spent three years in a monastery," said Steele. "When I came out and got politically involved I was an advocate for pro-life issues. I was endorsed by National Right to Life. I don’t think they would endorse me if I were squeamish or squishy as some have called me on this issue."

Steele also insisted that his much-talked-about tenure on the board of the pro-choice Republican Leadership Council (RLC) did not represent a compromise of his values.

Steele said when his friend and pro-choice Republican Christie Todd Whitman invited him to join the RLC, "I said well this will be good. It’ll be a pro-life conservative voice on a board with a pro-choice leadership that is looking to elect moderates. We have to elect moderates in the party.

“My being on this board had nothing to do with lessening my conservative values or somehow appeasing them or compromising them," said Steele. "It had everything to do with reasserting them.”

Based on some of his previous statements, some pro-lifers had feared Steele showed too great a willingness to compromise with his pro-abortion colleagues.

During a debate on Meet the Press in October 2006 Tim Russert asked Steele: "Mr. Steele, if you’re United States Senator, would you vote for a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion?

Steele responded, “I don’t — vote for a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion? I think we’d have to have that get to the Supreme Court, wouldn’t we? I haven’t seen that bill proposed. I don’t think..."

RUSSERT: So you wouldn’t do that?

STEELE: No. ...

RUSSERT: Do you want [the U.S. Court] to sustain [Roe v. Wade] or overturn it?

STEELE: Well, I think ... Roe vs. Wade, Roe vs. Wade is a, is a matter that should’ve been left to the states to decide, ultimately. ...

RUSSERT: Is, is your desire to keep it in place?

STEELE: My desire is that we follow what stare decisis is at this point, yes.

Steele explained his statements on Meet the Press during the CNS interview, where he explained that Roe v. Wade would remain the precedent until another case challenged it.

"Roe versus Wade was wrongly decided," said Steele. "It should be overturned in my personal view. We [Republicans] value life born and unborn and we will fight for that, and I will fight for that as an individual, and I will fight for that as chairman of the party.”

Steele has voiced strong opposition against embryonic stem cell research, and is in favor of a constitutional amendment to protect true marriage.

Ken Blackwell, a senior fellow at the Family Research Council and one of Steele's final competitors for RNC chair, withdrew from the race after the fourth round of voting to throw his "fullest support" behind Steele.

A fellow pro-life African-American, Blackwell told the RNC, "I believe that the next chairman must inspire hope, must be smart enough to work with the policy leaders to create opportunity for America and must have the leadership, ability and vision to first pull us together and then to pull American together.

"Because we as Republicans understand that great nations don’t come from great governments, but from good people doing great things together, and that is why I put my fullest support behind Michael Steele."

WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO FIGHT THE CHILD-KILLING THAT IS ABORTION?

NICE PEOPLE DO NOT LIKE TO SEE OFFENSIVE PHOTOGRAPHS,
NICE PEOPLE DO NO LIKE TO HAVE THEIR SENSIBILITIES DISTURBED,
NICE PEOPLE ARE LIKE OSTRICHS,
THEY LIKE TO KEEP THEIR HEAD BURIED IN THE SAND.

Jews do not want to see the Nazi Holocaust ever repeated.
Jews are not afraid to get in your face with shocking
photographs of the horror of Auschwitz and Dauchau.

There are those who sincerely believe that the
holocaust that is abortion-on-demand
will never be stopped by gentle persuasion,
appeals to reason, polite dialogue.

This video offers some good reasoning
why calling a spade a spade,
i.e., abortion is child-killing,
is the only way to stop it.

Watch it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaCbUQptJ7c

WHAT IS THE FAVORITE FOOD OF A FERAL HOG? ACORN

Texas is overrun by feral hogs. They are everywhere. They are
suffering from the drought. It is not just that mud holes where
they can wallow are few and far between, it is that the oak trees
which abound in Texas are not producing very many ACORN nuts
this year.

ACORN is the favorite food of feral hogs. ACORN is also favored by
the feral hogs who represent us in Washington. They have been
feeding at the public trough for years. Washington has the largest population of the richest feral hogs in the world.

It is therefore all the more interesting that the Obama denies knowing much about ACORN. Here is John Funds analysis of how truthful
the Obama is:

***************************
Only one of the five television networks that interviewed President Obama
for their Sunday shows bothered to ask him about Acorn,
the left-wing community organizing group
whose federal funding was cut off last week by an overwhelming vote in Congress.

"Frankly, it's not something I've followed closely," Mr. Obama claimed, adding he wasn't even aware the group had been the recipient of significant federal funding. "This is not the biggest issue facing the country. It's not something I'm paying a lot of attention to," he said.

Mr. Obama added that an investigation of Acorn was appropriate after an amateur hidden-camera investigation had found Acorn offices willing to abet prostitution, but he carefully declined to say whether he would approve a federal cutoff of funds to the group.

Mr. Obama took great pains to act as if he barely knew about Acorn. In fact, his association goes back almost 20 years. In 1991, he took time off from his law firm to run a voter-registration drive for Project Vote, an Acorn partner that was soon fully absorbed under the Acorn umbrella. The drive registered 135,000 voters and was considered a major factor in the upset victory of Democrat Carol Moseley Braun over incumbent Democratic Senator Alan Dixon in the 1992 Democratic Senate primary.

Mr. Obama's success made him a hot commodity on the community organizing circuit. He became a top trainer at Acorn's Chicago conferences. In 1995, he became Acorn's attorney, participating in a landmark case to force the state of Illinois to implement the federal Motor Voter Law. That law's loose voter registration requirements would later be exploited by Acorn employees in an effort to flood voter rolls with fake names.

In 1996, Mr. Obama filled out a questionnaire listing key supporters for his campaign for the Illinois Senate. He put Acorn first (it was not an alphabetical list). In the U.S. Senate, Mr. Obama became the leading critic of Voter ID laws, whose overturn was a top Acorn priority. In 2007, in a speech to Acorn's leaders prior to their political arm's endorsement of his presidential campaign, Mr. Obama was effusive: "I've been fighting alongside of Acorn on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote in Illinois, Acorn was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work."

But the Obama campaign didn't appear eager to discuss the candidate's ties to Acorn. Its press operation vividly denied Mr. Obama had been an Acorn trainer until the New York Times uncovered records demonstrating that he had been. The Obama campaign also gave Citizens Consulting, Inc., an Acorn subsidiary, $832,000 for get-out-the-vote activities in key primary states. In filings with the Federal Election Commission, the Obama campaign listed the payments as "staging, sound, lighting," only correcting the filings after the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review revealed their true nature.

Given his longstanding ties with Acorn, President Obama's protestations of ignorance or disinterest in the group's latest scandal seem preposterous. Here's hoping White House reporters will press the president to clarify just how much he really knows about Acorn and when he knew it.

by John Fund

The Wall Street Journal Political Diary Online

Monday, 21 September 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

-- John Fund