Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis, Part II Article of the Year, 2008

As originally posted in American Thinker, 9/28/2008 (updated in Whistleblower Magazine, 1/2009) this expose' flashed a floodlight upon the corruptors of the American republic, behind the form of Barack Obama. It may have also begun to explain the "mortgage meltdown," an economic crisis which propelled this spurious candidate into the presidential and constitutional crisis which we now suffer.

by Jim Simpson

America waits with bated breath while Washington struggles to bring the U.S. economy back from the brink of disaster. But many of those same politicians caused the crisis, and if left to their own devices will do so again.

Despite the mass media news blackout, a series of books, talk radio and the blogosphere have managed to expose Barack Obama's connections to his radical mentors -- Weather Underground bombers William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis and others. David Horowitz and his Discover the Networks.org have also contributed a wealth of information and have noted Obama's radical connections since the beginning.

Yet, no one to my knowledge has yet connected all the dots between Barack Obama and the Radical Left. When seen together, the influences on Obama's life comprise a who's who of the radical leftist movement, and it becomes painfully apparent that not only is Obama a willing participant in that movement, he has spent most of his adult life deeply immersed in it.

But even this doesn't fully describe the extreme nature of this candidate. He can be tied directly to a malevolent overarching strategy that has motivated many, if not all, of the most destructive radical leftist organizations in the United States since the 1960s.

The Cloward-Piven Strategy of Orchestrated Crisis

In an earlier post, I noted the liberal record of unmitigated legislative disasters, the latest of which is now being played out in the financial markets before our eyes. Before the 1994 Republican takeover, Democrats had sixty years of virtually unbroken power in Congress - with substantial majorities most of the time. Can a group of smart people, studying issue after issue for years on end, with virtually unlimited resources at their command, not come up with a single policy that works? Why are they chronically incapable?

Why?

One of two things must be true. Either the Democrats are unfathomable idiots, who ignorantly pursue ever more destructive policies despite decades of contrary evidence, or they understand the consequences of their actions and relentlessly carry on anyway because they somehow benefit.

I submit to you they understand the consequences. For many it is simply a practical matter of eliciting votes from a targeted constituency at taxpayer expense; we lose a little, they gain a lot, and the politician keeps his job. But for others, the goal is more malevolent - the failure is deliberate. Don't laugh. This method not only has its proponents, it has a name: the Cloward-Piven Strategy. It describes their agenda, tactics, and long-term strategy.

The Strategy was first elucidated in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation mgazine by a pair of radical socialist Columbia University professors, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. David Horowitz summarizes it as:

The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The "Cloward-Piven Strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

Cloward and Piven were inspired by radical organizer [and Hillary Clinton mentor] Saul Alinsky:

"Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules," Alinsky wrote in his 1989 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system's failure to "live up" to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist "rule book" with a socialist one. (Courtesy Discover the Networks.org)

Newsmax rounds out the picture:

Their strategy to create political, financial, and social chaos that would result in revolution blended Alinsky concepts with their more aggressive efforts at bringing about a change in U.S. government. To achieve their revolutionary change, Cloward and Piven sought to use a cadre of aggressive organizers assisted by friendly news media to force a re-distribution of the nation's wealth.

In their Nation article, Cloward and Piven were specific about the kind of "crisis" they were trying to create:

By crisis, we mean a publicly visible disruption in some institutional sphere. Crisis can occur spontaneously (e.g., riots) or as the intended result of tactics of demonstration and protest which either generate institutional disruption or bring unrecognized disruption to public attention.

No matter where the strategy is implemented, it shares the following features:

1. The offensive organizes previously unorganized groups eligible for government benefits but not currently receiving all they can.
2. The offensive seeks to identify new beneficiaries and/or create new benefits.
3. The overarching aim is always to impose new stresses on target systems, with the ultimate goal of forcing their collapse.
   

Capitalizing on the racial unrest of the 1960s, Cloward and Piven saw the welfare system as their first target. They enlisted radical black activist George Wiley, who created the National Welfare Reform Organization (NWRO) to implement the strategy. Wiley hired militant foot soldiers to storm welfare offices around the country, violently demanding their "rights." According to a City Journal article by Sol Stern, welfare rolls increased from 4.3 million to 10.8 million by the mid-1970s as a result, and in New York City, where the strategy had been particularly successful, "one person was on the welfare rolls... for every two working in the city's private economy."

According to another City Journal article titled "Compassion Gone Mad":

The movement's impact on New York City was jolting: welfare caseloads, already climbing 12 percent a year in the early sixties, rose by 50 percent during Lindsay's first two years; spending doubled... The city had 150,000 welfare cases in 1960; a decade later it had 1.5 million.

The vast expansion of welfare in New York City that came of the NWRO's Cloward-Piven tactics sent the city into bankruptcy in 1975. Rudy Giuliani cited Cloward and Piven by name as being responsible for "an effort at economic sabotage." He also credited Cloward-Piven with changing the cultural attitude toward welfare from that of a temporary expedient to a lifetime entitlement, an attitude which in-and-of-itself has caused perhaps the greatest damage of all.

Cloward and Piven looked at this strategy as a gold mine of opportunity. Within the newly organized groups, each offensive would find an ample pool of foot soldier recruits willing to advance its radical agenda at little or no pay, and expand its base of reliable voters, legal or otherwise. The radicals' threatening tactics also would accrue an intimidating reputation, providing a wealth of opportunities for extorting monetary and other concessions from the target organizations. In the meantime, successful offensives would create an ever increasing drag on society. As they gleefully observed:

Moreover, this kind of mass influence is cumulative because benefits are continuous. Once eligibility for basic food and rent grants is established, the drain on local resources persists indefinitely.

The next time you drive through one of the many blighted neighborhoods in our cities, or read of the astronomical crime, drug addiction, and out-of-wedlock birth rates, or consider the failed schools, strapped police and fire resources of every major city, remember Cloward and Piven's thrill that "...the drain on local resources persists indefinitely."

ACORN, the new tip of the Cloward-Piven spear

In 1970, one of George Wiley's protégés, Wade Rathke -- like Bill Ayers, a member of the radical Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) -- was sent to found the Arkansas Community Organizations for Reform Now. While NWRO had made a good start, it alone couldn't accomplish the Cloward-Piven goals. Rathke's group broadened the offensive to include a wide array of low income "rights." Shortly thereafter they changed "Arkansas" to "Association of" and ACORN went nationwide.

Today ACORN is involved in a wide array of activities, including housing, voting rights, illegal immigration and other issues. According to ACORN's website: "ACORN is the nation's largest grassroots community organization of low-and moderate-income people with over 400,000 member families organized into more than 1,200 neighborhood chapters in 110 cities across the country," It is perhaps the largest radical group in the U.S. and has been cited for widespread criminal activity on many fronts.

Voting

On voting rights, ACORN and its voter mobilization subsidiary, Project Vote, have been involved nationwide in efforts to grant felons the vote and lobbied heavily for the Motor Voter Act of 1993, a law allowing people to register at motor vehicle departments, schools, libraries and other public places. That law had been sought by Cloward and Piven since the early1980s and they were present, standing behind President Clinton at the signing ceremony.

ACORN's voter rights tactics follow the Cloward-Piven Strategy:

1. Register as many Democrat voters as possible, legal or otherwise and help them vote, multiple times if possible.
2. Overwhelm the system with fraudulent registrations using multiple entries of the same name, names of deceased, random names from the phone book, even contrived names.
3. Make the system difficult to police by lobbying for minimal identification standards.
   

In this effort, ACORN sets up registration sites all over the country and has been frequently cited for turning in fraudulent registrations, as well as destroying republican applications. In the 2004-2006 election cycles alone, ACORN was accused of widespread voter fraud in 12 states. It may have swung the election for one state governor.

ACORN's website brags: "Since 2004, ACORN has helped more than 1.7 million low- and moderate-income and minority citizens apply to register to vote." Project vote boasts 4 million. I wonder how many of them are dead? For the 2008 cycle, ACORN and Project Vote have pulled out all the stops. Given their furious nationwide effort, it is not inconceivable that this presidential race could be decided by fraudulent votes alone.

Barack Obama ran ACORN's Project Vote in Chicago and his highly successful voter registration drive was credited with getting the disgraced former Senator Carol Moseley-Braun elected. Newsmax reiterates Cloward and Piven's aspirations for ACORN's voter registration efforts:

By advocating massive, no-holds-barred voter registration campaigns, they [Cloward & Piven] sought a Democratic administration in Washington, D.C. that would re-distribute the nation's wealth and lead to a totalitarian socialist state.

Illegal Immigration

As I have written elsewhere, the Radical Left's offensive to promote illegal immigration is "Cloward-Piven on steroids." ACORN is at the forefront of this movement as well, and was a leading organization among a broad coalition of radical groups, including Soros' Open Society Institute, the Service Employees International Union (ACORN founder Wade Rathke also runs a SEIU chapter), and others, that became the Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform. CCIR fortunately failed to gain passage for the 2007 illegal immigrant amnesty bill, but its goals have not changed.

The burden of illegal immigration on our already overstressed welfare system has been widely documented. Some towns in California have even been taken over by illegal immigrant drug cartels. The disease, crime and overcrowding brought by illegal immigrants places a heavy burden on every segment of society and every level of government, threatening to split this country apart at the seams. In the meantime, radical leftist efforts to grant illegal immigrants citizenship guarantee a huge pool of new democrat voters. With little border control, terrorists can also filter in.

Obama aided ACORN as their lead attorney in a successful suit he brought against the Illinois state government to implement the Motor Voter law there. The law had been resisted by Republican Governor Jim Edgars, who feared the law was an opening to widespread vote fraud.

His fears were warranted as the Motor Voter law has since been cited as a major opportunity for vote fraud, especially for illegal immigrants, even terrorists. According to the Wall Street Journal: "After 9/11, the Justice Department found that eight of the 19 hijackers were registered to vote..."

ACORN's dual offensives on voting and illegal immigration are handy complements. Both swell the voter rolls with reliable democrats while assaulting the country ACORN seeks to destroy with overwhelming new problems.

Mortgage Crisis

And now we have the mortgage crisis, which has sent a shock wave through Wall Street and panicked world financial markets like no other since the stock market crash of 1929. But this is a problem created in Washington long ago. It originated with the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), signed into law in 1977 by President Jimmy Carter. The CRA was Carter's answer to a grassroots activist movement started in Chicago, and forced banks to make loans to low income, high risk customers. PhD economist and former Texas Senator Phil Gramm has called it: "a vast extortion scheme against the nation's banks."

ACORN aggressively sought to expand loans to low income groups using the CRA as a whip. Economist Stan Leibowitz wrote in the New York Post:

In the 1980s, groups such as the activists at ACORN began pushing charges of "redlining"-claims that banks discriminated against minorities in mortgage lending. In 1989, sympathetic members of Congress got the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act amended to force banks to collect racial data on mortgage applicants; this allowed various studies to be ginned up that seemed to validate the original accusation.

In fact, minority mortgage applications were rejected more frequently than other applications-but the overwhelming reason wasn't racial discrimination, but simply that minorities tend to have weaker finances.

ACORN showed its colors again in 1991, by taking over the House Banking Committee room for two days to protest efforts to scale back the CRA. Obama represented ACORN in the Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 1994 suit against redlining. Most significant of all, ACORN was the driving force behind a 1995 regulatory revision pushed through by the Clinton Administration that greatly expanded the CRA and laid the groundwork for the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac borne financial crisis we now confront. Barack Obama was the attorney representing ACORN in this effort. With this new authority, ACORN used its subsidiary, ACORN Housing, to promote subprime loans more aggressively.

As a New York Post article describes it:

A 1995 strengthening of the Community Reinvestment Act required banks to find ways to provide mortgages to their poorer communities. It also let community activists intervene at yearly bank reviews, shaking the banks down for large pots of money.

Banks that got poor reviews were punished; some saw their merger plans frustrated; others faced direct legal challenges by the Justice Department.

Flexible lending programs expanded even though they had higher default rates than loans with traditional standards. On the Web, you can still find CRA loans available via ACORN with "100 percent financing . . . no credit scores . . . undocumented income . . . even if you don't report it on your tax returns." Credit counseling is required, of course.

Ironically, an enthusiastic Fannie Mae Foundation report singled out one paragon of nondiscriminatory lending, which worked with community activists and followed "the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted." That lender's $1 billion commitment to low-income loans in 1992 had grown to $80 billion by 1999 and $600 billion by early 2003.

The lender they were speaking of was Countrywide, which specialized in subprime lending and had a working relationship with ACORN.

Investor's Business Daily added:

The revisions also allowed for the first time the securitization of CRA-regulated loans containing subprime mortgages. The changes came as radical "housing rights" groups led by ACORN lobbied for such loans. ACORN at the time was represented by a young public-interest lawyer in Chicago by the name of Barack Obama. (Emphasis, mine.)

Since these loans were to be underwritten by the government sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the implicit government guarantee of those loans absolved lenders, mortgage bundlers and investors of any concern over the obvious risk. As Bloomberg reported: "It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit."

And if you think Washington policy makers cared about ACORN's negative influence, think again. Before this whole mess came down, a Democrat-sponsored bill on the table would have created an "Affordable Housing Trust Fund," granting ACORN access to approximately $500 million in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac revenues with little or no oversight.

Even now, unbelievably -- on the brink of national disaster -- Democrats have insisted ACORN benefit from bailout negotiations! Senator Lindsay Graham reported last night (9/25/08) in an interview with Greta Van Susteren of On the Record that Democrats want 20 percent of the bailout money to go to ACORN!

This entire fiasco represents perhaps the pinnacle of ACORN's efforts to advance the Cloward-Piven Strategy and is a stark demonstration of the power they wield in Washington.

Enter Barack Obama

In attempting to capture the significance of Barack Obama's Radical Left connections and his relation to the Cloward Piven strategy, I constructed following flow chart. It is by no means complete. There are simply too many radical individuals and organizations to include them all here. But these are perhaps the most significant.

The chart puts Barack Obama at the epicenter of an incestuous stew of American radical leftism. Not only are his connections significant, they practically define who he is. Taken together, they constitute a who's who of the American radical left, and guiding all is the Cloward-Piven strategy.

Conspicuous in their absence are any connections at all with any other group, moderate, or even mildly leftist. They are all radicals, firmly bedded in the anti-American, communist, socialist, radical leftist mesh.

Saul Alinsky

Most people are unaware that Barack Obama received his training in "community organizing" from Saul Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation. But he did. In and of itself that marks his heritage and training as that of a radical activist. One really needs go no further. But we have.

Bill Ayers

Obama objects to being associated with SDS bomber Bill Ayers, claiming he is being smeared with "guilt by association." But they worked together at the Woods Fund. The Wall Street Journal added substantially to our knowledge by describing in great detail Obama's work over five years with SDS bomber Bill Ayers on the board of a non-profit, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, to push a radical agenda on public school children. As Stanley Kurtz states:

"...the issue here isn't guilt by association; it's guilt by participation. As CAC chairman, Mr. Obama was lending moral and financial support to Mr. Ayers and his radical circle. That is a story even if Mr. Ayers had never planted a single bomb 40 years ago."

Also included in the mix is Theresa Heinz Kerry's favorite charity, the Tides Foundation. A partial list of Tides grants tells you all you need to know: ACLU, ACORN, Center for American Progress, Center for Constitutional Rights (a communist front,) CAIR, Earth Justice, Institute for Policy Studies (KGB spy nest), National Lawyers Guild (oldest communist front in U.S.), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), and practically every other radical group there is. ACORN's Wade Rathke runs a Tides subsidiary, the Tides Center.

Carl Davidson and the New Party

We have heard about Bomber Bill, but we hear little about fellow SDS member Carl Davidson. According to Discover the Networks, Davidson was an early supporter of Barack Obama and a prominent member of Chicago's New Party, a synthesis of CPUSA members, Socialists, ACORN veterans and other radicals. Obama sought and received the New Party's endorsement, and they assisted with his campaign. The New Party also developed a strong relationship with ACORN. As an excellent article on the New Party observes: "Barack Obama knew what he was getting into and remains an ideal New Party candidate."

George Soros

The chart also suggests the reason for George Soros' fervent support of Obama. The President of his Open Society Institute is Aryeh Neier, founder of the radical Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). As mentioned above, three other former SDS members had extensive contact with Obama: Bill Ayers, Carl Davidson and Wade Rathke. Surely Aryeh Neier would have heard from his former colleagues of the promising new politician. More to the point, Neier is firmly committed to supporting the hugely successful radical organization, ACORN, and would be certain back their favored candidate, Barack Obama.

ACORN

Obama has spent a large portion of his professional life working for ACORN or its subsidiaries, representing ACORN as a lawyer on some of its most critical issues, and training ACORN leaders. Stanley Kurtz's excellent National Review article, "Inside Obama's Acorn." also describes Obama's ACORN connection in detail. But I can't improve on Obama's own words:

I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career (emphasis added). Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work. - Barack Obama, Speech to ACORN, November 2007 (Courtesy Newsmax.)

In another excellent article on Obama's ACORN connections, Newsmax asks a nagging question:

It would be telling to know if Obama, during his years at Columbia, had occasion to meet Cloward and study the Cloward-Piven Strategy.

I ask you, is it possible ACORN would train Obama to take leadership positions within ACORN without telling him what he was training for? Is it possible ACORN would put Obama in leadership positions without clueing him into what his purpose was?? Is it possible that this most radical of organizations would put someone in charge of training its trainers, without him knowing what it was he was training them for?

As a community activist for ACORN; as a leadership trainer for ACORN; as a lead organizer for ACORN's Project Vote; as an attorney representing ACORN's successful efforts to impose Motor Voter regulations in Illinois; as ACORN's representative in lobbying for the expansion of high risk housing loans through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that led to the current crisis; as a recipient of their assistance in his political campaigns -- both with money and campaign workers; it is doubtful that he was unaware of ACORN's true goals. It is doubtful he was unaware of the Cloward-Piven Strategy.

Fast-forward to 2005 when an obsequious, servile and scraping Daniel Mudd, CEO of Fannie Mae spoke at the Congressional Black Caucus swearing in ceremony for newly-elected Illinois Senator, Barack Obama. Mudd called, the Congressional Black Caucus "our family" and "the conscience of Fannie Mae."

In 2005, Republicans sought to rein in Fannie and Freddie. Senator John McCain was at the forefront of that effort. But it failed due to an intense lobbying effort put forward by Fannie and Freddie.

In his few years as a U.S. senator, Obama has received campaign contributions of $126,349, from Fannie and Freddie, second only to the $165,400 received by Senator Chris Dodd, who has been getting donations from them since 1988. What makes Obama so special?

His closest advisers are a dirty laundry list of individuals at the heart of the financial crisis: former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson; Former Fannie Mae CEO and former Clinton Budget Director Frank Raines; and billionaire failed Superior Bank of Chicago Board Chair Penny Pritzker.

Johnson had to step down as adviser on Obama's V.P. search after this gem came out:

An Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) report^[1] from September 2004 found that, during Johnson's tenure as CEO, Fannie Mae had improperly deferred $200 million in expenses. This enabled top executives, including Johnson and his successor, Franklin Raines, to receive substantial bonuses in 1998.^[2] A 2006 OFHEO report^[3] found that Fannie Mae had substantially under-reported Johnson's compensation. Originally reported as $6-7 million, Johnson actually received approximately $21 million.

Obama denies ties to Raines but the Washington Post calls him a member of "Obama's political circle." Raines and Johnson were fined $3 million by the Office of Federal Housing Oversight for their manipulation of Fannie books. The fine is small change however, compared to the $50 million Raines was able to obtain in improper bonuses as a result of juggling the books.

Most significantly, Penny Pritzker, the current Finance Chairperson of Obama's presidential campaign helped develop the complicated investment bundling of subprime securities at the heart of the meltdown. She did so in her position as shareholder and board chair of Superior Bank. The Bank failed in 2001, one of the largest in recent history, wiping out $50 million in uninsured life savings of approximately 1,400 customers. She was named in a RICO class action law suit but doesn't seem to have come out of it too badly.

As a young attorney in the 1990s, Barack Obama represented ACORN in Washington in their successful efforts to expand Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) authority. In addition to making it easier for ACORN groups to force banks into making risky loans, this also paved the way for banks like Superior to package mortgages as investments, and for the Government Sponsored Enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to underwrite them. These changes created the conditions that ultimately lead to the current financial crisis.

Did they not know this would occur? Were these smart people, led by a Harvard graduate, unaware of the Econ 101 concept of moral hazard that would result from the government making implicit guarantees to underwrite private sector financial risk? They should have known that freeing the high-risk mortgage market of risk, calamity was sure to ensue. I think they did.

Barack Obama, the Cloward-Piven candidate, no matter how he describes himself, has been a radical activist for most of his political career. That activism has been in support of organizations and initiatives that at their heart seek to tear the pillars of this nation asunder in order to replace them with their demented socialist vision. Their influence has spread so far and so wide that despite their blatant culpability in the current financial crisis, they are able to manipulate Capital Hill politicians to cut them into $140 billion of the bailout pie!

God grant those few responsible yet remaining in Washington, DC the strength to prevent this massive fraud from occurring. God grant them the courage to stand up in the face of this Marxist tidal wave.

© Jim Simpson

After connecting the dots in this article, Mr Simpson soon filled in the colors with "Conspiracy of Lemmings; Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis, Part III," October, 2008. (Links to all the Manufactured Crisis articles.)

Jim Simpson is a former White House staff economist and budget analyst. His writings have been published in the Washington Times, FrontPage Magazine, Whistleblower Magazine, American Thinker, DefenseWatch, Soldier of Fortune, and others. His blog is Truth and Consequences.

The views and statements expressed by Investigating Obama contributors, and in quotations and citations, are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of Investigating Obama and Arlen Williams.

Obama Escalates Worldwide 'Abortion' Holocaust, with Americans' Confiscated Money

Change we can believe

This act of national treachery and international atrocity by "President" Obama is now done. Today, by executive order, our money is now being confiscated by federal tax and used to promote the killing of infants in the womb, throughout the world. Global socialist and eugenicist abortion pushers hide behind the fallacious "health of the mother" excuse, in citing this move as favorable to human rights, though it is all about killing humans. That posture is deceit, since discussing surgical assistance for mothers in jeopardy was never denied by the Mexico City protocol, now reversed by Obama (last known evidentiary name: Soetoro).

ChristianNewsWire quotes Roman Catholic clergyman, Frank Pavone, "When President Obama takes money out of taxpayers' pockets to abort children, he can no longer claim with any legitimacy that he wants to reduce the number of abortions performed here or abroad. Forcing Americans to pay for the killing of innocents will not 'bring us together;' there can be no common ground when the ground is soaked with innocent blood."

On the right we have the Nursery Rampage where a man stabs kids in a Belgian nursery. On the left we have the headline where Obama reverses the ban on funding oversees abortions. For the first there is outrage. For the second there is jubilation by the pro-aborts. Which kills more children?
And if that's not enough, there's the story about the start of a clinical trial that will use embryonic stem cells - just in case we're not killing enough babies through abortion.
- I.O. reader correspondent, Richard Wright

From the morning's FoxNews.com article, "Obama to Lift Ban on Overseas Abortion," beginning and last two paragraphs, below.

President Obama on Friday is expected to lift a ban on federal funding for international groups that promote or perform abortions, reversing a policy of his predecessor, George W. Bush.
//
"President Obama not long ago told the American people that he would support policies to reduce abortions, but today he is effectively guaranteeing more abortions by funding groups that promote abortion as a method of population control," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee.

Obama has spent his first days in office systematically signing executive orders reversing Bush administration policies on issues ranging from foreign policy to government operations. On Thursday, he signed three executive orders to rein in secretive U.S. counterterror policies and end harsh interrogations.

The innocent infant's excruciating terror, of being gouged and torn limb from limb in the womb increases, while life gets easier for terrorists both abortionist and Islamist. May you be saddled with the judgment thereof, Barack -- the blood of "the least of these, MY brothers" be upon you and your conspirators in this.

1/23/2009 pm - Arlen Williams

Update - Lightfoot v. Bowen, Set for 1/23 Conference, Disappears [Temporarily] from Supreme Court Docket

Update 1/23 am by Zapem, from Comments, emphasis by I.O.:

I personally checked 15 cases on the Pending Order's List myself and found those to be on the docket and fully visible from the database. I did not find any cases which were missing other than the eligibility contest cases as noted in this article.

The bottom line here is, while the Petitioners in these cases have been treated worse than second-class citizens, slandered on websites and belittled by the media without remorse, I find it ironic that no one seems to care if a President of the United States is held to the mere standard of Factcheck.org.

Update 1/22: Docket listings are back up, at the Supreme Court site. This has been another in a line of odd occurrences at the courts, pertaining to the eligibility requirement cases.

Update 1/21: Apparently, all docket items regarding Obama eligibility have disappeared but one Berg item. Received by email from Zapem:

All the cases on Obama's eligibility, even the pending ones, have been removed from the SCOTUS website.

One remains only to say that Berg v. Obama was dismissed today. http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm

Donofrio, Wrotnowski, Schneller, Berg applications and Lightfoot all removed. I checked the other 2008 cases having nothing to do with Obama and those are still there. Something is going on.

Original Post, 1/21:

Not Found

The requested URL /docket/08a524.htm was not found on this server.

That is what now appears on the Supreme Court Web site, for the docket page of Lightfoot v. Bowen (http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a524.htm).

Here is Lightfoot attorney, Orly Taitz' post about it, from her blog.

Obama has been in power only one day and they are already playing games with the Supreme Court

Obama has been in power only one day. Suddenly today my case has disappeared from the docket. The case was not dismissed. It is supposed to be heard on the 23rd of January. Each and every American Citizen needs to call the Supreme court and demand decency from these Justices. They have violated all principles of judicial integrity and ethics by inviting Obama and Biden to the closed door meeting only a few days before the hearing. They have inaugurated him in from of millions of people, when 3 days after the inauguration they are supposed to hear my case, where I state that Obama is not eligible for presidency and never was eligible. They were supposed to recuse themselves from the inauguration. What is going on? Is Chicago mafia influencing the Supreme Court? If we don't have integrity with our elected officials and the whole system is corrupt, then it is time to revolt and change the system.

Posted by Orly Taitz, DDS Esq. at 3:09 PM 3 comments

More about this will likely be posted in updates, below, as I.O. finds more to post. In the meantime, I also suggest you look into The Right Side of Life and its overall status page, "Eligibility Lawsuits," regarding news of other suits.

This is how the docket appeared before it vanished.

No. 08A524
Title: Gail Lightfoot, et al., Applicants
v.
Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State

Docketed:
Lower Ct: Supreme Court of California
Case Nos.: (S168690)

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dec 12 2008 Application (08A524) for a stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Dec 17 2008 Application (08A524) denied by Justice Kennedy.
Dec 29 2008 Application (08A524) refiled and submitted to The Chief Justice.
Jan 7 2009 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 23, 2009.
Jan 7 2009 Application (08A524) referred to the Court.
Jan 13 2009 Suggestion for recusal received from applicant.


~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioners:
Orly Taitz 26302 La Paz (949) 683-5411
Counsel of Record Mission Viejo, CA 92691
Party name: Gail Lightfoot, et al.

This was relayed by FReeper, "cacoethes_resipisco" from a Google search cache, through this URL:
http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:QQDxe2U7EZwJ:origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a524.htm+lightfoot+bowen+docket&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

ht: dl

Updated - Countdown of the Fictitious Presidency of Barack Obama

Key days, events, and matters in the few days before and after the supposed presidential inauguration

Updated, 1/16, 1/23: Eligibility proceedings are proceeding and new challenges keep coming. I.O. suggests starting here and at The Right Side of Life and their "Eligibility Lawsuits" page, to keep track (it takes a program). Visit this page, if you need to catch up about why.

Monday, 1/12 - The Sureme Court (SCOTUS) is to announce their disposition of their Friday, 1/9 conference over Philip Berg v. Barack Obama. This is purportedly regarding Berg's petition for writ of certiorari, a call for a full SCOTUS review, although that does not seem explicit to this reader, admittedly not an attorney (I.O. finds this docket listing on file, 08-570).

Monday, 1/12 - The SCOTUS disposition of Berg v. Obama: "The motion of Bill Anderson for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is denied." You may read by link a report and a commentary about this by blogger, law student, and close follower of this case, Jeff Schreiber. His commentary presents considered opinions, but not the only rational ones. Further scrying and black robe gazing is offered in Schrieber's user commentary, on Phil's Right Side of Life, and numerous other spots. I.O's opinion is, this is an excellent time and matter for considering numerous factors and possibilities without one's marbles rolling into any particular crevice about it.

Along these lines and bumps, feel free to add comments here, to something already offered by a Lawyer from Missouri.

Friday, 1/16 - The Supreme Court is again to consider Berg v. Obama in conference. As docketed this is regarding Berg's petition "for an injunction pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari" against either the Electoral College vote or the certification of that vote by Congress, both already having occured, now (docket link 08-4340 / docket link 08a505).

Monday, 1/19 - Customary day of SCOTUS announcements of their disposition of cases discussed in conference on Friday, 1/16. Update, 1/16: As reported in: Provocative Speculations about the Supreme Court's Considerations of the Eligibility Challenges:

In "Berg v. Obama: Case Disposition Likely Wednesday," Phil of TRSoL relates that the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) will not announce a disposition on today's conference about Berg's application for injunction until Wednesday, 1/21, due to the court being closed Monday and Tuesday.

Tuesday, 1/20 - Inauguratiion Day

Wednesday, 1/21 - Likely disposition of the Berg application for injunction against the election of Barack Obama (clearly, after the fact). In the humble opinion of I.O., this is likely to be a denial of a moot application; However, since we are in unchartered jurisprudential waters, the high court has an opportunity to speak to the previous day's inauguration, by means of this application. And this is especially relevant to the potential case of a conspiracy of election fraud, since, if that were to eventually, legally be found, the crimes would at this point, be complete. Could the SCOTUS effectively suspend the presidency of Mr. Obama? One supposes it could. See the analyses linked to by this aforementioned I.O. post.

Friday, 1/23 - The SCOTUS is to discuss Lightfoot v. Bowen in conference, referred by Chief Justice Roberts. This case is originally a California case for an injunction against that state's Electoral College vote.

Monday, 1/26 - Customary day of SCOTUS announcements of their disposition of cases discussed in conference on Friday, 1/16 -- and so it goes.

This post may be updated with further items or explications.

Inauguration Day - The Oath & The Speech

Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court, and the Oath of Office

How could the failure of Chief Justice Roberts to lead Barack Obama accurately in his oath of office be more poignant? He skipped the word "faithfully," only remembering to insert it at the end of its phrase -- and prompted Obama to say, "President," not "of," but "to the United States of America." Before that, he appeared to want to rush through the oath, not hesitating after "I, Barack Hussein Obama," for that man to state his name only, in that turn, and let it hang for a moment in the air, before proceeding with "do solemnly swear."

The words "faithfully" and "of" are piercingly pertinent indeed, to this man who would be seen as America's president.



As the members of the Supreme Court departed from the lower Capitol building on their way to the ceremony, none appeared lighthearted to me, except Justice Clarence Thomas. No, they appeared somewhat burdened, to me.

They must know that what lies before them, being brought from numerous quarters now, is their duty to immediately decide to either abide by the Constitution under which they are sworn to administer justice, or to take a path of treacherous cowardice, by failing to hold Barack Obama and the process of selecting our Commander in Chief accountable to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5. The point which pierces his presidency is that Obama is manifestly not faithful to the Constitution as a natural born Citizen of America.

Barack Hussein Obama's Inaugural Speech

Obama's attestation of respect for America's founding documents in this speech is of fundamental dishonesty, even if it carried some heartfelt sentiment. His behavior is antithetical to both the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution which rests upon it.

One recalls, this is the same man who quoted Jesus Christ, "I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'" (NIV) and in the same forum at Saddleback Church, claimed unaccountability for the innocent least of those among us, whose mass holocaust he has so aggressively championed and to lengths not even approached by some of his most avid pro-abortion comrades. He hardly adheres to America's essential Right to Life.

But, what can one expect, from a man whose very "candidacy" is so clearly an affront to the U.S. Constitution? Let us recite the temerity involved. 1. Obama was born a citizen of the United Kingdom, by natural, patrilineal inheritance. 2. He has hidden whatever actual and evidentiary documentation exists, of his place of birth. 3. He has even refused to submit any record of naturalization into U.S. Citizenship after it was revoked by his Indonesian citizenship as a youth. The overriding evidence indicates that Barack Obama is clearly not a natural born Citizen of the United States of America. Indeed the collection of evidence so far indicates he is not a U.S. Citizen at all and that Barack Obama is an impostor, a fictitious president.

Obama attempted to signal to America a recognition that private enterprise is the critical key to the American economy. Did what he said conflict with wild sounding charges of his Marxist orientation? If he does believe his own words, this is not really in conflict with the evidence cited in Investing Obama that he is a neo-Marxist, which may also be called fascist, by what that term actually means, or anarcho-syndicalist, or anarcho-communist. (In these cases "anarchist" does not mean someone who is against any government, but refers to an extreme and libertine element in the labor movement, intending to eventually force private business to give ownership to its workers.) The false ideal of egalitarianism, controlled by the state, remains the eventual goal of this movement. And the economic end result of this, ironically, is quite similar to a capitalist system corrupted into a controlling oligopoly or monopoly. In each case, one is either among the elite or is a virtual slave. Perhaps this gives the reader an idea of how so many of the wealthiest people in America and the world can also be funding and promoting the global socialist movement.

I will continue to pray for God's mercy and justice in America. And, as Scripture mandates, I will continue to submit to this nation's authorities -- which in essence, are its People, who are its Sovereigns. However, that mandate also refers to officials and in keeping with this, I will warn America of the need to free itself from a false presidency, illegitimately held by an usurper. As for Barack Obama, as all Americans should know, sometimes one must separate the corrupt person from his corrupt practices, in order to do what is best for him, as well as for others.

<<<<<<<<<<<<> I.O.<>>>>>>>>>>>>

Update, 1/21, ~ 7:00pm: On the Fox News TV network this evening, Shepard Smith reported that Barack Obama had an oath of office do-over, today. Then, he commented (actual or close paraphrase) "There are still some people who question his citizenship."

Update, 1/20, ~ 11:25pm: Does anyone else get all smirky about it, seeing Barack Obama being so fastidious about having every jot and tittle taken care of, with his oath of office -- but the Birth Certificate? Natural born Citizenship? Compliance with the U.S. Constitution, which, by that oath, he has just promised to "preserve, protect, and defend?"

Oh, come on now, who really cares...? who needs to know...?

And after spending how much money in court costs, to keep the SCOTUS from making a decision about the natural, constitutional meaning and the evidence involved? Who needs Casey Anthony, for a crime as entertainment fix?

Proverbs 23 excerpt (KJV)

1When thou sittest to eat with a ruler, consider diligently what is before thee:
2And put a knife to thy throat, if thou be a man given to appetite.
3Be not desirous of his dainties: for they are deceitful meat.
4Labour not to be rich: cease from thine own wisdom.
5Wilt thou set thine eyes upon that which is not? for riches certainly make themselves wings; they fly away as an eagle toward heaven.
6Eat thou not the bread of him that hath an evil eye, neither desire thou his dainty meats:
7For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he: Eat and drink, saith he to thee; but his heart is not with thee.
8The morsel which thou hast eaten shalt thou vomit up, and lose thy sweet words.
9Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.
10Remove not the old landmark; and enter not into the fields of the fatherless:
11For their redeemer is mighty; he shall plead their cause with thee.
12Apply thine heart unto instruction, and thine ears to the words of knowledge.
13Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.
14Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.
15My son, if thine heart be wise, my heart shall rejoice, even mine.
16Yea, my reins shall rejoice, when thy lips speak right things.
17Let not thine heart envy sinners: but be thou in the fear of the LORD all the day long.
18For surely there is an end; and thine expectation shall not be cut off.
19Hear thou, my son, and be wise, and guide thine heart in the way.
20Be not among winebibbers; among riotous eaters of flesh:
21For the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty: and drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags.
22Hearken unto thy father that begat thee, and despise not thy mother when she is old.
23Buy the truth, and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding.

hat tip: John Wycliffe & later, Elizabethan English translators
hat off: the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit to the wise, chosen writer

Celebrating this Journey's Start, toward Slavery to the State

Spirit of the "Useful Idiot?"

resemblance to Mr. Marx noted
hat tip: "Evil Slayer"

Enjoyed Last Night's Discussion w/ Mark McGrew & Friends; Link to Archive

We talked about Investigating Obama and what the name denotes -- and were joined by interesting callers.

An archive of Sunday night's net-radio program is available by this link.

Care for two hours of audio about saving America while you do laundry?

Barack Obama - 'The Future of this Movement'

While some of Obama's moves may be viewed as "liberal" and others as "moderate," or even "conservative," by America's self-confident pundits, essentially, there are only two objectives he must meet, to be a successful neo-Marxist, neo-Fascist (albeit, fictitious) president:

1. Continue to build the armies of the "proletariat" and their movement comrades
2. Continue to increase governmental control of some businesses, especially in big business, while imposing punitive taxes and regulations upon others, especially the SMB's (small to midsized businesses) of the "bourgeoisie"

The following email from this man and this movement is chiefly about the former. Remember, as he told his followers on that eerie night of his acceptance speech, this may be a long process, before ultimate goals are attained.

Saturday, January 17, 2009 12:57 PM

From: "Barack Obama"

To: "XXX"

XXX -- I have some exciting news to share about the future of this grassroots movement. I recorded a personal message for you. Please take a minute to watch the video: http://my.barackobama.com/thefuture What you built can't stop now. Together with our partners at the Democratic National Committee and its new chairman, Governor Tim Kaine, this movement will continue organizing and bringing new people into the political process. The challenges facing our country are too great, and our journey to change America is just beginning. I look forward to working side-by-side with you in the months and years ahead. Thanks, Barack

Paid for by Obama for America This email was sent to: XXX To unsubscribe, go to: http://my.barackobama.com/unsubscribe

Zapem: 'Obama Knew He Wasn't Eligible for POTUS'

In this article, originally posted in the blog of the same name, "Zapem" breaks a report of the history of sidestepping, skirting, and attempted Constitutional tinkering on behalf of unnatural born Citizen, John McCain -- thereby, an attempt to pave the way for Barack Obama.

If one were to look at the activity on Capital Hill during the campaign, there would be no question in their minds that both McCain and Obama were sweating the “natural born citizen” issue.

How do we arrive at that conclusion? We take McCain’s ingrained, glib advice and “Look at the record, my friends“.

Doing just that, we find that back on February 28, 2008, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) introduced a bill to the Senate for consideration. That bill was known as S. 2678: Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act. The bill was co-sponsored by Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), and Sen. Thomas Coburn (R-OK).

Bill S. 2678 attempted to change article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States with reference to the requirements of being a “natural born citizen” and hence; the entitlement to run for President of the United States. This bill met the same fate that similar attempts to change the Constitution have in the past. Attempts such as The Natural Born Citizen Act were known to have failed and the text scrubbed from the internet, with only a shadow-cached copy left, that only the most curious public can find.

Sen. McCaskill, her co-sponsors, fellow colleagues and legal counsel, contend that the Constitution is ambiguous in article II, section 1 and requires clarification. But does it? According to the framers and such drafters as John Bingham, we find the definition to be quite clear:

I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen… . . - John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866

From the days of James Madison to the present, the courts have held that the amendment process be justiciable in accordance with its constitutionality and not self-serving or political. But is that what happened here? Again, we must go to the record.

Within only five short weeks after Senate Bill 2678 faded from the floor, we find Sen. Claire McCaskill back again, making another attempt with Senate Resolution 511. On April 10, 2008, she introduced a secondary proposal in the form of a non-binding resolution, recognizing John McCain as a “natural born citizen” in defiance of the Constitution. Curiously, it contained the same identical co-sponsors, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

ABCNews.com reported:

“With questions - however serious - about whether Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is eligible to run for president since he was born outside U.S. borders on an American Naval base, Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo. today introduced a non-binding resolution expressing the sense of the U.S. Senate that McCain qualifies as a “natural born Citizen,” as specified in the Constitution and eligible for the highest office in the land.

Co-sponsors include Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, and Barack Obama, D-Illinois; Leahy said he anticipates it will pass unanimously.”

One has to wonder — what dire urgency could there possibly have been in persisting with trying to legislate a candidate into being a “natural born citizen”? Certainly providing a birth certificate and reading the Constitution would be more than sufficient. Why did these candidates and their wishful nominees go to such lengths in the Senate when obviously, they had more pressing matters to attend to? And why were there two Senators co-sponsoring such an issue, twice, who were in direct competition with John McCain in the 2008 election?

One answer is that looking at John McCain’s long-form birth certificate reveals he was not a natural born citizen and Barack Obama hasn’t submitted his long-form at all. John McCain was born in an “unincorporated territory”, held by the courts to be not part of the United States for constitutional purposes. Barack Obama has submitted only a Certification of Live Birth, but Hawaii law will certify a live birth using that document for births that occurred even outside of the country. Furthermore, Barack Obama’s father was Kenyan and never an American citizen. Since the status of citizenship occurs at birth, this makes Barack Obama a citizen if born in Hawaii, but not a natural born citizen. One must have two citizen parents, at the time of birth, and be born on U.S. soil, to be deemed a natural born citizen and be declared eligible for the presidency. The Senate, for all their trouble, cannot legislate a person’s born status. It happens at birth, according to the law.

While Senate Bill 2678 fell to the wayside, Senate Resolution 511 was passed on April 30, 2008 as a non-binding resolution. However, S.R. 511 is not a law, but rather, a unanimous opinion. Technically, it means absolutely nothing what they’ve written as it’s not a law, nor did the matter reach the House for review. It’s a stepping-stone in the larger scheme of things that haven’t happened yet; the push to change our Constitution.

World Net Daily reported on November 13, 2008:

More than a half-dozen legal challenges have been filed in federal and state courts demanding President-elect Barack Obama’s decertification from ballots or seeking to halt elector meetings, claiming he has failed to prove his U.S. citizenship status.

An Obama campaign spokeswoman told WND the complaints are unfounded.

“All I can tell you is that it is just pure garbage,” she said. “There have been several lawsuits, but they have been dismissed.”

Perhaps someone should have informed Obama’s spokeswoman that many of these cases have not been dismissed at all, rather they are mounting, and her statements are in fact, pure “garbage”.

Then perhaps someone may prompt an answer from the Obama spokespeople as to why they were entertaining the thought of fiddling with the United States Constitution back in February and April of THIS YEAR? Perhaps because it was in the best interest of Sen. Obama.

Then what of Sen. Claire McCaskill? What possible interest could she have had in these proceedings and leading the charge with her proposals? Was it a bonafide Constitutional issue of judicial importance, or rather a political one?

Digging further into the record we find that according to Wikki and subsequent footnotes therein:

“In January 2008, Claire McCaskill decided to endorse Senator Barack Obama in his campaign for the Democratic nomination for the presidential elections of 2008, making her one of the first senators to do so. She has been one of the most visible faces for his campaign.[14] McCaskill’s support was crucial to Obama’s narrow victory in the Missouri primary in February, 2008. She had been frequently mentioned as a possible vice presidential choice of Senator Obama in the 2008 run for the White House…”

So what we see is a definite political motive being dragged into the Senate for the purposes of legitimizing the 2008 candidates. But if these candidates were legitimate already, there would obviously be no reason for these proceedings.

So political was the motive of McCaskill, even Missouri’s Governor, Matt Blunt revealed that Sen. McCaskill was involved in the “abusive use of Missouri Law Enforcement“. This was dubbed as the “Truth Squad” during the election campaign by the media. The Truth Squad was comprised of Missouri officials and attorneys who set up shop on the streets of Missouri and threatened the public with criminal penalties and lawsuits if they engaged in critical speech against Sen. Obama. The Obama campaign also issued cease and desist letters to media station managers who carried advertisers who were unfriendly towards Barack Obama, namely, the NRA. Citizen outrage prompted this response from Governor Blunt:

“Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.

What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.”

Considering these facts and the judicial record, there is every reason to believe that Sen. McCaskill had no interest in resolving Sen. McCain’s eligibility, but Sen. Obama’s long-term. She manipulated the Senate and then threatened the media and the public thereafter, politically motivated at the prospect of becoming Obama’s Vice-Presidential pick. But it didn’t stop there.

Chairman Patrick J. Leahy entered into the Senate record a legal analysis of two high-powered attorneys hired by Sen. McCain - Theodore Olson and Laurence Tribe - both of whom are extremely politically active and biased, and attached that opinion to S.R. 511.

So controversial was that legal opinion, that it prompted a rebuttal by Professor Gabriel J. Chin of The University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law, in a discussion paper #08-14 entitled, Why Senator John McCain Cannot Be President. Professor Chin points out clearly where Tribe-Olson sought to draw out implied theories in the law, which in reality, are simply not there and in fact have been decided by the courts already, in opposition to the suggestions offered by Tribe-Olson. Simply put, the attorneys hired by Sen. McCain attempt to fit the law into their agenda with contrived implications. Professor Chin brings the law back into focus, requiring no implied theories.

Legalities aside, in anticipation of the feared “Fairness Doctrine”, the whole of the main stream media has since acquiesced to the intimidation tactics of the Obama campaign and paraded the non-binding resolution known as S.R. 511 to the public with unfactual foolishness. S.R. 511 is neither a constitutional amendment nor legally binding in any way. Yet the media caved to political pressure and reported it to the public as Chairman Leahy dictated, giving the illusion to the pubic that said resolution was binding to the 2008 election. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The public responded, initially by way of lawsuits contesting the eligiblity of not only John McCain, but Barack Obama and Roger Calero as well, citing them all, with equal disqualifying merit, as being constitutionally ineligible to run for President of the United States. Later, netizens of the internet caught wind of the court actions and responded with their own explosion of blogs, forums, websites, chatrooms, emails, etc. In an attempt to quell the discord, the main stream media offered personalities such as Thomas Goldstein which only served to infuriate the public further. The public saw such maneuvers as deceitful and an attempt to embarrass the now educated public.

However, the greater proof is in the activity which originated in the Senate in early 2008 which was hidden from the public, that sought to change what our representatives knew to be unconstitutional from the start. The public really needs to look no further than this activity, for it speaks to the heart of the deals that went on beyond the Senate doors. Rather than trust the preservation model our founding forefathers wrote into our Constitution, these respresentatives, beholden of the public trust, saw fit to manipulate the clauses contained therein, for the sole benefit of their own political self-interests.

Perhaps our representatives, the United States Supreme Court and the main stream media would be interested in reflecting on these records and then start answering truthfully the questions which have so far been ignored. The public has been promised transparency, but to date has only been dealt scoffing, deceitful rhetoric, if they choose to address it at all.

While the public has been patient and eduring, the questions remain and refuse to be dismissed. We expect them to be answered, preferrably prior to January 20, 2009.

We the people, deserve an answer!

____________________________________________________

Listing of 9 articles from the 110th Congress as entered.

1 . SENATE RESOLUTION 511–RECOGNIZING THAT JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN III, IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN — Senate - April 10, 2008
2 . REPORTS OF COMMITTEES — Senate - April 24, 2008
3 . SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS — Senate - April 10, 2008
4 . JOHN S. McCAIN, III CITIZENSHIP — Senate - April 30, 2008
5 . MEETINGS SCHEDULED — Extensions of Remarks - April 21, 2008
6 . Daily Digest - Friday, April 18, 2008
7 . Daily Digest - Thursday, April 24, 2008
8 . Daily Digest - Wednesday, April 30, 2008
9 . Daily Digest - Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Sources:

http://thomas.loc.gov
(r:110)

←→Calendar No. 715
110th CONGRESS
2d Session
S. RES. 511
RESOLUTION
Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=sr110-511

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-simple-resolution.htm

© "Zapem," of Zapem's Blog

The views and statements expressed by Investigating Obama contributors, and in quotations and citations, are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of Investigating Obama and Arlen Williams

Provocative Speculations about the Supreme Court's Considerations of the Eligibility Challenges

Quite a bit of contemplating and communicating may be done, before we next hear from the Supreme Court, on Wednesday. Meanwhile, the interested reader is likely to find these items provocative.

In "Berg v. Obama: Case Disposition Likely Wednesday," Phil of TRSoL relates that the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) will not announce a disposition on today's conference about Berg's application for injunction until Wednesday, 1/21, due to the court being closed Monday and Tuesday.

In his piece, Phil refers to profoundly interesting analyses of the SCOTUS by two experienced, albeit, anonymous legal professionals. One, by "Lawyer from Missouri" was discovered in I.O's second comment to Monday's post, "Countdown of the Fictitious Presidency of Barack Obama."

The other brief analysis is that of the father of FReeper, "hoosiermama" (if accurately copied or compiled; it seems so to me). This hoosier grandpa is a former Federal Appellate Court legal clerk.

Both analyses, plus one other, put Berg's case and potentially others in the "alive and very well" category and fit together to potentially provide significant insight into how the SCOTUS is approaching this. It has also been noted that it took a 5 of 9 majority to accept the Anderson amicus brief, to Berg v. Obama.

Can you write a good amicus brief, for any of the cases being brought to SCOTUS? (See the list, here.) Or, do you know of someone who might? This may be a very good time to do so.

Amidst this analysis, it is mentioned that the Supreme Court might find fraudulent activities in Congress, regarding their treatement of Obama as a certifiably eligible presidential candidate. The next posting in I.O. examines how this may be so.

I.O. may also add another analysis or two, to this posting -- if I can find the time and bandwidth (Internet is down, at home).

Update, 1/16: I'm sure some have already seen this. I'll link again to Phil's news, to present a second-hand report from Obama challenger attorney, Stephen Pidgeon, as presented by a volunteer assistant, "Chalice." I.O. is glad to see him on the job, in a fashion quite complementary to those of Orly Taitz and of Philip Berg.

Update, 1/16: Back to Berg: Comment #13 in this post by "Zapem" in the site of the same name, provides further clarification. Since further discovery is in order, that is the job of the lower courts, not of the SCOTUS.