Appeals briefs scheduled in Obama eligibility challenge...

Posted: November 29, 2009
9:17 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A briefing schedule has been announced by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a case alleging Congress failed in its constitutional duties by refusing to investigate the eligibility of Barack Obama to be president, according to an attorney handling the challenge.

WND previously reported on the lawsuit filed by lead plaintiff Charles F. Kerchner Jr. and others against Congress.

Attorney Mario Apuzzo filed the action in January on behalf of Kerchner, Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr. Named as defendants were Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, House of Representatives and former Vice President Dick Cheney along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The case focuses on the alleged failure of Congress to follow the Constitution. That document, the lawsuit states, "provides that Congress must fully qualify the candidate 'elected' by the Electoral College Electors."

The case asserts "when Obama was born his father was a British subject/citizen and Obama himself was the same."

(Story continues below)




The Constitution also provides, the lawsuit says, "If the president-elect shall have failed to qualify, then the vice president elect shall act as president until a president shall have qualified."

See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential eligibility mystery!

"There existed significant public doubt and grievances from plaintiffs and other concerned Americans regarding Obama's eligibility to be president and defendants had the sworn duty to protect and preserve the Constitution and specifically under the 20th Amendment, Section 3, a Constitutional obligation to confirm whether Obama, once the electors elected him, was qualified," the case explained.

Now the attorney has posted an online statement that the brief on behalf of the appellants is due Jan. 4, 2010.

In an e-mail announcing the schedule, Kerchner wrote, "We look forward to moving ahead with this very important constitutional case along the legal pathway to the ultimate decision maker for this historic and precedence setting lawsuit, the U.S. Supreme Court."

He continued. "They will determine the answer to the pressing legal question of what is a 'natural born citizen' of the USA per Article II constitutional standards and did Obama and the U.S. Congress violate the Constitution and statutory laws and my constitutional rights during the 2008 election cycle."

"I say Obama does not meet the founders and framers intent for the Article II eligibility clause. I say Obama is a deceiver and a usurper," he wrote today.

Apuzzo earlier argued in his notice of appeal that the district court judge "avoided" a conclusion on the merits of the case.

"We allege that Obama has not conclusively proven that he was born in Hawaii. More importantly, we also allege that he is not an Article II 'natural born Citizen' because when Obama was born his father was a British subject/citizen and Obama himself was the same," he wrote.

The lawyer said it is important that the court did not rule Obama was born in Hawaii, nor did it rule that the claim was frivolous.

It simply said the case was dismissed because of a jurisdiction issue.

"By the court finding that plaintiffs do not have standing and that their claims present a political question, the court was able to avoid having to address the underlying merits of the Kerchner case. With such a decision, the American people unfortunately still do not know where Obama was born and whether he is an Article II 'natural born Citizen' and therefore constitutionally eligible to be president and commander in chief," the attorney said.

"A court cannot refuse to hear a case on the merits merely because it prefers not to due to grave social or political ramifications," he continued. "The court's opinion dismissing the Kerchner complaint/petition did not address the real Kerchner case but rather looked for a way to dismiss the case without having to reach the merits of the question of whether Obama is an Article II 'natural born citizen.'

"The American people deserve to know whether Obama was in fact born in Hawaii. More importantly, even if he is born in Hawaii, given that he was born with dual allegiance and citizenship, the American people deserve to know whether he is an Article II 'natural born citizen' which would make him eligible to be president," the attorney said.

WND reported earlier when Kerchner publicly argued the courts have an obligation to make a decision on Obama's eligibility.

He wrote, "The federal courts and judges are committing treason to the Constitution by not taking jurisdiction and getting to the merits in the various cases before them regarding the Article II eligibility clause question for Obama."

He said his basis for such a statement is the opinion of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall, who wrote in an 1821 case, Cohens vs. Virginia:

"It is most true that this court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this, on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one."

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

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

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

Further, others question his citizenship by virtue of his attendance in Indonesian schools during his childhood and question on what passport did he travel to Pakistan three decades ago.

Adding fuel to the fire is Obama's persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers and the appointment – at a cost confirmed to be at least $1.7 million – of myriad lawyers to defend against all requests for his documentation. While his supporters cite an online version of a "Certification of Live Birth" from Hawaii as his birth verification, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.

The ultimate questions remain unaddressed to date: Is Obama a natural born citizen, and, if so, why hasn't documentation been provided? And, of course, if he is not, what does it mean to the 2008 election or the U.S. Constitution if it is revealed that there has been a violation?

WND has reported on another case that was dismissed by U.S. District Judge David Carter in California. It also now is heading to the appeals level.

WND also has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.

7 stories Obama doesn't want told

7 stories Obama doesn't want told By: John F. Harris November 30, 2009 05:45 AM EST

Presidential politics is about storytelling. Presented with a vivid storyline, voters naturally tend to fit every new event or piece of information into a picture that is already neatly framed in their minds. No one understands this better than Barack Obama and his team, who won the 2008 election in part because they were better storytellers than the opposition. The pro-Obama narrative featured an almost mystically talented young idealist who stood for change in a disciplined and thoughtful way. This easily outpowered the anti-Obama narrative, featuring an opportunistic Chicago pol with dubious relationships who was more liberal than he was letting on. A year into his presidency, however, Obama’s gift for controlling his image shows signs of faltering. As Washington returns to work from the Thanksgiving holiday, there are several anti-Obama storylines gaining momentum. The Obama White House argues that all of these storylines are inaccurate or unfair. In some cases these anti-Obama narratives are fanned by Republicans, in some cases by reporters and commentators. But they all are serious threats to Obama, if they gain enough currency to become the dominant frame through which people interpret the president’s actions and motives. Here are seven storylines Obama needs to worry about: He thinks he’s playing with Monopoly money Economists and business leaders from across the ideological spectrum were urging the new president on last winter when he signed onto more than a trillion in stimulus spending and bank and auto bailouts during his first weeks in office. Many, though far from all, of these same people now agree that these actions helped avert an even worse financial catastrophe. Along the way, however, it is clear Obama underestimated the political consequences that flow from the perception that he is a profligate spender. He also misjudged the anger in middle America about bailouts with weak and sporadic public explanations of why he believed they were necessary. The flight of independents away from Democrats last summer — the trend that recently hammered Democrats in off-year elections in Virginia — coincided with what polls show was alarm among these voters about undisciplined big government and runaway spending. The likely passage of a health care reform package criticized as weak on cost-control will compound the problem. Obama understands the political peril, and his team is signaling that he will use the 2010 State of the Union address to emphasize fiscal discipline. The political challenge, however, is an even bigger substantive challenge—since the most convincing way to project fiscal discipline would be actually to impose spending reductions that would cramp his own agenda and that of congressional Democrats. Too much Leonard Nimoy People used to make fun of Bill Clinton’s misty-eyed, raspy-voiced claims that, “I feel your pain.” The reality, however, is that Clinton’s dozen years as governor before becoming president really did leave him with a vivid sense of the concrete human dimensions of policy. He did not view programs as abstractions — he viewed them in terms of actual people he knew by name. Obama, a legislator and law professor, is fluent in describing the nuances of problems. But his intellectuality has contributed to a growing critique that decisions are detached from rock-bottom principles. Both Maureen Dowd in The New York Times and Joel Achenbach of The Washington Post have likened him to Star Trek’s Mr. Spock. The Spock imagery has been especially strong during the extended review Obama has undertaken of Afghanistan policy. He’ll announce the results on Tuesday. The speech’s success will be judged not only on the logic of the presentation but on whether Obama communicates in a more visceral way what progress looks like and why it is worth achieving. No soldier wants to take a bullet in the name of nuance. That’s the Chicago Way This is a storyline that’s likely taken root more firmly in Washington than around the country. The rap is that his West Wing is dominated by brass-knuckled pols. It does not help that many West Wing aides seem to relish an image of themselves as shrewd, brass-knuckled political types. In a Washington Post story this month, White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina, referring to most of Obama’s team, said, “We are all campaign hacks.” The problem is that many voters took Obama seriously in 2008 when he talked about wanting to create a more reasoned, non-partisan style of governance in Washington. When Republicans showed scant interest in cooperating with Obama at the start, the Obama West Wing gladly reverted to campaign hack mode. The examples of Chicago-style politics include their delight in public battles with Rush Limbaugh and Fox News and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. (There was also a semi-public campaign of leaks aimed at Greg Craig, the White House counsel who fell out of favor.) In private, the Obama team cut an early deal — to the distaste of many congressional Democrats — that gave favorable terms to the pharmaceutical lobby in exchange for their backing his health care plans. The lesson that many Washington insiders have drawn is that Obama wants to buy off the people he can and bowl over those he can’t. If that perception spreads beyond Washington this will scuff Obama’s brand as a new style of political leader. He’s a pushover If you are going to be known as a fighter, you might as well reap the benefits. But some of the same insider circles that are starting to view Obama as a bully are also starting to whisper that he’s a patsy. It seems a bit contradictory, to be sure. But it’s a perception that began when Obama several times laid down lines — then let people cross them with seeming impunity. Last summer he told Democrats they better not go home for recess until a critical health care vote but they blew him off. He told the Israeli government he wanted a freeze in settlements but no one took him seriously. Even Fox News — which his aides prominently said should not be treated like a real news organization — then got interview time for its White House correspondent. In truth, most of these episodes do not amount to much. But this unflattering storyline would take a more serious turn if Obama is seen as unable to deliver on his stern warnings in the escalating conflict with Iran over its nuclear program. He sees America as another pleasant country on the U.N. roll call, somewhere between Albania and Zimbabwe That line belonged to George H.W. Bush, excoriating Democrat Michael Dukakis in 1988. But it highlights a continuing reality: In presidential politics the safe ground has always been to be an American exceptionalist. Politicians of both parties have embraced the idea that this country — because of its power and/or the hand of Providence — should be a singular force in the world. It would be hugely unwelcome for Obama if the perception took root that he is comfortable with a relative decline in U.S. influence or position in the world. On this score, the reviews of Obama’s recent Asia trip were harsh. His peculiar bow to the emperor of Japan was symbolic. But his lots-of-velvet, not-much-iron approach to China had substantive implications. On the left, the budding storyline is that Obama has retreated from human rights in the name of cynical realism. On the right, it is that he is more interested in being President of the World than President of the United States, a critique that will be heard more in December as he stops in Oslo to pick up his Nobel Prize and then in Copenhagen for an international summit on curbing greenhouse gases. President Pelosi No figure in Barack Obama’s Washington, including Obama, has had more success in advancing his will than the speaker of the House, despite public approval ratings that hover in the range of Dick Cheney’s. With a mix of tough party discipline and shrewd vote-counting, she passed a version of the stimulus bill largely written by congressional Democrats, passed climate legislation, and passed her chamber’s version of health care reform. She and anti-war liberals in her caucus are clearly affecting the White House’s Afghanistan calculations. The great hazard for Obama is if Republicans or journalists conclude — as some already have — that Pelosi’s achievements are more impressive than Obama’s or come at his expense. This conclusion seems premature, especially with the final chapter of the health care drama yet to be written. But it is clear that Obama has allowed the speaker to become more nearly an equal — and far from a subordinate — than many of his predecessors of both parties would have thought wise. He’s in love with the man in the mirror No one becomes president without a fair share of what the French call amour propre. Does Obama have more than his share of self-regard? It’s a common theme of Washington buzz that Obama is over-exposed. He gives interviews on his sports obsessions to ESPN, cracks wise with Leno and Letterman, discusses his fitness with Men’s Health, discusses his marriage in a joint interview with first lady Michelle Obama for The New York Times. A photo the other day caught him leaving the White House clutching a copy of GQ featuring himself. White House aides say making Obama widely available is the right strategy for communicating with Americans in an era of highly fragmented media. But, as the novelty of a new president wears off, the Obama cult of personality risks coming off as mere vanity unless it is harnessed to tangible achievements. That is why the next couple of months — with health care and Afghanistan jostling at center stage — will likely carry a long echo. Obama’s best hope of nipping bad storylines is to replace them with good ones rooted in public perceptions of his effectiveness.

Suing Al Gore for making fraudulent claims, Arresting Al Gore

From Canada Free Press:

Attention Lawyers! Make Millions Off Of Climategate Crooks!

By Jim O'Neill Sunday, November 29, 2009

“I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” —Thomas Jefferson (1743—1826)

“What we are faced with is a tyranny, world wide, over the mind and body of man, and it is the duty of every red blooded United States citizen to oppose with every fiber of his being what is being done…by this Administration to try and sign away your Constitution at Copenhagen.” —Lord Christopher Monckton November 28, 2009

“There’s gold in them thar hills!” Lawyers need to get off their butts, and realize what a financial bonanza the Climategate criminal scam represents. The possibilities for financial remuneration are mind boggling.

For patriotic, conservative lawyers, this should be a “no brainer.” But even ambulance chasing weasels, who care about nothing but money, should be clamoring to get on the bandwagon.

The possibilities for them to make money out of Climategate, are almost endless—as is the amount of money the public has been defrauded of, and continues to be robbed of.

“Global warming” scam, Criminal intent to defraud the public of massive amounts of money, advance an ideological agenda

It is now clear that the entire CO2/global-warming scam has been one Big Lie; a lie that continues to bilk people out of billions, possibly trillions, of dollars. There is no reason to put litigation off any longer.

Co-founder of The Weather Channel, John Coleman, had the right idea last year, when he suggested suing Al Gore for making fraudulent claims. But the proof to back up such a suit, was obscure and scattered. Such is no longer the case.

The leaked documents from the East Anglian CRU (Climatic Research Unit ) have proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the “global warming” scam was perpetrated with criminal intent to defraud the public of massive amounts of money, advance an ideological agenda, and make the criminals involved, quite wealthy. All at our expense.

Idiots, crooks, and criminals

There are only around two dozen individuals directly involved in the criminal fraud committed by the climatology “scientists.” These people, or as Lord Monckton calls them—idiots, crooks, and criminals—should be tried in an international court, for crimes against humanity.

These people are already responsible for the deaths of millions of people, world-wide.

The Left has always been enamored with population control, whether it be the slow, deliberate genocide of Margaret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood, or the starving of millions, by turning America’s “breadbasket” into an “eco-friendly” wilderness.

I strongly urge you to watch the interview that Alex Jones had with Lord Monckton on November 27, in order to understand just how evil, and amoral, these individuals are.

Aside from the duplicitous “scientists,” there are also those who, like Al Gore, have swindled the world through the use of lies, misleading statements, and scientific falsifications.

Their insistent, loud, hysteric calls for CO2 reduction—or else—have resulted in the implementation of laws that have bilked taxpayers, corporations, and entire countries, out of billions of dollars.

There is money to be made in bringing these individuals to justice. Lawyers who undertake to right these wrongs, not only stand to make a lot of money, but they will also have the extra cache of being on the side of the underdog, the oppressed, the mistreated and fleeced.

“We the people” are the underdog, the oppressed, the mistreated and fleeced. It is time to demand our “pound of flesh” from these tyrants hiding behind the mask of environmentalism.

CO2 is not a danger, and it never has been. All this “toxic greenhouse gas” nonsense is a load of rubbish.

Scientists are familiar with the “Cambrian Explosion”—a period in the earth’s distant past when, in a relatively brief period of time, new forms of life burst into being around the globe. During the “Cambrian Explosion,” CO2 levels were approximately 20 times higher than they are today.

That hardly qualifies CO2 as some sort of life threatening toxin—or a “man made” toxic gas, for that matter.

At periods in the earth’s past, CO2 levels have been up to 10,000 times higher than they are today! I’m not saying that such extreme levels are healthy. I’m just pointing out that the auto industry, for example, most assuredly had nothing to do with the extreme levels of CO2, millions of years ago. When Mother Nature feels like it, she can leave one huge carbon footprint.

Renowned geologist, Leighton Steward, points out that US Navy submarines don’t consider CO2 levels to be dangerous until the atmosphere reaches a level of 8,000 parts per million of CO2. The atmosphere on earth, currently contains about 338 parts per million of CO2. That’s a looong way from being alarming.

So why are all the Chicken Littles running around screaming about an imminent, catastrophe, and horrific consequences unless we stop CO2 emissions NOW, RIGHT NOW, OH PLEASE GOD STOP IT NOW, BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE!

Well, because they know that the public is starting to wise up to the con. They know that if they don’t push through legislation now, while many people are still befuddled by the ruse, and the media is still largely in their pocket—then they will have lost their “window of opportunity.”

An opportunity for what? An opportunity to destroy America as a threat to one world government. An opportunity to force humanity to do the bidding of a Global Elite, at the helm of a repressive planetary regime.

An opportunity that these narcissistic, arrogant, greedy misanthropes don’t intend to let slip by.

So it’s time for conservative, patriotic lawyers to step up to the plate. Now is the time—we may not get another chance. As Lord Monckton recently said, “we are in the last few seconds before freedom dies.”

Lord Monckton, a former science advisor to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, has been fighting the good fight against global warming’s “financial fraud, and international racketeering,” for a number of years. He knows what he’s talking about.

We would be wise to listen to him.
“We the people have now got to rise up, world wide, found a party in every country, that stands for freedom, and make sure that we fight this communistic, bureaucratic, world government monster, to a standstill. They shall not pass!”

Crazies for Sarah Palin...Hey Hey...ENJOY!

Those who praised Obama’s work may have some rethinking to do now.

Obama had to give up on a $150,000 Simon & Schuster contract

Did Bill Ayers Write Obama’s Book?

By Online Saturday, November 28, 2009

Given all the blogosphere speculation about Bill Ayers ghostwriting for Obama, one major development at the end of September threatened to break the story wide open. Veteran journalist and bestselling author of 33 books Christopher Andersen has just published a fascinating new book: Barack and Michelle: Portrait of an American Marriage. It is largely a sympathetic look at the dynamics within America’s first family.

But sorting through the more than 200 interviews Andersen says it took to create this book, he came to a startling conclusion: After Obama had to give up on a $150,000 Simon & Schuster contract because he couldn’t complete the manuscript, his sources were telling him Obama finally had to bring in a ghostwriter to put together his highly praised Dreams From My Father for Times Books. He had a million pieces of tape, pictures, memos, notes, and no manuscript.

And he was running out of time to deliver the book.

Nothing wrong so far. Few politicians can string a paragraph together without a ghostwriter.

Unfortunately for Obama, he was caught at a July 10, 2008, meeting in Fairfax, Virginia proudly saying the following:

I’ve written two books. I actually wrote them myself.

Also unfortunately for Obama, Andersen’s sources - all of whom were sympathetic and appear to be at least neighbors to Obama - came to other conclusions. Andersen wrote:

These oral histories, along with a partial manuscript and a truckload of notes, were given to Ayers. “Everyone knew they were friends and that they worked on various projects together,” another Hyde Park neighbor pointed out. “It was no secret. Why would it be? People liked them both.” In the end, Ayers’ contribution to Barack’s Dreams From My Father would be significant - so much so that the book’s language, oddly specific references, literary devices, and themes would bear a jarring similarity to Ayers’ own writing. Even the caveat at the beginning of Dreams, in which Barack points out that he uses invented dialogue, embellished facts, composite characters, inaccurate chronology, and pseudonyms to create an “approximation” of reality, resembles Ayers’ defense of the inaccuracies in his memoir Fugitive Days. In the foreword to his book, Ayers states that the book is merely a collection of his personal memories and “impressions.” ... Thanks to help from the veteran writer Ayers, Barack would be able to submit a manuscript to his editors at Times Books.

On Sean Hannity’s show, Andersen explained why:

During that campaign I think he was doing some backpedaling, I’ll be honest. And I think that Michelle probably recommended that he not emphasize their relationship with Ayers.

Andersen is a celebrity journalist who has worked at Time and People. He knows what kind of lawsuits are occasioned by careless reporting and so far, after many years, he has never had a source or one of his notoriously touchy celebrity subjects complain about the accuracy of his reporting. And the last thing Andersen wanted was to follow this line of questioning as one can see watching him slide out of it on the Hannity clip.

Repeatedly grilled on numerous occasions about how close he was with the notorious 1960s Weatherman radical Bill Ayers, Obama stated Ayers was just “a guy who lives in my neighborhood,” and “not somebody who I exchange ideas with on a regular basis.”

During the 2008 presidential campaign, The Washington Post “Fact Checker” backed up that Obama statement in attacking a McCain campaign ad that claimed Obama lied about his relationship with Ayers. The Post’s Pinocchio Test concluded: “The McCain campaign is distorting the Obama-Ayers relationship, and exaggerating their closeness. There is no evidence that Obama has “lied” about his dealings with Ayers.” McCain was so cowed by the award of “two Pinocchios” that he wouldn’t let his ticketmate Sarah Palin raise the issue again.

Thanks to Christopher Andersen’s hard work there is now credible sourced evidence that Obama did lie about his dealing with Ayers. And thanks to the literary sleuthing of Jack Cashill, whom Andersen credits for finding the textual comparisons between Obama’s Dreams and Ayers’ writing, there is an abundance of internal evidence.

Cashill has published a number of articles like “Who Wrote Dreams From My Father and Why It Matters” using classic literary forensic techniques, many of the articles were published in the center right e-magazine American Thinker.

Cashill has written for Fortune, The Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post, and holds a Ph.D. in American Studies. He has also produced documentaries for PBS and other stations, one of which won an Emmy. But once he began to dig into stories that examined the similarities between Obama’s Dreams and the writing of Bill Ayers, he found himself restricted to blogs like World Net Daily.

Fortunately in an age in which many formerly authoritative news outlets have deserted the interests of their readers and viewers in favor of giving each other journalism prizes for stories few in their evaporating market care about, Americans are being taught to get their news where they can find it.

As a former adman, publisher, and a teacher of writing who has published a work on literary fraud, Cashill brought rare qualifications to the task. “In September 2008 I picked up a copy of Ayers’ Fugitive Days and it hit me,” he told me. “From comparing Obama’s Dreams From My Father to his earlier works it was already clear to me some one had helped him with it. And they did a damned good job.”

“But I’ll admit Bill Ayers as Obama’s ghost writer had never occurred to me before then.”

Those who praised Obama’s work may have some rethinking to do now.

“I’ve read Obama’s books, and they are first-rate. He is that rara avis, the politician who writes his own books. Imagine.” Now Christopher Buckley may learn he has an even more vivid imagination than he thought. After all, his admiration for Dreams was an integral part of his explanation as to why he resigned from the National Review his father had founded and voted for Obama.

Nobel Prize winner Toni Morrison had called the book” ... unique. It’s his. There are no other ones like that.” Well, she is partially right. At least there are no “ones” that may have been ghostwritten for an American president by a terrorist that anyone can remember.

Joe Klein at Time knows more about ghostwriting than most authors, having ghostwritten his own book under the pseudonym of pseudonyms: “Anonymous.” His authorship of Primary Colors was outed by another textual effort not dissimilar from Cashill’s. Klein has the only quote that stands up in the light of the new information. He said: Dreams “may be the best-written memoir ever produced by an American politician.”

“Produced” may definitely be the operative word.

In January this year, the New York Times’ Michiko Kakutani called it “The most evocative, lyrical and candid autobiography written by a future president.” Oh well, who knew?

As a former publishing executive and the founder of Times Books - which originally published Dreams - I can accept that these kinds of frauds occasionally happen. And without a direct admission of guilt, the evidence will always be unsatisfying with conflicting opinions battling back and forth.

A publisher can get gulled by a skillful con. And once outed it can be a major catastrophe. One has only to recall the James Frey controversy over his Random House best-seller, which, like Obama’s “truckload of notes,” was another A Million Little Pieces. Once Frey was revealed by a careful scan of his police records by SmokingGun.com as a liar whose “memoir” was largely fiction, Random House did the only honorable thing it could. It explained that all future printings of the book would be delayed until it had notes from both the publisher and the author on the lies in the text as well as notations on the cover and posted to the website. Random House also sent out inserts for the books already in the stores. Later Random House set aside several million dollars to compensate readers who felt they may have been defrauded in buying the book.

But at least no one accused James Frey of not writing it.

And the evidence keeps piling up around Ayers.

Around 9:00 a.m. on October 5th, 2009, Anne Leary was sitting at the Starbucks by the United Airlines gate at Reagan Airport for flights to and from Chicago. She was drinking a cup of coffee before getting on her flight home. She looked up and recognized Bill Ayers with his backpack waiting in line for a cup of coffee. She walked past him, turned and took his picture. She asked what he was doing in Washington. He told her he was giving a speech to a Renaissance Group in Arlington on education.

“That’s what I do, education - you shouldn’t believe everything you hear about me, you know nothing about me,” Ayers said to her.

“I know plenty - I’m from Chicago, a conservative blogger, and I’ll post this.”

According to her blog:

Then, unprompted he said - “I wrote Dreams From My Father.” I said, “Oh, so you admit it.” He said “Michelle asked me to.” I looked at him. He seemed eager. He’s about my height, short. He went on to say: “And if you can prove it, we can split the royalties.” So I said, “Stop pulling my leg.” (Horrible thought.) But he came again: “I really wrote it, the wording was similar.” I said, “I believe you probably heavily edited it.” He said “I wrote it.” I said, “Why would I believe you, you’re a liar.”

He had no answer to that. Just looked at me. Then he turned and walked off, and said again his bit about my proving it and splitting the proceeds.

What will Random House do as this kind of clear evidence accumulates that the sitting president of the United States lied to them and the American people about having written his memoir by himself? Obama may have lied about having it ghostwritten by a man infamous to many Americans for his unrepentant attitude towards his deep involvement in the terrorist Weathermen in the 1960s. “I don’t regret setting bombs,” Bill Ayers said in an interview with the New York Times that appeared the morning the World Trade Center was attacked and destroyed by al-Qaeda. “I feel we didn’t do enough.”

A good publisher first looks for a commercial opportunity. This doesn’t have to be bad news. Ayers may be lousy at being a terrorist, but he is a damned fine writer. Random House can always relaunch the book as a co-authored product, sending out corrective inserts to the books in the stores and sending Ayers on the road on a publicity tour. With this kind of publicity, they can’t miss.

I have called Markus Dohle, the CEO of Random House, and Stuart Applebaum, the wily director of Communications at Random House who helped weather the Frey fray so well. Do they have a lower standard for an American president who may be defrauding them and their American and international readers than for a James Frey? Are they looking into this?

We will soon see. I am waiting to hear.

In the meantime, remembering the publicity firestorm that raged for months over the Frey book, complete with hot and cold running Oprah shows, where is the press? A president of the United States caught in the glare of accusations like this? A real newsman like Ben Hecht would have been in heaven and gotten 10 extra editions out of it already. But the white rabbits and white mice that make up the increasingly reader and viewer deprived press today are just doing what they always do in the face of a good story these days - hiding until the news value goes away.

After the Anne Leary blog appeared on October 5, there were three interesting developments. The New York Times Kate Phillips wrote a snarky dismissive piece establishing that for the “newspaper of record” Ayers was enjoying yanking chains of gullible reporters by claiming he had ghosted Obama and would share the royalties with anyone who could prove it.

And NRO carried a piece by conservative Jonah Goldberg establishing that that made sense to him, because the National Journal had carried a similar story by their reporter, Will England, on October 3.

And TheDailyBeast.com’s Ben Sarlin called up Ayers who gave him the non-denial denial quote: “You’ve all lost your minds,” he wrote. “Best of luck in the twilight zone.” Sarlin was careful not to call a non-denial a denial, but the sense of his piece was like Kate Phillips-lite - this is wingnut material, you have to be crazy to look into things like this.

I disagree. Here’s why.

The timing of these two “teasing” incidents right after the Andersen statement may be more than a coincidence. Andersen told a tale out of school on Hannity - on September 24, take a look at the tape above - and Ayers/Obama had to walk it back. So far they are doing fine.

The various speculations by “wingnuts” in the blogosphere were no danger to Ayers/Obama. MSM reporter Andersen blowing it in a surprise question by an interviewer who actually had read his book (a rarity in itself) was a nightmare. Andersen is a superb celebrity journalist from Time and People. He has never been sued through more than 30 books and hundreds of articles. He says he has two sources. And his book was a kissy face look at the Obamas meant to sell as a love fest - he had interviewed the first family. He was anything but hostile. And he claims he has two sources in Hyde Park.

There are only two chain-yanking incidents I can find. The first was alluded to by Will England on Oct 3rd in the National Journal. It refers to an “over the weekend” questioning of Bill Ayers at a book festival. “This is my quote. Be sure to write it down: ‘Yes, I wrote Dreams From My Father. I ghostwrote the whole thing. I met with the president three or four times, and then I wrote the entire book.’” He released National Journal’s arm, and beamed in Marxist triumph: “And now I would like the royalties.”

That weekend might most likely have been the same weekend the National Journal piece appeared, October 3 and 4, or the week earlier. England is unlikely to have run a news item that was older than that.

The Hannity mistake by Andersen was more than a week earlier on September 24. Anne Leary’s piece recounted an incident on October 5. When I read it and interviewed Anne Leary, I was struck by how hard Ayers worked to make sure this self-proclaimed conservative blogger (“Thank you, God!” Ayers must have thought) stopped flaming him long enough to get his story across ... and turned back and did it again to make sure. It never occurred to Anne it was a setup. She was enjoying telling him what a creep he was. He had to interrupt her twice to make his “confession.”

No one has yet posted any Ayers’ chain-yanking about his ghostmanship prior to the Hannity show. And both these incidents were volunteered by Ayers. Neither England nor Leary had asked Ayers about his possible ghosting. Ayers clearly pushed this story at them.

I have been watching this story evolve for over a year. I did nothing until Christopher Andersen blathered on Hannity. And I saw the stricken look on his face and I have had three very revealing calls with his consultant, who is a pro. Andersen is terrified of talking about this. He won’t speak to me. Ayers hasn’t called back either.

For now the clever “I was joking” story is working fine ... except for the timing. Unless someone can show me another “I was joking” incident prior to the Hannity incident, I think the evidence leads to Andersen outing Ayers by mistake, and the chain-yanking being a ploy. Andersen never should have gone on Hannity. His book sales come from nice middle-aged ladies who don’t watch Hannity.

Now they are worried this disclosure will make the book look (horrors!) anti-Obama, which it isn’t. And if so, that will slow his sales. And they are right.

“Authoritative” denials are always worth a little shoe leather, particularly when the denied story, if true, could cause major problems to the denier.

During his campaign for the presidency, John Kerry told everyone he wasn’t present at the 1971 Kansas City meeting of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War which discussed assassinating U.S. senators who favored the Vietnam War. That would have been a problem for Kerry because at the time he had been the national spokesperson for the VVAW. He also denied it to Douglas Brinkley who included it in his campaign biography Tour of Duty. I found witnesses to his presence, and details started coming out of my sources. like an FBI report that made it clear that he was. He had to admit he was there. That kicked off the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth campaign which led to the end of his presidential hopes forever.

As of now, Ayers has not denied being the ghost. Andersen has said he was, and he has sources and a fine reputation in the MSM. It is just lazy reporting to ignore the implications and claim anyone who continues to look into it is some kind of wingnut. The ultimate Ayers joke would be telling the truth and having the media think he was just yanking chains. You can tell the truth and yank chains at least as effectively as you can tell a lie.

Thomas Lipscomb is the Founder of Times Books and a Senior Fellow at the Annenberg Center for the Digital Future.

The case is still open on Ayers and any responsible news organization should press on.Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com

OBAMA & GORE...Global Warming Thieves...

Obama’s involvement in Chicago Climate Exchange—the rest of the story - Thanks Redd

Posted on November 29th, 2009 by David-Crockett

Canada Free Press published

Good news to know that the truth will always out—even when you’re Barack Obama

“Obama Years Ago Helped Fund Carbon Program He Is Now Pushing Through Congress” is a FOXNews story by Ed Barnes. In short, “While on the board of a Chicago-based charity, Barack Obama helped fund a carbon trading exchange that will likely play a critical role in the cap-and-trade carbon reduction program he is now trying to push through Congress as president.”

The charity was the Joyce Foundation on whose board of directors Obama served and which gave nearly $1.1 million in two separate grants that were “instrumental in developing and launching the privately-owned Chicago Climate Exchange, which now calls itself “North America’s only cap and trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide.”

And that’s only the beginning of this tawdry tale, Mr. Barnes.

The “privately-owned” Chicago Climate Exchange is heavily influenced by Obama cohorts Al Gore and Maurice Strong.

For years now Strong and Gore have been cashing in on that lucrative cottage industry known as man-made global warming

Strong is on the board of directors of the Chicago Climate Exchange, Wikipedia-described as “the world’s first and North America’s only legally binding greenhouse gas emission registry reduction system for emission sources and offset projects in North America and Brazil.”

Gore, self-proclaimed Patron Saint of the Environment, buys his carbon off-sets from himself—the Generation Investment Management LLP, “an independent, private, owner-managed partnership established in 2004 with offices in London and Washington, D.C., of which he is both chairman and founding partner. The Generation Investment Management business has considerable influence over the major carbon credit trading firms that currently exist, including the Chicago Climate Exchange.

Strong, the silent partner, is a man whose name often draws a blank on the Washington cocktail circuit. Even though a former Secretary General of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (the much hyped Rio Earth Summit) and Under-Secretary General of the United Nations in the days of an Oil-for-Food beleaguered Kofi Annan, the Canadian born Strong is little known in the United States. That’s because he spends most of his time in China where he he has been working to make the communist country the world’s next superpower. The nondescript Strong, nonetheless is the big cheese in the underworld of climate change and is one of the main architects of the failing Kyoto Protocol.

Full credit for the expose on the business partnership of Strong and Gore in the cap-and-trade reduction scheme should go to the investigative acumen of the Executive Intelligence Review (EIR).

The tawdry tale of the top two global warming gurus in the business world goes all the way back to Earth Day, April 17, 1995 when the future author of “An Inconvenient Truth” travelled to Fall River, Massachusetts, to deliver a green sermon at the headquarters of Molten Metal Technology Inc. (MMTI). MMTI was a firm that proclaimed to have invented a process for recycling metals from waste. Gore praised the Molten Metal firm as a pioneer in the kind of innovative technology that can save the environment, and make money for investors at the same time.

“Gore left a few facts out of his speech that day,” wrote EIR. “First, the firm was run by Strong and a group of Gore intimates, including Peter Knight, the firm’s registered lobbyist, and Gore’s former top Senate aide.”

(Fast-forward to the present day and ask yourself why it is that every time someone picks up another Senate rock, another serpent comes slithering out).

“Second, the company had received more than $25 million in U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) research and development grants, but had failed to prove that the technology worked on a commercial scale. The company would go on to receive another $8 million in federal taxpayers’ cash, at that point, its only source of revenue.

“With Al Gore’s Earth Day as a Wall Street calling card, Molten Metal’s stock value soared to $35 a share, a range it maintained through October 1996. But along the way, DOE scientists had balked at further funding. When in March 1996, corporate officers concluded that the federal cash cow was about to run dry, they took action: Between that date and October 1996, seven corporate officers—including Maurice strong—sold off $15.3 million in personal shares in the company, at top market value. On Oct. 20, 1996—a Sunday—the company issued a press release, announcing for the first time, that DOE funding would be vastly scaled back, and reported the bad news on a conference call with stockbrokers.

“On Monday, the stock plunged by 49%, soon landing at $5 a share. By early 1997, furious stockholders had filed a class action suit against the company and its directors. Ironically, one of the class action lawyers had tangled with Maurice strong in another insider trading case, involving a Swiss company called AZL Resources, chaired by Strong, who was also a lead shareholder. The AZL case closely mirrored Molten Metal, and in the end, Strong and the other AZL partners agreed to pay $5 million to dodge a jury verdict, when eyewitness evidence surfaced of Strong’s role in scamming the value of the company stock up into the stratosphere, before selling it off.

In 1997, Strong went on to accept from Tongsun Park, who was found guilty of illegally acting as an Iraqi agent, $1 million from Saddam Hussein, which was invested in Cordex Petroleum Inc., a company he owned with his son, Fred.

These are the leaders in the Man-made Global Warming Movement, who three years later were to be funded by the man who was to become President of the United States of America.

If we follow the time line on where Obama was during the funding of the Chicago Climate Exchange, he was still a professor at the University of Chicago Law School teaching constitutional law, with his law license becoming inactive a year later in 2002.

It may be interesting to note that the Chicago Climate Exchange in spite of its hype, is a veritable rat’s nest of cronyism. The largest shareholder in the Exchange is Goldman Sachs. Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley is its honorary chairman, The Joyce Foundation, which funded the Exchange also funded money for John Ayers’ Chicago School Initiatives. John is the brother of William Ayers.
What a flap when it was discovered that the senator from Chicago had nursed on Saul Alinsky’s milk, had his political career launched at a coffee party held by domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, and sat for 20 years, uncomplaining in front of the “God-dam-America pulpit of resentment-challenged Jeremiah Wright.

Folk were naturally outraged that the empty suit who would go on to become TOTUS was spawned from such anti-American activism.

But the media should have been hollering, “Stop Thief!” instead.

The same Chicago Climate Exchange promoting public rip-off was funded by Obama before he was POTUS.

Even as man-made global warming is being exposed as a money-generating hoax, Obama is working feverishly to push the controversial cap-and-trade carbon reduction scheme through Congress.

Obama was never the character he created for himself in the fairy-tale version in “Dreams of My Father”. He’s the agent of Change and Hope for cohorts making money down at the Chicago Climate Exchange.

The Barbarians are pushing at the gate of the Global Warming fraud, and to borrow a line from children playing Hide and Seek, Here they come, ready or not!

Obama's policies are irrational, oppressive and evil...

ObamaCare's mandatory health insurance, United States government is now fining people for living

Taxed for Living

From: Canada Free Press
By Daniel Greenfield Saturday, November 28, 2009

Forget taxes on income or consumption, the ultimate in regressive taxation is a tax simply for living. ObamaCare’s mandatory health insurance or fine helps pioneer the notion that people should be taxed just for being alive. In his interview with George Stephanopoulos, Obama called his health care tax a fine. Which would then mean that the United States government is now fining people for living.

Democratic politicians from Obama on down have used the trite metaphor of a driver’s license. But a driver’s license is based on a choice. You can choose to buy a car or not. You can’t however choose to be alive, or rather you can but the only alternative is death. That essentially makes ObamaCare a tax or a fine just for living. Which can’t help but seem like a gateway arch to euthanasia, expressing a value system that sees human life itself as an unwanted nuisance at best and an offense at worst.

The stated rationale that people have to be fined ahead of time for the costs that their illness might impose on the government is not only unconstitutional, but a dangerous slippery slope. If we are going to tax people for their potential illnesses, why not tax parents of newborns for the potential expenses that their children will run up. This notion has already been percolating among some global warming agitators, which means that it will make it to congress sooner or later. Furthermore under the same rationale used for mandatory health insurance, women might be given a choice between using birth control or paying a potential child tax. If you think that’s far-fetched, you haven’t listened to the strident rhetoric of environmentalists pushing Zero Population Growth programs.

That is only one of a thousand possible examples where the slippery slope of fining people for being alive and a potential expense for the government can take us. Once we assume that the government can fine or tax people just for being alive or a potential liability, by the same logic it becomes possible to tax the elderly who have a higher probability of needing medical services. Similarly anyone above the government recommended weight can be taxed or fined based on the potential health problems they might cause. Such an approach would fall into line with the philosophy of Obama Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein’s book, Nudge.

Essentially it would create on the one hand a whole new range of sin taxes targeting anything the government’s social monkeyers disapprove of, and on the other tax people for potential expenses they might incur, fleecing the sheep two ways for the benefit of an ever-expanding government bureaucracy constantly running short of new revenue sources. Essentially the US would turn into the EU with a government boot in everyone’s face, forever.

Democrats often go on about Republicans and regressive taxation, but in fact Democrats routinely push regressive taxation because their core non-minority base is upper middle class to upper class, including the two richest men in America—and because regressive taxation fosters dependency. Regressive taxation squeezes out the middle class in favor of a dependent lower class and an independent upper class, which under a socialist regime consists of people who are either holding down top government positions or non-profit or rent seeking businesses dependent on the government.

Cap and Trade is set to to do just that by not only creating a whopping new tax, but insuring that it filters down through added expenses piled on top of businesses that will hit the poorest the hardest. The entire body of government regulations have hit small businesses the hardest, because they have less resources to cope with them. And when small businesses go out of business, their employees who are usually working class go down with them. The result has hurt the working class and made college the path to the middle and upper class, which naturally puts generation after generations’ minds into the hands of the same left wing academics who helped create the entire situation in the first place.

But Cap and Trade goes beyond the maze of existing regulations to turn taxation itself into a tradeable commodity, imposing a tax to correct a fictional problem and then turning that tax into a commodity in an eerie parallel of the same kind of government tampering that created the sub-prime mortgage calamity. Since taxes inherently take money out of the economy, trading on a diminishing quantity is of course the surest way to a crash. And the consequence of an economic crash in America is that it becomes an opportunity for an even more extensive government takeover of the economy. Each cycle of diminishing returns created by government regulations gives rise to the next wave of government regulations, followed by limited deregulation on behalf of the well connected, followed by another crash.

Carbon Footprint taxes everyone alive for doing as little as breathing

And what the full combination of these measures accomplishes is to tax every single American for just being alive, for going to work and for doing their daily routines. By turning human activity into an offense, the Carbon Footprint taxes everyone alive for doing as little as breathing. The sheer horror of this may be lost on many, but we are essentially approaching an oxygen tax. We have passed the point in which government taxes labor, to the point in which government taxes life itself. And the only escape is death.

The underlying political shift involves the transition from viewing human activity as beneficial to the country and subject only to as much taxation as is necessary for the government to fund its projects , to viewing people and everything they do as a liability subject to punitive taxation. In the Obama Administration, behind all the fluff and the slogans, the worldview that sees humans as a problem for government is now the dominant theme and with that the transition of government from servant to master to tyrant is complete. Government that begins as a servant grasps the opportunity when seeing the incompetence and fearfulness of the people in the face of a crisis to become their master. And when the master grows weary of having to care for the people, he becomes their tyrant.

There is now no shortage of aspiring philosopher-kings in Washington D.C. and Brussels penning their manuscripts and explaining in finely polished language what the people must be made to do for their own good. And as it turns out the people are a horde of ignorant who eat too much, insist on owning their own cars and clinging to the things that the kings of the bureaucracy have decided they should no longer cling to. As the nobility of old once looked down on peasants, our new lords and masters of the filing cabinet and the license to breathe look down on the people of a dozen once free republics and hammer out the details of their final enslavement under such grand words, as multilateralism, environmental responsibility and a new international age of cooperation. The words may change, the details may seem petty but the grand conclusion is the same as for that of all tyrannies, the rise of strong central governing bodies no longer subject to the will of the people.

Today the dogma of environmental responsibility is being exploited for power and profit by people who could care less about how many redwoods are chopped down to create new additions for their mansions, just as their thoroughly racist predecessors jumped on the civil rights bandwagon in the name of federalism. It’s not the issue, but what exploiting that issue can do for their own power and profit. And so now people who fly in specialists when they catch a cold are suddenly determined to pass national health care, even though they could care less if everyone between Iowa and Nevada died tomorrow, but for power and profit.

And for every new government program. For every incremental addition to the teetering mansion of big government with its alternately dusty and packed rooms, its hundred pound bills and its hundred ton budgets, for laws and statues that no one remembers but will never be repealed, the people must pay the price. Until the people can no longer pay the price, and then when the people can no longer pay the cost of the government weighing down on their backs, it will cease to be merely their master and become their tyrant. And when the people can no longer be taxed only for the work they do, then they will be taxed just for living on this earth. For the earth no longer belongs to man and the air no longer belongs to those who breathe it. Now they all belong to government alone.

By Daniel Greenfield Saturday, November 28, 2009

Forget taxes on income or consumption, the ultimate in regressive taxation is a tax simply for living. ObamaCare’s mandatory health insurance or fine helps pioneer the notion that people should be taxed just for being alive. In his interview with George Stephanopoulos, Obama called his health care tax a fine. Which would then mean that the United States government is now fining people for living.

Democratic politicians from Obama on down have used the trite metaphor of a driver’s license. But a driver’s license is based on a choice. You can choose to buy a car or not. You can’t however choose to be alive, or rather you can but the only alternative is death. That essentially makes ObamaCare a tax or a fine just for living. Which can’t help but seem like a gateway arch to euthanasia, expressing a value system that sees human life itself as an unwanted nuisance at best and an offense at worst.

The stated rationale that people have to be fined ahead of time for the costs that their illness might impose on the government is not only unconstitutional, but a dangerous slippery slope. If we are going to tax people for their potential illnesses, why not tax parents of newborns for the potential expenses that their children will run up. This notion has already been percolating among some global warming agitators, which means that it will make it to congress sooner or later. Furthermore under the same rationale used for mandatory health insurance, women might be given a choice between using birth control or paying a potential child tax. If you think that’s far-fetched, you haven’t listened to the strident rhetoric of environmentalists pushing Zero Population Growth programs.

That is only one of a thousand possible examples where the slippery slope of fining people for being alive and a potential expense for the government can take us. Once we assume that the government can fine or tax people just for being alive or a potential liability, by the same logic it becomes possible to tax the elderly who have a higher probability of needing medical services. Similarly anyone above the government recommended weight can be taxed or fined based on the potential health problems they might cause. Such an approach would fall into line with the philosophy of Obama Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein’s book, Nudge.

Essentially it would create on the one hand a whole new range of sin taxes targeting anything the government’s social monkeyers disapprove of, and on the other tax people for potential expenses they might incur, fleecing the sheep two ways for the benefit of an ever-expanding government bureaucracy constantly running short of new revenue sources. Essentially the US would turn into the EU with a government boot in everyone’s face, forever.

Democrats often go on about Republicans and regressive taxation, but in fact Democrats routinely push regressive taxation because their core non-minority base is upper middle class to upper class, including the two richest men in America—and because regressive taxation fosters dependency. Regressive taxation squeezes out the middle class in favor of a dependent lower class and an independent upper class, which under a socialist regime consists of people who are either holding down top government positions or non-profit or rent seeking businesses dependent on the government.

Cap and Trade is set to to do just that by not only creating a whopping new tax, but insuring that it filters down through added expenses piled on top of businesses that will hit the poorest the hardest. The entire body of government regulations have hit small businesses the hardest, because they have less resources to cope with them. And when small businesses go out of business, their employees who are usually working class go down with them. The result has hurt the working class and made college the path to the middle and upper class, which naturally puts generation after generations’ minds into the hands of the same left wing academics who helped create the entire situation in the first place.

But Cap and Trade goes beyond the maze of existing regulations to turn taxation itself into a tradeable commodity, imposing a tax to correct a fictional problem and then turning that tax into a commodity in an eerie parallel of the same kind of government tampering that created the sub-prime mortgage calamity. Since taxes inherently take money out of the economy, trading on a diminishing quantity is of course the surest way to a crash. And the consequence of an economic crash in America is that it becomes an opportunity for an even more extensive government takeover of the economy. Each cycle of diminishing returns created by government regulations gives rise to the next wave of government regulations, followed by limited deregulation on behalf of the well connected, followed by another crash.
Carbon Footprint taxes everyone alive for doing as little as breathing

And what the full combination of these measures accomplishes is to tax every single American for just being alive, for going to work and for doing their daily routines. By turning human activity into an offense, the Carbon Footprint taxes everyone alive for doing as little as breathing. The sheer horror of this may be lost on many, but we are essentially approaching an oxygen tax. We have passed the point in which government taxes labor, to the point in which government taxes life itself. And the only escape is death.

The underlying political shift involves the transition from viewing human activity as beneficial to the country and subject only to as much taxation as is necessary for the government to fund its projects , to viewing people and everything they do as a liability subject to punitive taxation. In the Obama Administration, behind all the fluff and the slogans, the worldview that sees humans as a problem for government is now the dominant theme and with that the transition of government from servant to master to tyrant is complete. Government that begins as a servant grasps the opportunity when seeing the incompetence and fearfulness of the people in the face of a crisis to become their master. And when the master grows weary of having to care for the people, he becomes their tyrant.

There is now no shortage of aspiring philosopher-kings in Washington D.C. and Brussels penning their manuscripts and explaining in finely polished language what the people must be made to do for their own good. And as it turns out the people are a horde of ignorant who eat too much, insist on owning their own cars and clinging to the things that the kings of the bureaucracy have decided they should no longer cling to. As the nobility of old once looked down on peasants, our new lords and masters of the filing cabinet and the license to breathe look down on the people of a dozen once free republics and hammer out the details of their final enslavement under such grand words, as multilateralism, environmental responsibility and a new international age of cooperation. The words may change, the details may seem petty but the grand conclusion is the same as for that of all tyrannies, the rise of strong central governing bodies no longer subject to the will of the people.

Today the dogma of environmental responsibility is being exploited for power and profit by people who could care less about how many redwoods are chopped down to create new additions for their mansions, just as their thoroughly racist predecessors jumped on the civil rights bandwagon in the name of federalism. It’s not the issue, but what exploiting that issue can do for their own power and profit. And so now people who fly in specialists when they catch a cold are suddenly determined to pass national health care, even though they could care less if everyone between Iowa and Nevada died tomorrow, but for power and profit.

And for every new government program. For every incremental addition to the teetering mansion of big government with its alternately dusty and packed rooms, its hundred pound bills and its hundred ton budgets, for laws and statues that no one remembers but will never be repealed, the people must pay the price. Until the people can no longer pay the price, and then when the people can no longer pay the cost of the government weighing down on their backs, it will cease to be merely their master and become their tyrant. And when the people can no longer be taxed only for the work they do, then they will be taxed just for living on this earth. For the earth no longer belongs to man and the air no longer belongs to those who breathe it. Now they all belong to government alone.
By Daniel Greenfield Saturday, November 28, 2009

imageForget taxes on income or consumption, the ultimate in regressive taxation is a tax simply for living. ObamaCare’s mandatory health insurance or fine helps pioneer the notion that people should be taxed just for being alive. In his interview with George Stephanopoulos, Obama called his health care tax a fine. Which would then mean that the United States government is now fining people for living.

Democratic politicians from Obama on down have used the trite metaphor of a driver’s license. But a driver’s license is based on a choice. You can choose to buy a car or not. You can’t however choose to be alive, or rather you can but the only alternative is death. That essentially makes ObamaCare a tax or a fine just for living. Which can’t help but seem like a gateway arch to euthanasia, expressing a value system that sees human life itself as an unwanted nuisance at best and an offense at worst.

The stated rationale that people have to be fined ahead of time for the costs that their illness might impose on the government is not only unconstitutional, but a dangerous slippery slope. If we are going to tax people for their potential illnesses, why not tax parents of newborns for the potential expenses that their children will run up. This notion has already been percolating among some global warming agitators, which means that it will make it to congress sooner or later. Furthermore under the same rationale used for mandatory health insurance, women might be given a choice between using birth control or paying a potential child tax. If you think that’s far-fetched, you haven’t listened to the strident rhetoric of environmentalists pushing Zero Population Growth programs.

That is only one of a thousand possible examples where the slippery slope of fining people for being alive and a potential expense for the government can take us. Once we assume that the government can fine or tax people just for being alive or a potential liability, by the same logic it becomes possible to tax the elderly who have a higher probability of needing medical services. Similarly anyone above the government recommended weight can be taxed or fined based on the potential health problems they might cause. Such an approach would fall into line with the philosophy of Obama Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein’s book, Nudge.

Essentially it would create on the one hand a whole new range of sin taxes targeting anything the government’s social monkeyers disapprove of, and on the other tax people for potential expenses they might incur, fleecing the sheep two ways for the benefit of an ever-expanding government bureaucracy constantly running short of new revenue sources. Essentially the US would turn into the EU with a government boot in everyone’s face, forever.

Democrats often go on about Republicans and regressive taxation, but in fact Democrats routinely push regressive taxation because their core non-minority base is upper middle class to upper class, including the two richest men in America—and because regressive taxation fosters dependency. Regressive taxation squeezes out the middle class in favor of a dependent lower class and an independent upper class, which under a socialist regime consists of people who are either holding down top government positions or non-profit or rent seeking businesses dependent on the government.

Cap and Trade is set to to do just that by not only creating a whopping new tax, but insuring that it filters down through added expenses piled on top of businesses that will hit the poorest the hardest. The entire body of government regulations have hit small businesses the hardest, because they have less resources to cope with them. And when small businesses go out of business, their employees who are usually working class go down with them. The result has hurt the working class and made college the path to the middle and upper class, which naturally puts generation after generations’ minds into the hands of the same left wing academics who helped create the entire situation in the first place.

But Cap and Trade goes beyond the maze of existing regulations to turn taxation itself into a tradeable commodity, imposing a tax to correct a fictional problem and then turning that tax into a commodity in an eerie parallel of the same kind of government tampering that created the sub-prime mortgage calamity. Since taxes inherently take money out of the economy, trading on a diminishing quantity is of course the surest way to a crash. And the consequence of an economic crash in America is that it becomes an opportunity for an even more extensive government takeover of the economy. Each cycle of diminishing returns created by government regulations gives rise to the next wave of government regulations, followed by limited deregulation on behalf of the well connected, followed by another crash.
Carbon Footprint taxes everyone alive for doing as little as breathing

And what the full combination of these measures accomplishes is to tax every single American for just being alive, for going to work and for doing their daily routines. By turning human activity into an offense, the Carbon Footprint taxes everyone alive for doing as little as breathing. The sheer horror of this may be lost on many, but we are essentially approaching an oxygen tax. We have passed the point in which government taxes labor, to the point in which government taxes life itself. And the only escape is death.

The underlying political shift involves the transition from viewing human activity as beneficial to the country and subject only to as much taxation as is necessary for the government to fund its projects , to viewing people and everything they do as a liability subject to punitive taxation. In the Obama Administration, behind all the fluff and the slogans, the worldview that sees humans as a problem for government is now the dominant theme and with that the transition of government from servant to master to tyrant is complete. Government that begins as a servant grasps the opportunity when seeing the incompetence and fearfulness of the people in the face of a crisis to become their master. And when the master grows weary of having to care for the people, he becomes their tyrant.

There is now no shortage of aspiring philosopher-kings in Washington D.C. and Brussels penning their manuscripts and explaining in finely polished language what the people must be made to do for their own good. And as it turns out the people are a horde of ignorant who eat too much, insist on owning their own cars and clinging to the things that the kings of the bureaucracy have decided they should no longer cling to. As the nobility of old once looked down on peasants, our new lords and masters of the filing cabinet and the license to breathe look down on the people of a dozen once free republics and hammer out the details of their final enslavement under such grand words, as multilateralism, environmental responsibility and a new international age of cooperation. The words may change, the details may seem petty but the grand conclusion is the same as for that of all tyrannies, the rise of strong central governing bodies no longer subject to the will of the people.

Today the dogma of environmental responsibility is being exploited for power and profit by people who could care less about how many redwoods are chopped down to create new additions for their mansions, just as their thoroughly racist predecessors jumped on the civil rights bandwagon in the name of federalism. It’s not the issue, but what exploiting that issue can do for their own power and profit. And so now people who fly in specialists when they catch a cold are suddenly determined to pass national health care, even though they could care less if everyone between Iowa and Nevada died tomorrow, but for power and profit.

And for every new government program. For every incremental addition to the teetering mansion of big government with its alternately dusty and packed rooms, its hundred pound bills and its hundred ton budgets, for laws and statues that no one remembers but will never be repealed, the people must pay the price. Until the people can no longer pay the price, and then when the people can no longer pay the cost of the government weighing down on their backs, it will cease to be merely their master and become their tyrant. And when the people can no longer be taxed only for the work they do, then they will be taxed just for living on this earth. For the earth no longer belongs to man and the air no longer belongs to those who breathe it. Now they all belong to government alone.

OBAMA IS A HORRIBLE GOLFER...CHECK IT OUT...ALMOST AS HORRIBLE AS HE IS OUR PRETEND PRESIDENT...

HI Dept. of Health admits Obama’s COLB is faked

From Post & Email

November 28, 2009 by John Charlton
ADMISSIONS MADE IN EMAIL TO CONCERNED CITIZEN

by John Charlton

(Nov. 28, 2009) — The final nail has been driven into the coffin of Obama’s online COLB (Certification of Live Birth), which was released in 2008 by his campaign to bolster his claims of being born in the United States of America, and which has been used as the reason, motive, or simply the excuse by members of Congress and politicians throughout the country, to explain away doubts regarding Obama’s eligibility.

The now infamous COLB alleged that Barack Hussein Obama II was born on Aug. 4, 1961 to Barack Hussein Obama I and Stanley Ann Dunham, in Hawaii.

However, the Department of Health has never corroborated the authenticity of the document. Rather, in an email to the publisher of The Right Side of Life website, Okubo admitted that the Hawaii Department of Health had no documents on file to establish that any such COLB was issued by them in 2007, even though the online COLB bears a 2007 seal.

Todays newest revelation discounts entirely the authenticity of the information on the alleged COLB, which bears the notation “Date filed by Registrar.” It has been speculated for nearly 3 months, by concerned citizens who have examined the rules of other departments of Vital Statistics accross the country that this designation, “filed by” indicates “submitted to, but not yet accepted as verified.”

This interpretation has now received indirect confirmation from the Communications Officer of the Department of Health, Janice Okubo herself, in her email response to Mr. James H. Roberson, which was published today online at 5:58 PM Eastern Time at Free Republic. The email was originally published at the blog of Attorney Leo Donofrio, which is now defunct.

Mr. Roberson sent his email on Oct. 31, 2009:

The revealing email to and from Okubo reads as follows:

Aloha Dr. Fukino and Ms. Okubo – from sunny South Carolina and Old Dixie,

Conducting research, I have examined a significant number of Certifications of Live Births, issued by your Department, for children all born in Honolulu. The children differ, of course, by which year each child was born, and a large range in years is represented in the population of COLBs examined. All COLBs were printed using your laser printer, and thus all demonstrate the same basic layout format, and page spacings of “form-words” fields (i.e., CHILD’s NAME, DATE OF BIRTH, MOTHER’S RACE, etc. all occupy comparable locations on the page).

Aside from the different “distinguishing” information, specific to each child, that was inserted in the fields beneath the respective “form-words”, all COLBs appear identical except,

1.) Different years seemed to have a different style Border – which I assume was intended to inhibit “alterations” ( say a young teenager wants to make a computer template, and then add a couple of years – so they can buy tobacco or alcohol, etc. The young nippers are amazingly adroit with computers these days.), and

2.) On the lower left side of all COLBs, except for 1, the “form-words”: “DATE ACCEPTED BY STATE REGISTRAR” were printed. However, on 1 COLB the “form-words”: “DATE FILED BY REGISTRAR” were printed, instead.

As I’m sure you’ll agree, “Accepted” and “Filed” carry different meanings, or nuances. For example, “Accepted” indicates that all required forms/information were present (and, nothing looked out-of-order) – as specified by Standard Procedures – and thus this connotes the Certificate of Birth was issued with few reservations as to its validity. On the other hand, “Filed” leaves the hint that perhaps the information supplied may be either insufficient, or questionable as to its accuracy. In this latter case, the Certificate of Birth might carry a less than “full confidence” as to its completeness, authenticity, authoritativeness, or trustworthiness.

Likewise, “Registrar” (which could be either a “local”, or Island, Registrar) might perhaps be different from the “State Registrar” ???

I would be most appreciative if you will help me with the following Questions:

1.) Am I reading too much into the different “Words Choices” ? (I don’t want to sound sinister, or cynical.)

2.) Can you tell me under what circumstances would the above different “Words Choices” be required ?

3.) I have reviewed – without success – Hawaii’s Chapter (Title/Section ?) 11 “Rules and Procedures” looking for a definition of when the above “Words Choices” should be imprinted on COLBs. Could you please provide me with a “path” that I could follow to learn about the wording prescribed to be used on these type certificates / documents ?, and finally,

4.) Would you hazard an educated guess (just a general “ball park” figure would do) as to approximately what proportion of COLBs issued carry the “Filed” vs. “Accepted” classifications ? Less than 1%, less than 10% ? Or, do I have a “bad” population of specimens ?

If you are required to be presented with an “official” UIPA request, in order to provide the above information, then please consider this e-mail as such. Thank you in advance for any help that you can give me.

Respectfully yours,

IN RESPONSE, I RECEIVED from Ms Janice Ukubo the following email:

“Aloha Mr. Roberson,

Under the UIPA, the state is not required to answer all questions posed to it. Unfortunately, we are unable to help you at this time.

Please see attached response to your UIPA request.”

Okubo’s refusal to explain what “Filed by” means, can only be interpreted as withholding evidence that would indict the veracity of the online COLB and the credibility of their department in giving the semblance of truth to Obama’s claim to be born in Hawaii, because there is really no reason in the world to obstruct the request of a concerned citizen regarding what terms, which could be used on official Hawaii Vital Records, mean.

Okubo’s response also now makes her liable for criminal charges of conspiracy to use her office under color of the law to defraud the general public. Because in the fulfilment of her official duties she is legally obligated in State Law to explain what terms used on official documents mean, or at least to direct citizens to the published documents which explain these.

But numerous general inquiries for copies of such documents have been refused by the Deparment of Health for nearly 3 months.

TWO MORE COMMIES IN CONGRESS TO KEEP AN EYE ON...

	George	Miller	CA	Richmond	Chairman, House Education and Labor Committee Voting Record	DSA member ResistNet file Ties to Communists Socialists in America Wiretap? Says President Must Engage with Syria Unions Organizing Card Check Miller's Sick Leave Bill Fatally Flawed Miller Needs to Go Servitude
	Barbara	Lee	CA	Oakland	Chairwoman, Congressional Black Caucus Voting Record	Meets with Fidel Castro in Communist Cuba and then Meets Close Associates/Family of Spy Ring (Five Cuban Spies Convicted in US Court of Spying for Cuba in US) Meets with Fidel and Raul Castro and admits meeting in Cuba since 1999. Praises Castro Democrat-Socialist Member’s of Congress in Cuba Muslim Intern Spies = McCarthy Wanted Street Named After Cop Killer DSA member DSA Likes Her Initiative ResistNet file Opposed ACORN Investigation into Child Sex Slavery, Human Trafficking, Tax Evasion, Mortgage Fraud Charges Voted "No" for Christmas Ties to Communists Socialists in America Permanent Progressive Majority Close Friend of Former Communist Green Jobs Czar, Van Jones Communist Connections