Thanks to the lawsuit filed by Philip Berg, Obama now ADMITS (on his "Fight the Smears" website and factcheck.org) that he held dual citizenship with Kenya as a child.  This, in and of itself, may arguably disqualify him under Article II as the whole point of the "Natural Born Citizen" requirement is the avoidance of divided allegiances.  (Which makes his covert and quite possibly illegal activities [Logan Act?] on behalf of Kenya's thugocrat, Odinga, all the more relevant and disturbing.)

Obama and thugocrat Odinga

There is a further complication, however.  His subsequent adoption by Lolo Soetoro and resultant INDONESIAN citizenship is a bigger fly in his ointment.  (I laugh whenever reference is made to "citizen of the WORLD'... Obama truly is a WORLD CITIZEN!)

Indonesia, at the time Obama lived there and was deemed an Indonesian citizen, did not recognize dual citizenship, and neither did the US recognize dual citizenship with Indonesia.  Thus, whether he held dual citizenship with the US and Kenya, whether he was born in the US or Kenya, or even - as some suggest - CANADA, is irrelevant as the ONLY legitimate citizenship he held once his adopted father moved him to Indonesia was Indonesian!  His US Citizenship would be forfeit!

http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/05/breaking-photo-documents-barry-soetoro-indonesian/

Whether and when Barry Soetoro/Barack Obama might have regained US Citizenship thereafter, it would be thru NATURALIZATION and that is SPECIFICALLY and EXPRESSLY ineligible to serve as President of the United States under Title II.  (Could this be why he uses the politically risky name Barack Hussein Obama instead of the more innocuous "Barry Soetoro"?  Perhaps Barry Soetoro is STILL an Indonesian citizen?  Perhaps there are naturalization papers in the name of Barry Soetoro?  I'm just asking...

The judge in the Berg suit has not, to this date, granted Obama's motion to dismiss the case and it continues to move forward.  (If the case has no merit, why hasn't the judge granted the relief Obama filed for??)  Now Obama has a second suit he must contend with.  Both could be easily dispensed with by providing the demanded documentation which would prove he is a "natural born citizen" and thus eligible to serve.  He has not produced these documents and instead seeks to DELAY discovery and production of any documents while he makes motions to dismiss.  The "proof" of eligibility he's offered is a "Certificate of Live Birth" posted on his "Fight the Smears" website, and duplicated on Factcheck.org and the Daily Kos sites!  (Forensic experts have declared it a forgery!) Even if it were a genuine Hawaiian "Birth Certificate" with raised seal (and it's not), it would still not adequately address the Indonesian citizenship issue which Obama has yet to acknowledge!

The text of the new suit appears below.  Note the factual argument in section 5 which is the basis of the case.

(Hey, anyone know a good pro-bono attorney in MO???  I'd love to bring a similar suit that our loony leftist Missouri Secretary of State, Robin Carnahan, would have to respond to!!) 

STEVEN R MARQUIS Plaintiff

vs.

SAMUEL SUMNER REED, ACTING IN THE OFFICE OF WASHINGTON STATE, SECRETARY OF STATE

Defendant

CIVIL ACTION NO___________

1. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ORDER

1.1. Plaintiff Steven R Marquis, [hereinafter “Plaintiff”] hereby offers this memorandum in support of his motion for injunctive relief, to demand performance of constitutional duties related to the Office of Washington State, Secretary of State by Samuel Sumner Reed, a/k/a Sam Reed, [hereinafter Defendant”].

1.2. Plaintiff’s complaint challenges the presidential candidate Mr. Barack Obama’s eligibility to run for the Office of President and demands that the Office of Secretary of State make such determination by acquisition of original documentation or by receipt of verifiable information from another government entity so charged with overseeing the election process such as the Federal Elections Commission.

1.3. Plaintive argues that when a challenge is received by the Washington State, Secretary of State to the qualification for office of a candidate appearing on the Washington State Ballot that the entire burden of proof falls on the Candidate for Office to present such information and documentation to the Washington State, Secretary of State as would be normal and customary to establish ones minimum qualifications for office.

1.4. Plaintiff argues that the Office of Secretary of State has the Constitutional and Statutory authority to make such determinations as part of certifying and executing fair and open elections.

1.5. Plaintiff argues that is it only sufficient to show reasonable cause for complaint to the Secretary of State for his Office to require documentation of the respective candidate relevant to determination of minimum qualification; that lacking explicit statute defining the requisite documentation that the Secretary of State has the intrinsic authority to set those reasonable standards that would establish certain confidence in the people in the electoral process.

1.6. Plaintiff seeks focused and expedited review, to protect the veracity of the electoral process and maintain the people’s confidence in the government.

2. COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

2.1. Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution, states in particular part, "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; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States." .

2.2. Mr. Barack H. Obama is a candidate for United States Office of the President. However, Mr. Obama must meet the qualifications specified for the United States Office of the President, which is, he must be a "natural born" citizen. Mr. Obama has failed to demonstrate that he is a "natural born" citizen. There are other legal challenges before the Federal Courts regarding aspects of lost or dual citizenship. That challenge in an of itself further demonstrates plaintiff’s argument that reasonable doubt exists as to the veracity of the electoral process that would allow such fundamental questions exist at this late hour preceding the election.

2.3. The Washington State office of Secretary of State is responsible for the veracity of the Washington State election process from verifying ahead of time the qualification of the voters, the ballots themselves, the candidates and the final counting and certification of results. That office is intended to be non-biased and to provide the critical sense of fairness and correctness necessary for the people to have faith in the fundamental underpinnings of the democratic basis for our republic.

2.4. There is a reasonable and common expectation by the people that to qualify for the ballot that the individuals so listed meet the minimum qualifications as outlined in the constitutions and that proof of those minimum qualifications has been received by the officials executing the election process. Heretofore, only a signed statement from the candidate attesting to meeting those qualifications was requested and received by the Office of the Secretary of State with no verification demanded. This practice, it should be noted, represents a much lower standard than that demanded of one when requesting even a driver’s license. Since the office of Secretary of state has at its core the mission of certifying and establishing the veracity of the election process, this complaint seeks a directive to the Washington State Office of Secretary of State to receive appropriate verifiable documentation and certify any individual’s qualification for Office whose basic credentials for that Office have been challenged by formal request to the Office of Secretary of State from a citizen of Washington State.

2.5. In the case of individuals seeking the Office of President of the United States, the US constitution prescribes a system of electors where citizens of the respective state have a state controlled election wherein electors representing the interest of the named individual on the state ballot are so elected to represent the interests of the respective state at the electoral college. Thus, we do not have a federal ballot controlled by the federal government; we have a Washington State ballot where we elect electors who in turn represent the named individual on the ballot. That is one more reason that the Washington Secretary of State has prevue over the certification of not just the counts of the ballots so cast, but also the veracity of the contents of the ballot.

2.6. This complaint of failure to carry out a key task in our election system could be satisfied should verification of candidate qualifications be received from original or certified documents from primary sources or from a verifiable report generated from government agencies such as the Federal Elections Commission. It is the Washington State, Secretary of State’s duty to certify the veracity of documents or reports so received.

2.7. To avert likely civil unrest and a constitutional crisis which would certainly accrue after the election through laborious legal challenges and impeachment process, this complaint seeks to resolve such complaints prior to the election. It was incumbent on the candidates to present such documentation, but to date Mr. Obama has failed to do so.

2.8. This complaint seeks specifically to verify through the office of the Washington Secretary of State that Mr. Obama is a "natural born" citizen.

2.9. At this point, Mr. Obama has not allowed independent or official access to his birth records and supporting hospital records. Mr. Obama’s citizenship status has and is being challenged in the federal courts which challenge will cast doubt on the veracity of the electoral system regardless of outcome if not resolved prior to the election. The Washington State, Secretary of State Office is specifically charged with certifying and guaranteeing the veracity of official documents and overseeing the elections to wit the people’s confidence in the fundamental aspect of democracy is maintained. To date, in this regard, Secretary of State Sam Red has not carried out that fundamental duty.

2.10. The Federal Elections Commission FEC is generally tasked with providing oversight and verifications of federal candidates. To date the FEC has not produced either certification or verifiable documentation regarding the candidates basic qualifications for office. Lacking that certification from the FEC, this complaint request the Washington State - Secretary of State Sam Reed to formally request of Hawaii State Health Department officials to produce forthwith a certified copy of his “Vault” [original long version] Birth Certificate.

2.11. This complaint requests that Washington State - Secretary of State Sam Reed formally requests primary backup materials if they exist of hospital records that would lend veracity to a Hawaii live birth declaration. A court order of discovery is requested to assist that investigation directed to the respective hospital if so identified on a live birth certificate.

2.12. Should Mr. Obama be discovered, whether by virtue of malfeasance, or negligence, or ignorance on his part to not have a valid certified US birth certificate or to otherwise due to have been revealed by such examination of original records to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and thereby his nomination be declared void by the appropriate authorities acting under the law, Plaintiff as well as other Americans will suffer irreparable harm including but not limited to:

2.12.1. Functional, or actual, disenfranchisement of large numbers of citizens, being members of the Democratic Party, who would have been deprived of the ability to choose a qualified nominee of their liking;

2.12.2. Irreparable harm to the structure and integrity of the Democratic Party and the Democratic National Committee. In turn, this too would lead to disenfranchisement.

2.12.3. If the candidate Mr. Obama were to secure the election and later be discovered ineligible, the resulting constitutional and national security crisis that would ensue would generate a severe and genuine likelihood of civil disturbance by virtue of reaction to said disenfranchisement and upset.

2.13. It was well expected that after all the public concern that has been raised over the preceding months now that Mr. Obama would have released for public or official scrutiny the relevant documentation to back up his claim of qualification as a “natural born citizen”. His reaction to public concern and his recent actions in Federal District Court 9/24/2008 demonstrate that Mr. Obama has no intentions of releasing said documentation for review or cannot because they do not exist. The late hour of this request was dictated by the delaying tactics of the candidate Mr. Obama, and the non-responsiveness to Plaintiff’s repeated request to the Office Washington State - Secretary of State Sam Reed.

3. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3.1. As we do not have federal ballot per se, Washington State, through the office of the Washington State, Secretary of State creates its own ballot and supervises the same, electing electors to represent our choice for the Office of President. This case arises under the Washington Constitution RCW 42.04.020 and Section 15, Article III, Section 17 of the Washington State Constitution and Chapter 43.07 RCW. and the laws of the United States and presents a state question within this Court's jurisdiction.

4. PARTIES

4.1. Plaintiff, Steven Russel Marquis [hereinafter "Plaintiff'], is an adult individual with a home address of 34077 SE 56th St Fall City, WA 98024. Citizen USA.

4.2. Defendant, Samuel Sumner Reed, a/k/a Sam Reed is an adult individual with an office address of PO Box 40220 Olympia, WA 98504-0220. Washington State, Secretary of State.

5. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS THAT DEMOSTRATE THE NEED TO PROOF THE CANDIDATE’S MINIMUM CONSTITUTIONAL QUALIFICATION.

5.1. These allegations and statements are not intended to be proof of the status of Mr. Obama’s citizenship or lack thereof. That will be determined in the venue of the US District court. The listing of the allegations detailed below are included to demonstrate the reasonable assertion of the need for the Washington State, Secretary of State to reestablish public confidence in the veracity of the electoral process and the obvious need for precertification as to a candidate’s meeting the minimum constitutional requirements.

5.2. By the U.S. Constitution, in order to run for office of the President, you must be a "natural born citizen" and you may not hold dual citizenship or multiple citizenships with foreign countries. U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1.

5.3. There are questions as to where Obama was actually born; in the United States or abroad but subsequently registered in Hawaii. There are further questions regarding Obama's United States citizenship, if he ever held such, being expatriated and his failure to regain his citizenship by taking the oath of allegiance once he turned eighteen (18) years of age. There are additional questions regarding Obama's multi-citizenships with foreign countries, which he may still maintain. To date, Obama has refused to prove he is qualified under the U.S. Constitution and his eligibility to run as President of the United States despite requests and recent opportunities to do so in Federal Court.

5.4. The "certificate" that Mr. Obama has posted on his official WEB site is a "Certification of Live Birth," and not a “Birth Certificate” from Hawaii. There is no indication on even this certificate as to specifically where the birth took place.

5.5. Researchers have claimed to have been unable to locate any birthing records in island hospitals for Barak Obama’s mother. Mr. Obama has offered none for review.

5.6. Three forensic document experts have published extensive reports claiming that there is evidence of tampering on even the Obama WEB site displayed certificate.

5.7. Numerous Freedom of Information Requests have been sent to Officials in Hawaii with no response from the public officials nor has Mr. Obama granted access for release of the information lending to the concern over the veracity of the attestation on the candidate’s application for candidacy for the office of President of the United States.

5.8. The facts are undisputed by Obama that his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was a U.S. citizen however, his father, Barack Obama, Sr., was a citizen of Kenya. Obama's parents, according to divorce records, were married on or about February 2, 1961.

5.9. Obama claims he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961; however, has never given the name of the hospital he was born in; whereas there are reports that Obama's grandmother on his father's side, half brother and half sister claim Mr. Barack H. Obama was born in Kenya. Reports further reflect that Mr. Obama's mother went to Kenya during her pregnancy. Wayne Madsen, Journalist with Online Journal as a contributing writer and published an article on June 9, 2008 stating that a research team went to Mombassa, Kenya, and located a Certificate Registering the birth of Barack Obama, Jr. at a Kenya Maternity Hospital, to his father, a Kenyan citizen and his mother, a U.S. citizen. There are claims of records of a "registry of birth" for Obama, on or about August 8, 1961 in the public records office in Hawaii, but these have not been released for scrutiny. It is alleged in the Federal trial and is a matter of much general speculation that Mr. Obama’s mother was prevented from boarding a flight from Kenya to Hawaii at her late stage of pregnancy, which apparently was a normal restriction to avoid births during a flight. It is likely that Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) gave birth to Obama in Kenya, after which she flew to Hawaii and registered Obama's birth.

5.10. Regarding the alleged birth of Barack Hussein Obama in Honolulu, Hawaii, it is variously circulated that Obama's birth is reported as occurring at two (2) separate hospitals, Kapiolani Hospital and Queens Hospital. Obama has provided no proof of birth from of either of these or any other US based facility. He has made no effort to address these public concerns.

5.11. There are no published or known hospital birthing records for Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama), Obama's mother. There are only claims of records of a "registry of birth" for Obama, on or about August 8, 1961 in the public records office in Hawaii.

5.12. There is even a Canadian Birth Certificate posted on the Internet in the name of Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.; however, the date of birth shows to be August 23, 1961

5.13. At the time of Obama's birth in 1961, Kenya was a British Colony. Subsequently, under the Independence Constitution of Kenya, Mr. Barack H. Obama became a Kenyan citizen on December 12, 1963. There are no indications or reports that Mr. Obama ever renounced that dual citizenship conferred either by nature of birth or by virtue of his father’s Kenyan citizenship. On Mr. Obama’s Senate web site, Mr. Obama acknowledges his father holds Kenyan nationality but avoids addressing that that he (Mr. Obama) also held/holds Kenyan nationality.

5.14. If in fact Obama was born in Kenya, the laws on the books in the United States at the time of his birth stated if a child is born abroad and one parent was a U.S. Citizen, which would have been his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama's mother would have had to live ten (10) years in the United States, five (5) of which were after the age of fourteen (14). At the time of Obama's birth, his mother was only eighteen (18) and therefore did not meet the residency requirements under the law to give her son (Obama) U.S. Citizenship much less the status of “natural born.” The laws in effect at the time of Obama's birth prevented U.S. Citizenship at birth of children born abroad to a U.S. Citizen parent and a non-citizen parent, if the citizen parent was under the age of nineteen (19) at the time of the birth of the child. Obama's mother did not qualify under the law on the books to register Obama as a "natural born" citizen. Section 301(a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27,1952,66 Stat. 163, 235, 8 U.S.c. §1401(b), Matter of S-F-and G-, 2 I & N Dec. 182 (B.I.A.) approved (Att'y Gen. 1944). Obama would have only been Naturalized and a Naturalized citizen is not qualified nor eligible to run for Office of the President. U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section Clause 4.

5.15. Furthermore, if Obama had been born in Kenya, his birth father Barack Obama, Sr. was a citizen of Kenya; therefore, Obama would have automatically become a citizen of Kenya.

5.16. The Nationality Act of 1940 provided for the loss of citizenship when the person became naturalized upon the naturalization of his or her parent having custody of such person. Obama's mother expatriated her U.S. Citizenship when she married Lolo Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia and relocated herself and her son (Obama) to Indonesia.

5.17. Obama was enrolled by his parents in a public school, Fransiskus Assisi School in Jakarta, Indonesia. Plaintiff has available copies of the school registration where it clearly states Obama's name as Barry Soetoro and lists his citizenship as Indonesian, Obama's father is listed as Lolo Soetoro, Obama's date of birth and place of birth are listed as August 4,1961 in Honolulu and Obama's Religion is listed as Islam. This document was verified by television show Inside Edition, whose reporter, Matt Meagher took the actual footage of the school record.

5.18. In or about 1971, Obama's mother sent Obama back to Hawaii. Obama was ten (10) years of age upon his return to Hawaii.

5.19. Sometime after the return of Obama to Hawaii, Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham returned to Hawaii and divorced her husband, Lolo Soetoro. At the time of divorce, Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham could have regained her U.S. citizenship. In order to regain her citizenship, Obama's mother would have had to take the oath of allegiance required. Such oath of allegiance may be taken abroad before a diplomatic or consular of the United States, or in the United States before the Attorney General or the judge or clerk of a court. Such Oath of Allegiance would have been entered in the records of the appropriate embassy, legation, consulate, court or the Attorney General and upon demand, a certified copy of the proceedings, including a copy of the oath administered, under the seal of the embassy, legation, consulate, court or the Attorney General shall be delivered. The certified copy shall be evidence of the facts stated therein before any court of record or judicial tribunal and in any department or agency of the Government of the United States. 8U.S.c.§1435.

5.20. Obama's mother failed to take the oath in order to regain her U.S. Citizenship. Therefore, Obama would not have been able to regain his U.S. Citizenship until he turned eighteen (18) years and then only after he took the Oath of Allegiance before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States, or in the U.S. before the Attorney General or the judge or clerk of court. Since the Oath of Allegiance would have been entered in the records of the appropriate embassy, legation, consulate, court or the Attorney General, then Obama should be able to produce in court a certified copy of the proceedings, including a copy of the oath administered. No such copy has been to date produced for public examination.

5.21. After many attempts of the public to obtain Obama's Certificate of Birth, a Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) was placed on Obama's campaign website. However, as posted all over the internet, three (3) independent Document Forensic Experts performed extensive forensic testing on the Certificate of Live Birth as posted on Obama's campaign website. The Forensic Expert findings were that the posted Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) was a forgery. It was further discovered that the posted COLB had evidence of having been created from an altered/forged from a COLB issued to Maya Kasandra Soetoro, born in 1970. Maya Kasandra Soetoro is Obama's half sister who was born in Indonesia and her birth was later registered in Hawaii. The altered and allegedly forged COLB is still on Obama's website located at http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/birthcert

5.22. Even if Obama had and subsequently maintained his United States Citizenship, which citizenship he has failed before District Court to demonstrate, he may still carry citizenships in Kenya and/or Indonesia. These facts call into question what the constitution attempted to address regarding potently divided loyalties with foreign countries. Thus, Mr. Obama carries multiple citizenships and would be ineligible to run for President of the United States. United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1.

6. Failure to grant injunctive relief will realize these detriments:

6.1. Failing to officially and publically vet the status of the citizenship claims of Mr. Obama will cast a pall of doubt on the election process and taint the election results themselves.

6.2. Failure to grant injunctive relief would allow a potentially corrupted, fraudulent nomination and election process to continue.

6.3. Failure to grant injunctive relief demanding the Washington State, Secretary of State certify the minimum qualifications of challenged candidates not only allows, but promotes an overwhelming degree of disrespect and creates such a lack of confidence in voters of the primary and electoral process itself, so that it would cement a prevailing belief that no potential candidate has to obey the laws of this country, respect our election process, follow the Constitution, or even suffer any consequence for lying and defrauding voters to get onto the ballot when they have no chance of serving if they fraudulently manage to get elected.

6.4. As stated above, Plaintiff as well as all American citizens will suffer irreparable harm if injunctive relief is not granted. Plaintiff does not have any other way of redress regarding these very significant and important issues.

6.5. Despite many complaints, the FEC has failed Plaintiff and the American citizens by their failure to date to perform due diligence and inquire into Mr. Obama's eligibility to run for Office of the President. Lacking such certification, it is incumbent on the Washington State, Secretary of State to certify or decertify as to the eligibility for office before the election based on the availability of clear documentation demonstrating that minimum qualifications for the respective office has been met by candidates.

7. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Court:

7.1. Grant injunctive relief demanding that Washington State, Secretary of State Sam Reed immediately acquire primary documents or certified copies from primary sources such as Health Department and hospital records or verifiable reports regarding same from the FEC.

7.2. Plaintiff requests Washington State, Secretary of State Sam Reed to immediately demand such verifiable report from the FEC or demand a certified copy of Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth and subpoena as needed for the release hospital records if so claimed on said Live Birth Certificate to further prove he was born in Hawaii as Mr. Obama claims.

7.3. Direct Washington State, Secretary of State Sam Reed to certify or decertify the challenged candidates prior to the election based on the availability of clear documentation.

7.4. Plaintiff requests the Washington State, Secretary of State to immediately demand a certified copy of Obama’s Oath of Allegiance proving he regained his United States Citizenship.

7.5. If Secretary Sam Reed is unable to document a certified record of Obama’s oath of allegiance and birth and hospital records, Secretary of State Sam Reed must decertify Mr. Obama as a valid candidate for the office of President of the United States Office of the President under the United States Constitution, Article II, Section I;

7.6. Award Plaintiff such costs and fees applicable by law; and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully Submitted,

Steven R Marquis

34077 SE 56th St Fall City, WA 98024

               425-698-7084        

VERIFICATION

I, STEVEN R MARQUIS, hereby state that I am the Plaintiff in this action and verify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint for Injunctive Relief are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties law relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.  

Copyright © 2008 by Doug Edelman

At a 1969 "War Council" in Flint, Michigan, Dohrn gave her most memorable and notorious speech to her followers. Holding her fingers in what became the Weatherman "fork salute," she said of the bloody murders recently committed by the Manson Family in which the pregnant actress Sharon Tate and a Folgers Coffee heiress and several other inhabitants of a Benedict Canyon mansion were brutally stabbed to death: "Dig it! First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into the victim's stomach! Wild!" The "War Council" ended with a formal declaration of war against "AmeriKKKa," always spelled with three K's to signify the United States' allegedly ineradicable white racism.

 

Copyright © 2008 by Doug Edelman
 
Doug Edelman is a conservative political commentator and has been a contributing editor for The Conservative Voice.  His work is also seen on News By Us, The American Daily, The Post Chronicle, New Media Journal, Capitol Hill Coffee House etc. For the support of his family, however, he is also an IT Consultant/Contractor and owner of a Computer Services Business.  He has taught PC Maintenance & Repair and Networking at his local Community College, and maintains a blog at http://edeldoug.blogs.com/.

Welcome to the United Socialist States of Amerika!!

The Wall Street Bailout as currently proposed is going to cost taxpayers $700 Billion. A $700 BILLION Bailout??? Half the Federal Annual Budget??

Let's see... wasn't it just 4 years ago that $87 Billion could run a WAR for a YEAR? And Congress balked at that figure ("I voted FOR the $87 Billion before I voted against it..."). What have we spent IN TOTAL on Iraq? I don't think we've gotten close to $700 Billion yet, and now they want to spend that amount on bailing out a bunch of misbehaving children on Wall Street??

I thought investors understood that they're putting their money at RISK, and that RISK was part and parcel of the opportunity for high returns! Why is it now the responsibility of the average taxpayer to bail out those who managed their money with less responsibility than a drunken sailor? (With apologies to our sober and responsible men and women at sea!)

Understand this: It was not DEREGULATION that caused this meltdown of the markets. It was Democrat Do-Gooding REGULATIONS that caused it!

When congressional pressure was brought to bear on the Mortgage Industry to put more “disadvantaged” people into houses, it became necessary to reduce the creditworthiness standards required to qualify for the loans – as these people could not qualify under reasonable risk assessments for conventional lending at the time. So money became cheaper, and the “sub-prime” mortgage market was created with relaxed creditworthiness requirements. Teaser rates were offered to get people INTO houses they couldn’t afford. Adjustable rate mortgages were originated, making money for brokers – and then sold off to bigger players like Countrywide. With Fannie and Freddie saying “Go, Go, GO” while relying on government backing. This house of cards was BUILT by the Democrats trying to put unqualified people into houses. The Democrats could not abide the reality that SOME PEOPLE CANNOT AFFORD HOUSES! To them, the right to homeownership meant more than the right to purchase what you can AFFORD to buy. For these utopian dreamers, the right to home ownership was akin to the right to an attorney… “If you so desire and cannot afford, one will be provided for you…”

It is a fascinating exercise to lay Obama next to McCain on the issue of the collapse of Fannie/Freddie...

From Barack Obama:

We're told that the current financial crisis and the collapse/bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are the result of "Bush/McCain Policies."

It seems like all he has to offer is to paint McCain as Bush 44... and exploit Bush Derangement Syndrome!

(Isn’t it interesting to note that behind Sen Dodd - the chairman of the powerful banking committee - Barack Obama received more money from Fannie/Freddie than any other lawmaker of the over 300 who received contributions between 1989 and 2008... and Obama was only in the Senate for 3 of those years!)

On the other hand; John McCain, who has never taken an earmark and has campaigned actively against them, sought to reign in the abuses of Fanny/Freddie in 2005 by co-sponsoring the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 1 90 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190 - which was shot down by Democrat resistance!

Note his statement from the Congressional Record, quoted below, in support of the Bill. Seems he had a crystal ball!! (This from a guy who stated self-effacingly that he doesn't understand the economy as well as he'd like! If only more people understood it as well as he does!)

Statement by John McCain (R-AZ) May 25, 2006

Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 1 90 <http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190> , to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

Think about this for a moment. Suppose you are a family earning $100,000 a year. You are $400,000 in debt including your mortgage. You live paycheck to paycheck, meeting current expenses and making payments on your debt – and putting money into savings or investments is a nice goal, but hardly a reality. You have a wild and irresponsible child who has run himself into $50,000 debt with drunken gambling. You then take a loan to hand him a $50,000 check to bail him out.

Is that SANE?? Yet that’s exactly what we, as taxpayers, are about to do if the proposed bailout goes through!

Our Manufacturing Industry has already been taxed and regulated into moving off-shore. Maxine Waters revealed that she wants to take over the Oil Industry. Hillary wants to take over the Health Care Industry. And now the Financial Industry is in the process of being taken over. Socialism IS conquering us!

Paulson and Bernake are about to END the USA as we knew it. Good bye, America... you've had a nice run.

Property values in New Zealand are now going to climb thru the roof!

Copyright © 2008 by Doug Edelman

Doug Edelman is a conservative political commentator and a contributing editor for The Conservative Voice.  His work is also seen on News By Us, The American Daily, The Post Chronicle, New Media Journal, Capitol Hill Coffee House etc. For the support of his family, however, he is also an IT Consultant/Contractor and owner of a Computer Services Business.  He has taught PC Maintenance & Repair and Networking at his local Community College, and maintains a blog at http://edeldoug.blogs.com/. 

Unlike Illinois, there is no single central urban location in Missouri, and the state is much more balanced between urban and rural, said Overby. Compared with other states, Missouri is average in income, education and age. For these reasons, Missouri has become a good indicator of the nation’s political attitudes and the presidential candidates will not ignore this, said Overby.

The so-called “McCarthy Era” is commonly pictured (and ridiculed) as a bunch of paranoid alarmists running around believing there was a Communist under every rock.

Sadly, they were right, and those Reds have crawled out from under their rocks and taken their seats in the halls of congress – under the auspices of the Democratic Party!

The cat was never more unceremoniously let out of the bag than with Maxine Waters’ recent pronouncement of her intention to SOCIALIZE… er.. ahh… TAKE OVER the oil industry!

Then, in response to the President’s call to open new areas to oil drilling, Reps Hinchey, Emanuel, Markey and others have all started making noises about government control of the industry. Hinchey stated, “We should own the refineries. Then we can control how much gets out into the market.”

Of course by “We” he meant Government. Not the American People. After all, the American People ALREADY own the refineries! The oil companies are PUBLICLY HELD companies. SHAREHOLDERS (the American People) DO own them. What Hinchey wants is an expansion of Government power by a TAKEOVER of the energy industry – just like Hillary wanted a Government takeover of the healthcare industry.

The Democrats are opposing “Drill Here, Drill Now”. Why?

Well, firstly they are beholden to the environmental lobby, which opposes any and all expansion of energy production even though it can be done in an environmentally responsible way. 

More insidiously, the Democrats DO NOT want solutions! They are empowered by crises and by dependency. DOING anything that actually moves us toward SOLVING a problem weakens government… which is against their genetic makeup. Doing so during a presidential election campaign season is completely out of the question! So instead, they play wet blanket for any proposal which might actually address the problem.

The latest mantra is to oppose opening new areas for exploration is to state that the oil companies have millions of acres leased already that are not being exploited.

Of course, much of the allotted property is not being exploited because it turned up dry. Also, some WOULD be producing if it were not for environmentalist challenges to drilling in areas already leased! They’ve been keeping the oil companies tied up in court battles instead of out drilling.

Interestingly, there ARE producing offshore drilling rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. Hurricane Katrina blew some off station and ONTO SHORE. (Note to environmentalists: How much oil was spilled? NONE! Where was the environmental disaster that offshore drilling is supposed to cause?) It has taken time to get those rigs back online. Do those count in the Dems estimation of leased areas not producing?

I would call upon the oil companies to assemble and release facts and figures on the leased areas to show exactly what is being done and where. The public needs factual information to cut thru the obfuscations.

There are proven reserves, more easily exploited, that have never been opened to drilling. WHY would we NOT go get them? NO OTHER NATION on the face of the earth restricts its own ability to exploit their own natural energy resources!

Yes, we should pursue alternative energy… but while those technologies are developing the fact remains that the engine that is the United States runs on gasoline and is lubricated with oil. Why would we continue our dependency on unfriendly foreign sources of oil when we can drill for our own. Why would we subject the planet to the environmental risks and impacts of SHIPPING billions of barrels of oil across the ocean on tanker ships, when we can PIPELINE it right to new refineries? Why won’t Democrats ALLOW us to reduce our dependency at a time when our economy is TANKING because of it?

Because it serves their political ends to allow us to suffer. 

Copyright © 2008 by Doug Edelman

Copyright © 2008 by Doug Edelman
 
Doug Edelman is a conservative political commentator and a contributing editor for The Conservative Voice.  His work is also seen on News By Us, The American Daily, The Post Chronicle, New Media Journal, Capitol Hill Coffee House etc. For the support of his family, however, he is also an IT Consultant/Contractor and owner of a Computer Services Business.  He has taught PC Maintenance & Repair and Networking at his local Community College, and maintains a blog at http://edeldoug.blogs.com/.

I never thought I’d ever utter or write these words, but “Bravo, Hillary Clinton!” 

Senator Clinton’s debate performance in Philadelphia was her best piece of work of the campaign. She nicely sliced and diced Obama and served him up with a side of rice! So many clips can be culled from the debate for use as a McCain campaign ad against Senator Obama, that the RNC owes Hillary a consulting fee!

(For that matter, she also let a few lines pass her lips which could be used by McCain if, by some turn of events, Senator Clinton winds up with the Democratic nomination! A double gift. Her reference to her own “baggage” and her “embarrassment” over the sniper snafu are gems that also can pepper McCain campaign ads. But I digress!)

Hillary’s greatest contribution from this debate, to my mind, was her correctly redirecting the emphasis of the Wright controversy AWAY from the inflammatory statements of Wright, and onto Obama’s underlying core beliefs and philosophies! This has long been my frustration with the discussion in the conservative press concerning Pastor Wright. By focusing on the outrageous statements themselves, the forest is lost for the incessant examination of the trees!

As we should have learned from the Clinton presidency, character DOES matter!

While there are those who defend Obama, stating that Obama should not be tainted with “guilt by association”, when you are running for the highest office in the most powerful nation in the free world, you must be prepared to endure and survive scrutiny under the heading, “You are known by the company you keep.” And the theme song for Senator Obama could well be “Bad Company”!

Regardless of the actual statements made by Rev Wright – one need only understand that the church is founded upon the Black Liberation Theology of James Cone, and holds as foundational tenets the divisive, racist, and Marxist doctrines of that movement!

In any church, one may occasionally find statements made by the pastor with which they may not agree. It would not raise an eyebrow to choose to overlook these statement and maintain membership in that church, if they find the preponderance of the teaching from the pulpit to be otherwise consistent with their core beliefs and the church’s statement of faith.

If, however, the statement of faith and core beliefs of the church are inconsistent with an individual’s core beliefs and world view… one would rightly expect that individual to seek another church! And conversely, it would not be unreasonable for one to question the credibility of one who remains in a church for 20 years, cites the pastor as “mentor” and “advisor” and who makes the bulk of his “charitable contributions” to that church, if he claims that his core beliefs are at odds with the stated and published core philosophy and foundational tenets of that church!  If his core beliefs conflict with the foundation on which the church stands, why would he allow his kids to be baptized into it? Why would he refuse to “disown” the pastor in the face of outrageous statements which are CONSISTENT with the church’s foundational teachings?  It is simply irrational! 

In defense of Pastor Wright, the argument is made; “But we must consider the ‘good work’ the church has done.” Poppycock!! The same argument is used to defend Farrakhan, Hamas in Gaza, etc. Farrakhan’s support of black families and encouragement to succeed are used to defend his racist and antisemetic statements. Hamas’s “humanitarian” aid to the Palestinians of Gaza are used to defend their launching rockets into Israel. Even Hitler was praised for his improvement of the infrastructure in Germany! He made the trains run on time! (Never mind that they were making regularly scheduled stops at death camps!)

Barack Obama entered the race for the nomination having flown under the radar for most of his career in politics. He cast many “PRESENT” votes on issues of significance rather than taking a stand one way or another, which he might later have to explain or be held to account for. His campaign touted the bumper sticker slogan of “change”, appealing to the dissatisfaction with the status-quo… but offering little in the way of a clear outline of the “change” he expected to usher in. Obama was a charismatic character, a man of color, and he was a gifted orator. Most importantly, he presented as a blank page – with no “baggage” or “history” to DISlike. Like a movie screen, he simply allowed others to project their hopes, desires, frustrations and fears upon – and he simply reflected them. He wanted to run as “plain vanilla”! (Forgive the obvious but unintentional mixed metaphor!) But, as Kerry and Gore before him, there was no real depth. He was a better speaker than his predecessors, but still offered little more than a cardboard cut-out standing up as the “I’m not HIM” (or the “I’m not HER”) candidate!

But, thanks to the diligent investigating by some on the Right, the “real Obama” has begun to be unearthed and revealed. And thanks to Hillary’s tenacious clinging to her candidacy, and exploiting these unearthed associations, Obama’s true character is being revealed. The “reflectivity” of the Obama blank screen is being degraded as the screen begins to take on Barack’s own true colors.

Obama’s character and judgement are being scrutinized. His associations, statements and actions are disconcerting, as they are surprisingly coherent and thematic! His “mentor” is a Black Liberation Theologist who Damns America. He is “close” with a former Weather Underground Terrorist who declared war on the US and regrets that his bombings didn’t go far enough. He refused to salute the flag, or to wear one. He has ties with other “pastors” of questionable character. He has unsavory relationships like Rezko. He makes “elitist” statements about “bitter” folk in the heartland.

A recent caller to Crane Durham, who was guest hosting the Randy Tobler radio talk show, made a very astute observation:

“Hillary Clinton’s troubles come when she lies. But Obama’s troubles start when he tells the truth!” He elaborated by pointing out that when Obama speaks off the cuff and reveals what he REALLY thinks – we get a glimpse into who he really is… and maybe he’s not someone we like very much.

I first published an article on this subject in April 2006 – two years ago… but with some minor updates it is still as true today as it was then – and to my mind, it bears repeating! So here goes:

There is no denying the pain felt at the pump as gas break thru the $3.00 per Gallon mark. The life blood of this nation IS oil, whether we like or acknowledge it or not. So when gas prices rise there is a predictable rush to blame someone. Democrats are quick to blame the oil companies for "gouging" or for “obscene profiteering”. Are they right?  Sensing blood in the water, the Dems are ready to levy new punitive and confiscatory taxes on the oil companies. Have they considered the "Law of Unintended Consequences'?  A "Windfall Profit Tax" to punish the oil companies for making a profit?  Let's look a bit closer.

Yes, the oil companies operate in a world of big numbers. Their profits are in the billions. But is this obscene? Think of the trillions of gallons of oil our nation consumes (not to mention the burgeoning demand of other nations). They are meeting an incredible demand, and doing so with a profit to costs ratio in the 9 to 10% range. Few businesses can operate at all on that small a margin. It's hardly an obscene rate of return.

And who gets those profits? The shareholders do. How many shares are in circulation?? I wouldn't dare speculate… but can you name a single mutual fund out there that doesn't have SOME of it's assets in oil? Do you have a 401K or IRA? YOU are probably an oil profiteer!