Former Inspector General Gerald Walpin filed two reports exposing gross misappropriation of federal AmeriCorps funds by a prominent Barack Obama supporter and was shortly thereafter fired by the White House, circumstances he told WND are likely linked and others have called an outright illegal action by the administration.

"I think you have to look at the facts and the circumstances and reach your conclusions," Walpin said in a WND interview. "I will tell you that [my firing] came only after we had issued those two reports to Congress, and I don’t think that’s a coincidence."

Further, Walpin said, "I am convinced that I and my office are not guilty of any impropriety. In essence, I was fired for doing my job."

Independent, federal inspectors general are supposed to be granted special protection from political interference – thanks in part to a law co-sponsored by the then-Senator Barack Obama – to ensure that they are free to investigate waste and fraud uninfluenced by political cronyism.

But after Walpin dared to push for action against the St. HOPE Academy program – run by Obama supporter and former NBA star Kevin Johnson – which had misappropriated hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal AmeriCorps funds, he nonetheless found himself fired by the White House under circumstances that have led some to wonder if Obama has violated his own co-sponsored law in retaliation.

"There are two big questions about the president’s actions," writes Byron York, chief political correspondent for the Washington Examiner. "One, why did he decide to fire Walpin? And two, did he abide by the law that he himself co-sponsored?"

Discover how government is grinding away Americans’ individual liberties in "Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws."

Radio talk host Rush Limbaugh fired off an answer to York’s questions on his program yesterday:

"Firing an inspector general is a big deal. If you’ll remember, Alberto Gonzales as attorney general fired a couple of U.S. attorneys. He took hell for it. This is bigger. Inspectors general are supposed to be completely above politics," Limbaugh commented. "This is big. This is political cronyism, power and so forth. … I’m telling you, firing an I.G., because they’re not political, it is a much bigger deal than replacing United States attorneys."

Furthermore, Limbaugh stated, the unusual circumstances surrounding the night before Walpin’s dismissal constitutes a clear violation of the very law Obama helped to pass as a senator.

"The Obama administration did it overnight," Limbaugh stated. "[It] broke the law firing the AmeriCorps I.G."

According to the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008, co-sponsored by Obama, inspectors general do not serve at the president’s pleasure and therefore cannot be fired without 30 days notice and written cause for the decision sent to Congress.

The firing of Walpin, however, took on a very different form.

Walpin confirmed to WND that on Wednesday evening earlier this week, he received a sudden and unexpected ultimatum from White House counsel Norman L. Eisen: Resign with the hour or suffer being fired.

Walpin refused to resign, replying in an email, "It would do a disservice to the independent scheme that Congress has mandated – and could potentially raise questions about my own integrity – if I were to render what would seem to many a very hasty response to your request."

The next day the administration nonetheless fired Walpin and sent a letter to Congress citing as its only reason for the dismissal, "It is vital that I have the fullest confidence in the appointees serving as inspectors general. That is no longer the case with regard to this inspector general."

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who also co-sponsored the Inspector General Reform Act, immediately protested the White House’s action.

"I was troubled to learn that last night your staff reportedly issued an ultimatum to the AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin that he had one hour to resign or be terminated," Grassley stated in a letter to the president. "Inspectors General were designed to have a dual role reporting to both the President and Congress so that they would be free from undue political pressure. This independence is the hallmark of all inspectors general and is essential so they may operate independently, without political pressure or interference from agencies attempting to keep their failings from public scrutiny."

Grassley’s letter reminded Obama of the statute requiring the president to submit 30-days notice to Congress of an inspector general’s dismissal and stated, "No such notice was provided to Congress in this instance."

"We cannot afford to have inspector general independence threatened," Grassley concluded. "In light of the massive increases in federal spending of late, it is more critical than ever that we have an inspector general community that is vigorous, independent and active in rooting out waste, fraud and abuse. I urge you to review the Inspector General Reform Act you co-sponsored and to follow the letter of the law should you have cause to remove any inspector general."

The White House then clarified two issues, explaining that Walpin was not immediately fired, but suspended for 30 days of paid leave as a countdown to his official release, and that his dismissal, indeed, was related to the Johnson investigation.

In a written response to Sen. Grassley, White House counsel Gregory Craig cited an ethics complaint filed against Walpin by the acting U.S. attorney in Sacramento, Lawrence Brown.

Brown had had declined to file criminal charges against Johnson, who was elected in November as mayor of Sacramento, or the St. HOPE Academy, but did reach a settlement requiring the organization to pay back over $400,000 of $850,000 in grants it was given through the AmeriCorps program.

Both Grassley’s letter and Walpin, however, pointed out that the inspector general has not been found guilty of any misconduct, and the charges are disputed.

"I have been performing – and my office has been performing – its work with the highest integrity, in the spirit of an independent office, calling the shots as it sees them," Walpin told WND. "The integrity committee will decide the merits of the complaint, but what troubles me is that the White House is apparently relying on the complaint. At this point, it is before an adjudicatory body, and if the White House felt it couldn’t wait for that decision, it should have at least waited for me to come in and provide my factual response, so it could consider it. It did not."

And while Walpin has been guarded in responses to the media, refraining from commenting on his future plans or even accusing the president of firing him for political reasons, he did share with WND that he believes Obama has compromised the independent integrity of the office of inspector general.

"I am sorry for what I believe to be clear interference with the institution of the inspector general," Walpin said. "And I am sorry for the people in my office, who I respect. I took the position because I believed when the president called upon me, it was a great opportunity to give something back to this country. I have done what I believe is right, and I will go on."

Chad Groening - OneNewsNow - 5/1/2009 6:00:00 AM

A pro-family activist says it is "ridiculous" that California Senator Dianne Feinstein has introduced legislation designed to help an illegal alien who is a lesbian remain in the U.S.

The case involves 43-year-old Philippines national Shirley Tan, who came to the United States on a visitor’s visa in 1989. She overstayed that visa and has been living in a lesbian relationship with a naturalized citizen in Pacifica, California.

Immigration authorities have ordered her to leave the country, but at the urging of homosexual rights groups Senator Diane Feinstein (D-California) intervened, arguing that if Tan’s homosexual partner was a man, they could marry, and she could be eligible for residency.

Feinstein has now introduced an emergency immigration bill on behalf of Tan. That means Tan cannot be deported unless Congress votes down the legislation or it is allowed to expire without being reintroduced.

Peter LaBarbera, founder and president of Americans for Truth about Homosexuality, sees this as another attempt at gaining special rights for homosexuals.

"We don’t need to start providing government benefits and special treatment to relationships based on homosexuality, which many people regard as a sin," says LaBarbera. "I think this is an egregious example of special rights for homosexuals."

The pro-family activist contends that homosexuals and their supporters are using this case to push for the passage of the Uniting American Families Act (H.R. 1024), which would give homosexual Americans the right to sponsor foreign-born partners for residency.

"This is a ridiculous piece of legislation," exclaims LaBarbera. "Americans are already concerned over illegal immigration. I don’t think most Americans want to give incentives to bring more homosexual activists into the country, which is what this case embodies."

In the meantime, if Congress approves Feinstein’s bill Tan would have two years to apply for a new visa or permanent residency.

"Two Trillion Tons and Deeper In Debt "

In just recent weeks, the federal government has designated billions of tax dollars for bank bailouts, including vast quantities to quasi-government agencies that helped create the economic crisis; billions more for automakers, and billions more for homeowners who default on their loans, so where will it end? Republican Rep. Ron Paul of Texas says he has at least part of the answer: abolish the Federal Reserve.

The congressman, a candidate for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, once again has introduced a bill that would get rid of the private organization that sets interest rates and establishes monetary priorities.

"Abolishing the Federal Reserve will allow Congress to reassert its constitutional authority over monetary policy," Paul said in a statement at the time the proposal was introduced.

"The United States Constitution grants to Congress the authority to coin money and regulate the value of the currency," Paul said. "The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate control over monetary policy to a central bank. Furthermore, the Constitution certainly does not empower the federal government to erode the American standard of living via an inflationary monetary policy."

You’ve never needed to understand money like you need to understand it now! "Web of Debt: The Shocking Truth About Our Money System and How We Can Break Free" unravels the deception of the Federal Reserve and presents a crystal clear picture of the financial abyss towards which we are heading.

The Texas lawmaker said the constitutional mandate to Congress actually provides only for currency "backed by stable commodities such as silver and gold."

"Abolishing the Federal Reserve and returning to a constitutional system will enable America to return to the type of monetary system envisioned by our nation’s founders: one where the value of money is consistent because it is tied to a commodity such as gold," he said.

Paul said every problem in the economy, "from the Great Depression, to the stagflation of the ’70s, to the current economic crisis caused by the housing bubble," can be traced to Federal Reserve policy.

Paul’s opinions on the Fed are available in a video linked here and embedded here:

Paul’s plan calls for the director of the Office of Management and Budget to "liquidate" Fed assets "in an orderly manner so as to achieve as expeditious a liquidation as may be practical while maximizing the return to the Treasury."

Columnist and commentator Chuck Baldwin believes it’s about time.

"’We’ve seen money go out the back door of this government unlike any time in the history of our country,’ Senator Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat, said on the Senate floor. ‘Nobody knows what went out of the Federal Reserve Board, to whom and for what purpose. How much from the FDIC? How much from TARP? When? Why?’" he wrote.

"Senator Dorgan is exactly right. No one oversees the Fed. The Fed is held accountable to absolutely nobody. But Senator Dorgan (as with everyone else in Congress) has no one to blame but himself. Ever since the Marxist, E. Mandell House, convinced President Woodrow Wilson to create the Federal Reserve in 1913, the Congress of the United States has had virtually nothing to do with the way our fiscal policies are managed. The Fed (which is not even a government agency, but rather a private corporation consisting of mostly foreign bankers) dictates America’s financial policies," Baldwin said.

Baldwin cites the U.S. Constitution itself. In Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 5, it states Congress has the authority to "coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures."

"Only the elected Congress, not some private foreign (or even domestic) banking interest, has the power to make monetary policy," he said, and "paper money – known as the Federal Reserve Notes – is not even legal tender."

The problem Paul’s plan confronts is simple, he wrote.

"No cosponsors. That’s right. No cosponsors," he said.

"Until the American people demand that their elected members of Congress live up to their duties and responsibilities under the Constitution, they will continue to have their pockets picked clean by these corrupt banksters in New York City (and London) and their contemptible facilitators in Washington, D.C.," Baldwin wrote.

Paul’s spokeswoman, Rachel Mills, told WND the congressman has strong feelings about the issue.

"The inflationary policies of the Fed are insidious," she told WND. "It’s a hidden tax on the poor."

She confirmed the idea has been getting more attention recently, because "people are becoming really curious about the roots of our problems."

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke this week said "policymakers" have "pulled out all the stops – cutting the federal funds rate … and establishing a series of lending programs designed to add liquidity into credit constrained markets."

He also committed to more "transparency," by introducing a new website for Fed information and new communications efforts.

Paul was unimpressed.

"While I applaud any effort towards greater Federal Reserve transparency, Chairman Bernanke’s latest effort contains more window dressing than substance," he said.

Getting information from the Fed won’t help, he said, "as this data is often inaccurate.

"If the Fed could not be trusted to foresee the present economic downturn, despite the myriad of market commentators predicting this, why should the current Fed data and predictions be any more trusted?" Paul asked. "Furthermore, these new initiatives only divert focus from the real areas where transparency is needed. The Fed’s agreements with foreign central banks and international finance institutions need to be audited, as do the source and destination of funds provided through the Fed’s emergency funding facilities."

At the CitizenEconomists.com site, J.D. Seagraves noted his organization’s poll showed a "sarcastic and/or deranged 5 percent of respondents" believe the Fed’s performance in the current economy is excellent.

One in four in that poll believe, "We should get rid of them."

"Support for abolishing the Federal Reserve System is mounting every day," the report said. "The fact that people are beginning to wake up to the problems caused by the Federal Reserve System is a hopeful sign. The only question is: is it too late? Can the dollar be saved by the political action of the president and the Congress, or must we wait for the entire global financial system to completely melt down so we can start over?"

Columnist Jacob Hornberger last year noted that while Paul’s abolition plan is considered "wacky" by some, at least two Nobel Prize-winning economists have agreed.

Economists Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek called for the abolition of the Fed during their careers, Hornberger notes.

"While Friedman spent much of his life advocating externally imposed constraints on the Fed’s power to expand the money supply, his first wish was to have the Fed abolished, as he pointed out in a 1995 Reason magazine interview. In his book, ‘Denationalization of Money: An Analysis of the Theory and Practice of Concurrent Currencies,’ Hayek advocated a free-market monetary system of competing currencies," said Hornberger.

"Most Americans probably still believe that the Great Depression was caused by ‘the failure of the free-enterprise system.’ It is a false belief. The truth is that the worst economic disaster in American history was caused by the Federal Reserve. Give current Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke credit for publicly acknowledging that fact in a speech delivered in 2002 commemorating Friedman’s 90th birthday," Hornberger said.

WND recently reported that under the fiscal policies of the Fed, the total obligations of the United States have reached $65.5 trillion – exceeding the gross domestic product of the world.

A lawsuit that accuses Congress of failing to investigate President Obama’s birthplace before approving the Electoral College vote giving him the presidency has been amended to include additional claims of rights violations, including unequal treatment, because Congress did such an investigation into GOP candidate Sen. John McCain.

That word comes from Mario Apuzzo, the lawyer handling the case on which WND previously has reported.

The case raises many of the same arguments as dozens of other cases that have flooded into courtrooms around the nation since the November election.

The case was brought by Apuzzo on behalf of Charles F. Kerchner Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr. It names as defendants 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.

Apuzzo told WND that Congress last year raised the issue of whether McCain was a "natural born" citizen, a requirement set out in the U.S. Constitution for the president, because of his birth to U.S. citizens in the Panama Canal Zone.

Where’s the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 235,000 others and sign up now!

According to a report in the Washington Post, the Senate unanimously declared McCain to be a "natural born" citizen, meeting the demand of Article 2 of the Constitution, which states, "no person except a natural born citizen … shall be eligible to the office of president."

The report, however, pointed out that such a statement was opinion only, and the constitutional question actually isn’t so simple. It quoted Catholic University associate law professor Sarah Duggin saying the document is ambiguous.

"Ultimately there has never been any real resolution of this issue. Congress cannot legislatively change the meaning of the Constitution," she told the newspaper, saying a constitutional amendment or a U.S. Supreme Court ruling would be the way to reach a determination.

However, even though his clients wrote to Congress requesting a similar review of Obama’s birthplace, they were refused.

"The question is: Why do you do it for McCain, but not Obama," Apuzzo told WND.

More specifically, those who doubted McCain’s eligibility had an opportunity for a review but not those who doubt Obama.

That violates a liberty right for his clients, he said, because as members of a republic, they have a right to know that their president is legitimate.

"What I’m arguing is that Congress and President Obama have violated my clients’ due process under Article 5 [of the U.S. Constitution]," Apuzzo said.

Already; Congress held a responsibility to make certain Obama is qualified for the post, he alleges. And the public outcry, evidenced by the dozens of lawsuits over the issue, should have prompted due diligence on the part of members of Congress, he said.

Obama, meanwhile, has refused to hand over "sufficient documents" to verify his "natural born" status, Apuzzo said.

"We’re not a monarchy," Apuzzo said, "People have a right to know."

He said his case in U.S. District Court in New Jersey is at the point where the court notices about the case are being distributed.

He said the fact Obama already has been inaugurated changes nothing in his case.

"Before that, everything really was premature," he said. "He has a right to run for office. But when you down to the nitty gritty, he still has to qualify for the position."

He said the Constitution specifically raises the scenario of a president who has been chosen for office but has failed to qualify.

"Even though you ran, everybody loves you, you still have got to qualify under the Constitution," Apuzzo said.

Further, the lawsuit explains, not only are there legitimate questions about Obama’s birth, and therefore eligibility, he might not even be a U.S. citizen at all.

"There exists a possibility that Obama could be an illegal alien," the lawsuit said. "Obama has yet to adequately prove that he was born in the United States. [Further], Obama has publicly conceded that his father was born in Kenya and a British subject/citizen at the time of Obama’s birth which precluded Obama from gaining any U.S. citizenship from his father."

The lawsuits over Obama’s eligibility, in various ways, have alleged Obama does not meet the "natural born citizen" clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which reads, "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 legal challenges have alleged Obama was not born in Hawaii, as he insists, but in Kenya. 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.

Several details of Obama’s past have added twists to the question of his eligibility and citizenship, including his family’s move to Indonesia when he was a child and on what nation’s passport he traveled to Pakistan in the ’80s, as well as conflicting reports from Obama’s family about his place of birth.

Apuzzo told WND the biggest reason to investigate further is the fact that Obama has refused to allow public release of a signed "vault" copy of his original birth certificate.

Several of the legal cases – including those brought by Orly Taitz, Cort Wrotnowski, Leo Donofrio and Philip Berg, already have been discussed in conference at the U.S. Supreme Court, which has failed to have a hearing on any of the merits involved.

Taitz, in fact, is requesting information from the Supreme Court about a meeting eight of its justices held with Obama, a defendant in her case, before the justices reviewed the issues of the case in a private conference.

Several of the cases still remain active at lower court levels, from which emergency requests to the high court were launched.

"I know that Mr. Obama is not a constitutionally qualified natural born citizen and is ineligible to assume the office of president of the United States," Berg said in a statement on his ObamaCrimes.com website.

"Obama knows he is not ‘natural born’ as he knows where he was born and he knows he was adopted in Indonesia; Obama is an attorney, Harvard Law grad who taught Constitutional law; Obama knows his candidacy is the largest ‘hoax’ attempted on the citizens of the United States in over 200 years; Obama places our Constitution in a ‘crisis’ situation; and Obama is in a situation where he can be blackmailed by leaders around the world who know Obama is not qualified," Berg’s statement continued.

While Obama’s campaign team called the cases garbage, here is a partial listing and status update for several of the cases:

* Philip J. Berg, a Pennsylvania Democrat, demanded that the courts verify Obama’s original birth certificate and other documents proving his American citizenship. Berg’s latest appeal, requesting an injunction to stop the Electoral College from selecting the 44th president, was denied.

* Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama’s dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.

* Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut’s secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.

* Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state’s 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public’s support.

* Chicago attorney Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama’s vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.

* Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama’s eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama’s citizenship. His case was denied.

* In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.

* In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama’s citizenship. The case was denied.

* In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama’s birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia’s secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.

* California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters.

In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama’s eligibility include:

* In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.

* In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.

* In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.

* In Washington, L. Charles vs. Obama.

* In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.

WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi had gone to both Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama’s birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.

The governor’s office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii?

Foreign and military affairs

There is a reason why Israel s voters are suddenly turning to the center-Right Netanyahu and Likud. They fear that for the first time since Harry Truman, an American administration is turning against the Jewish State. Obama s first phone call after the election was made to Mahmoud Abbas. His first television interview was with Al Arabiya. The appointments of Samantha Power and Susan Rice bode ill for the entire Middle East. A meeting with Hugo Chavez — to negotiate what, exactly?  Forthcoming recognition of radical Islamofascist Iran on their terms, not ours, are all ominous straws in the wind. Richard Holbrooke has just infuriated two crucial governments in Pakistan and Afghanistan, by predicting their doom, and still was appointed special envoy to those governments.

The O’s just announced a 10% cut in the planned increase in the defense budget, while the overall budget deficit has just risen by two trillion dollars. That may signal a Carteresque drawdown in our burdened military. This is not the time to lower our guard, but like Jimmy Carter, the O administration is  betting against history.

We now know that in violation of Federal law, the Obama campaign started negotiations with Iran, Syria and perhaps Hugo Chavez long before American voters elected O.  That flagrant disregard for the law and for simple propriety signals a radical turn Left. If that is accurate, expect the Obama administration to start a scapegoating campaign against Binyamin Netanyahu if he becomes Prime Minister. That would be the first time that any American administration has turned against an elected leader of a vigorous, pro-American democratic ally. The voters in Israel may be preparing to go it alone if necessary. It would be difficult, but it can be done.

Flunking Econ 101

The O administration has some sensible economic voices, but they don’t seem to carry much clout. Larry Summers is fairly mainstream, Robert Reich is turning radical, and Paul Krugman is a hair-pulling wild  man. The so-called stimulus bill is pure political payoff to Democrat city machines, the teachers’ unions, and faithful leftwing armies like ACORN.  Those 1.17 trillion dollars are  not designed to stimulate normal economic activity, defined as products and services that Americans want and will work for — which is what "supply and demand" really means, after all.

The economy is one gigantic incentive machine. Take away the incentive value of work and buying things, and yes, you will get a very bad recession. And no, Nancy Pelosi has it wildly wrong by arguing that more subsidized birth control means more wealth per person, for those who are actually born. The administration is even ignoring the first-grade lessons of the Smooth-Hawley with its buy-American provisions in the House bill. Suddenly alarmist headlines are appearing in the worshipful European press. Will the US turn protectionist under Obama? Watch what the Senate does with the outlandish House bill, and we will know the answer.

Future generations are being burdened with this second trillion dollar payoff in a few months — after the first trillion bucks for TARP.  But fear not. The O administration is promising yet more trillions in spending, under the mad delusion that the New Deal didn’t spend enough on things people didn’t want. The stock market is signaling fear and doubt. So far,  the market looks to be right.

A Commissar style of governance

Vladimir Lenin pioneered a double-layered style of control by Soviet Party Commissars. Every government official and military officer was doubled by a Party Commissar, who wielded the real power. The result was wild swings between radicalization and stagnation in the USSR. Nobody could act without worrying about the local Commissars, who owed their real allegiances to the Kremlin. Obama is using a similar strategy by directing Samantha Power to go wherever new SecState Hillary Clinton goes.

Those two ladies hate each other, even before Power called Hillary "a monster" during the primaries. Power will report on Hillary to the White House. The Obamas are introducing a parallel staff for the major departments in the White House, to keep a jealous eye on its own appointees. The Clintons did this with the Justice Department, where Jamie Gorelick was the real power at Justice, and Janet Reno became the PR front.  We know about the results in a suicidal anti-terror policy, the cynical return of the little refugee boy Elian Gonzalez to the Castro tyranny, and the Waco massacre.

A Government-Media fusion

Karl Marx told his followers "First, conquer the Organs of Propaganda." In Marx’s Germany there was no free press. Britain was one of the few examples of relative freedom in Europe, which is why Marx ended up being a foreign correspondent in London,  as a ferocious public enemy of capitalism and elected governments.

Last week we found out that Rahm Emmanuel, George Stephanopoulos, James Carville and Paul Begala   have been carrying on daily, hour-long conference calls for the last 17 years, even while they were hopping from one top job to another in the White House, ABC News, and various liberal political campaigns. If you think all the big media sound oddly similar, we now now why.

A lockstep alliance between government and the big media is a marker of radical Leftist rulers. Putin just had a couple of more journalists murdered in Moscow. That is not likely to happen here, but then, it wont be necessary. The big media are already PR flacks for the Left. Well, just to make that relationship of buyer and bought explicit, a Boston Globe journalist has just proposed a special Federal bailout for newsies who have utterly destroyed their own audiences.  Somewhere in Hell Jozef Goebbels is smiling.

Appointing openly corrupt officials

Obama’s no-lobbyist rule is now a public joke.  Confessed tax cheaters were propopsed for top positions, like Tom Daschle and Timothy Geithner.  Big lobbyist power couples in Washington are being drawn in, including the Daschles.  And of course we have the endless Congressional show of Democrat corruption by Charlie Rangel, Chris Dodd and far too many others.

The appointment of radical Greenies to positions like the "Science Czar" — a huge self-contradiction — are sending very bad signals to the giant Federal research establishment.

Moving against conservative media

Immediately after the election, Fox News and Washington Times reporters were thrown off the Obama campaign plane. Obama’s first television interview just took place with terror-supporting Al-Arabiya TV, an Islamist riff on CNN.  A Republican FCC member has warned that a disguised censorship rule giving local leftist groups additional "community input" into radio license renewals may become law by administrative fiat.

That’s what we are seeing so far. Keep a sharp eye out in the coming weeks and months. Let’s hope the O’s will see reason somehow. But so far, the signals sent by their actions are ominous.

A new lawsuit is challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president, and this one targets Congress as a defendant for its "failure" to uphold the constitutional demand to make sure Obama qualified before approving the Electoral College vote that actually designated him as the occupant of the Oval Office.

The new case raises many of the same arguments as dozens of other cases that have flooded into courtrooms around the nation since the November election.

It is being brought on behalf of Charles F. Kerchner Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr. and names as defendants 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.

Where’s the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 193,000 others and sign up now!

As WND has reported, dozens of lawsuits have been filed over Obama’s eligibility to assume the office of the president. Many have been dismissed while others remain pending.

The cases, in various ways, have alleged Obama does not meet the "natural born citizen" clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which reads, "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 legal challenges have alleged Obama was not born in Hawaii, as he insists, but in Kenya. 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.

Several details of Obama’s past have added twists to the question of his eligibility and citizenship, including his family’s move to Indonesia when he was a child, his travel to Pakistan in the ’80s when such travel was forbidden to American citizens and conflicting reports from Obama’s family about his place of birth.

Perhaps the most perplexing detail, however, has been Obama’s refusal to allow the public release of a signed "vault" copy of his original birth certificate.

The new case was launched in New Jersey, and focuses on the alleged failure in Congress to follow the Constitution.

That document, the lawsuit states, "provides that Congress must fully qualify the candidate ‘elected’ by the Electoral College Electors."

In provides, the lawsuit said, "If the president-elect shall have failed to qualify, then the vice president elect shall act as president until a president shall have qualified."

"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."

"Congress is the elected representative of the American people and the people speak and act through them," the lawsuit said.

The defendants "violated" the 20th Amendment by failing to assure that Obama meets the eligibility requirements," the lawsuit said.

In the Russian publication Pravda, commentator Mark S. McGrew addressed the subject:

"The United States Congress is required, under the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, to count the Electoral College votes for president and vice president, ask if any member of Congress objects to the count and hear that Congressman’s objection. This is under Title 3, Chapter 1, Section 15, ‘Upon such reading of any such certificate of paper, the president of the Senate shall call for objections, if any,’" he wrote.

Several of the cases – including those brought by Orly Taitz, Cort Wrotnowski, Leo Donofrio and Philip Berg, already have been discussed in conference at the U.S. Supreme Court, which has failed to have a hearing on any of the merits involved.

Taitz, in fact, is requesting information from the Supreme Court about a meeting eight of its justices held with Obama, a defendant in her case, before the justices reviewed the issues of the case in a private conference.

Several of the cases not scheduled for hearings at the Supreme Court still remain active at lower court levels, from which emergency requests to the high court were launched.

"I know that Mr. Obama is not a constitutionally qualified natural born citizen and is ineligible to assume the office of president of the United States," Berg said in a statement on his ObamaCrimes.com website.

"Obama knows he is not ‘natural born’ as he knows where he was born and he knows he was adopted in Indonesia; Obama is an attorney, Harvard Law grad who taught Constitutional law; Obama knows his candidacy is the largest ‘hoax’ attempted on the citizens of the United States in over 200 years; Obama places our Constitution in a ‘crisis’ situation; and Obama is in a situation where he can be blackmailed by leaders around the world who know Obama is not qualified," Berg’s statement continued.

A partial listing and status update for several of the cases surrounding Obama’s eligibility to serve as president is below:

* Philip J. Berg, a Pennsylvania Democrat, demanded that the courts verify Obama’s original birth certificate and other documents proving his American citizenship. Berg’s latest appeal, requesting an injunction to stop the Electoral College from selecting the 44th president, was denied.

* Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama’s dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.

* Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut’s secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.

* Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state’s 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public’s support.

* Chicago attorney Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama’s vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.

* Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama’s eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama’s citizenship. His case was denied.

* In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.

* In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama’s citizenship. The case was denied.

* In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama’s birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia’s secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.

* California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters.

Private investigator Douglas Hagmann of HomelandSecurityUS.com reported earlier he found 13 cases challenging Obama’s eligibility still active or semi-active.

In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama’s eligibility include:

* In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.

* In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.

* In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.

* In Washington, L. Charles vs. Obama.

* In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.

WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi had gone to both Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama’s birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.

The biggest question was why, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists as his campaign has stated, Obama hasn’t simply ordered it made available to settle the rumors.

The governor’s office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii?

Obama’s half-sister, Maya Soetoro, has named two different Hawaii hospitals where Obama could have been born. There have been other allegations that Obama actually was born in Kenya during a time when his father was a British subject. A one point a Kenyan ambassador said Obama’s birth place in Kenya already was recognized and honored.

WASHINGTON - Former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris announced his rejection for Barack Obama’s Senate seat Tuesday in a bizarre rainy-day scene on the Capitol grounds as lawmakers awaited the gaveling of the 111th Congress into session.

Standing amid a huge throng of reporters and television cameras in a cold and steady rain, Burris, 71, declared that he had been informed that "my credentials are not in order and will not be accepted." (View video report )

He said he was "not seeking to have any type of confrontation" over taking the seat that he was appointed to by embattled Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

Speaking just an hour before the convening of the 111th Congress Tuesday, Burris said he was looking at a host of options for getting the seat.

One day in the House of Representatives a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:

"Mr. Speaker–I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.

"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:

"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.

"The next summer, when it began to be time to think about election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. A s he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly.

"I began: ‘Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called
candidates, and—‘

"Yes I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine, I shall not vote for you again."

"This was a sockdolager…I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

" ’ Well , Colonel, it is hardly worth - while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the C onstitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what , but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest.
… But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.’

" ‘I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.’

“ ‘No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true? ’

" ‘ Well , my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing T reasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.’

" ‘ It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and , as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity , and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. ‘ No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have t hought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. ‘ " The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution. ‘

" ‘So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.’

"I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

" ‘ Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.’

"He laughingly replied; ‘Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and , perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.’

" ‘ If I don’t ’ , said I, ‘I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.’

" ‘ No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section , but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you. ’

" ‘Well , I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name. ’

" ‘My name is Bunce.’

" ‘Not Horatio Bunce?’

" ‘Yes .’

" ‘Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.’

"It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him , before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

"At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.

"Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight , talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.

"I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him - no, that is not the word - I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

"But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue , and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted - at least, they all knew me.

"In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

" ‘ Fellow-citizens - I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice , or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only. ’ "

"I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

" ‘ And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.

" ‘ It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the
credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.’

"He came upon the stand and said:

" ‘ Fellow-citizens - I t affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.’

"He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before. ‘

"I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress. ‘

"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday.

"There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. Y ou remember that I proposed to give a week’s pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men - men who think nothing of spending a week’s pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased–a debt which could not be paid by money–and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $ 1 0,000 , when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."

"Would you rather have one tyrant 3,000 miles away or 3,000 tyrants one mile away?" Mel Gibson as Benjamin Martin, The Patriot

This is the latest on the Obama citizenship crisis and then some research resources for you on major issues.

In my last column, Part II, was devoted to the growing crisis over Barack Hussein Obama refusing to prove he is a natural born citizen; see here . You can get involved with the effort to contact electoral college delegates to stop their vote on December 15, 2008 by clicking here ; those links are identified as such.

New developments

Dr. Alan Keyes filed a lawsuit in California, November 14, 2008 : ‘Constitutional crisis’ looming over Obama’s birth location. Alan Keyes lawsuit warns America may see ‘usurper’ in Oval Office. "The California secretary of state should refuse to allow the state’s 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until President-elect Barack Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office, alleges a California court petition filed on behalf of former presidential candidate Alan Keyes and others."

Let me focus on Leo Donofrio’s lawsuit which I covered in Part II of my last column. Leo is asking you to please write a short letter to Justice Clarence Thomas now that his case is docketed. You need only ask Justice Thomas to hear Leo’s case on an expedited basis because Obama’s refusal to prove he’s a natural born citizen is building into a constitutional crisis that cannot be allowed to progress to the swearing in process should the electoral college actually go ahead and vote him in on December 15, 2008. Provide the case title and name:

Leo C. Donofrio, v. Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey
United States Supreme Court Docket No. 08A407

The Honorable Associate Justice Clarence Thomas
United States Supreme Court
One First Street, N.E.,
Washington, D.C. 20543.

I have been exchanging emails with Leo and he continues to reinforce the main issue of ‘natural born citizen’. His latest posting for your convenience:

"Barack Obama’s official web site, Fight The Smears, admits he was a British Citizen at birth. At the very bottom of the section of his web site that shows an alleged official Certification Of Live Birth, the web site lists the following information and link thereto: FactCheck.org Clarifies Barack’s Citizenship

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

"Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.” That is a direct admission Barack Obama was a British citizen "at birth".

"My law suit argues that since Obama had dual citizenship "at birth" and therefore split loyalties "at birth", he is not a "natural born citizen" of the United States. A "natural born citizen" would have no other jurisdiction over him "at birth" other than that of the United States. The Framers chose the words "natural born" and those words cannot be ignored. The status referred to in Article 2, Section 1, "natural born citizen", pertains to the status of the person’s citizenship "at birth".

"The other numerous law suits circling Obama to question his eligibility fail to hit the mark on this issue. Since Obama was, "at birth", a British citizen, it is completely irrelevant, as to the issue of Constitutional "natural born citizen" status, whether Obama was born in Hawaii or abroad. Either way, he is not eligible to be President. Should Obama produce an original birth certificate showing he was born in Hawaii, it will not change the fact that Obama was a British citizen "at birth".

"Obama has admitted to being a British subject "at birth". And as will be made perfectly clear below, his being subject to British jurisdiction "at birth" bars him from being eligible to be President of the United States.

"As I have argued before the United States Supreme Court, the 14th Amendment does not confer "natural born citizen" status anywhere in its text. It simply states that a person born in the United States is a "Citizen", and only if he is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.

"Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United 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; 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."

"The most overlooked words in that section are: "…or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…" You must recall that most, if not all, of the framers of the Constitution were, at birth, born as British subjects.

"Stop and think about that.

"The chosen wording of the Framers here makes it clear that they had drawn a distinction between themselves - persons born subject to British jurisdiction - and "natural born citizens" who would not be born subject to British jurisdiction or any other jurisdiction other than the United States. And so the Framers grandfathered themselves into the Constitution as being eligible to be President. But the grandfather clause only pertains to any person who was a Citizen… at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution. Obama was definitely not a Citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and so he is not grandfathered in.

"And so, for Obama or anybody else to be eligible to be President, they must be a "natural born citizen" of the United States "at birth". It should be obvious that the Framers intended to deny the Presidency to anybody who was a British subject "at birth". If this had not been their intention, then they would not have needed to include a grandfather clause which allowed the Framers themselves to be President.

"If you click through to Factcheck.org, a more detailed discussion as to why Obama was a British citizen at birth explains the relevant statutes:

"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children:

"British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.

"In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.’ "

"The article goes on to state that Obama’s British citizenship was transferred to Kenya as Kenya became independent from the UK and that Obama’s Kenyan citizenship expired when he turned 21 years old. But none of that is relevant since the Constitution requires that every President be a "natural born citizen". The word "born" is proof positive that the status must be present "at birth". If this were not the case, then, as stated above, the Framers would not have needed to put in a grandfather clause.

"The Framers recognized that even they were not "natural born citizens" and so they wrote the grandfather clause in to allow any of them to become President. But the grandfather clause only pertains to those who were Citizens at the time of the Constitution’s adoption. And so, Barack Obama is not a "natural born citizen" of the United States and neither is John McCain who was born in Panama, and neither is Roger Calero who was born in Nicaragua."

All of Leo’s court filings are posted on his site. Barack Hussein Obama is a ‘creation.’ He has had so many names, no one can keep track of his real history. He refuses to release his records for Harvard and Columbia. It has been reported that Obama attended Harvard under a foreign student classification and that is the reason he refuses to open his records. An individual obtained Obama’s SS registration form (selective service); click here and scroll down until you see the form .

Obama reportedly traveled to Pakistan in 1980 and 1981 using an Indonesian passport. I am working on getting documentation on that.

This web site presents the final, very technical report on the document produced by the Obama people in June. After studying the credentials of the individual and the analysis, I feel the case has been made the Certificate of Live Birth released by Obama’s camp is a forgery.

Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, aka Barry Obama, aka Barack Dunham, aka Barry Dunham is simply an empty husk delivered up as the messiah and answer to America’s problems when he’s nothing but a fake and a devout Marxist. If this constitutional issue isn’t decided by either the courts or the electoral college on December 15, 2008, and Obama is sworn in, when the truth does come out, and it will, we will truly have a mess of monumental proportions. Even a pro-abortion supporter (who calls abortion murder ) of Obama is now questioning why won’t Obama produce a real, legal document ?

"In the closing weeks of the election, however, I became increasingly disturbed by the mainstream media’s avoidance of forthright dealing with several controversies that had been dogging Obama — even as every flimsy rumor about Sarah Palin was being trumpeted as if it were engraved in stone on Mount Sinai. For example, I had thought for many months that the flap over Obama’s birth certificate was a tempest in a teapot. But simple questions about the certificate were never resolved to my satisfaction. Thanks to their own blathering, fanatical overkill, of course, the right-wing challenges to the birth certificate never gained traction.

"But Obama could have ended the entire matter months ago by publicly requesting Hawaii to issue a fresh, long-form, stamped certificate and inviting a few high profile reporters in to examine the document and photograph it. (The campaign did make the "short-form" certificate available to Factcheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.) And why has Obama not made his university records or thesis work widely available? The passivity of the press toward Bush administration propaganda about weapons of mass destruction led the nation into the costly blunder of the Iraq war. We don’t need another presidency that finds it all too easy to rely on evasion or stonewalling. I deeply admire Obama, but as a voter I don’t like feeling gamed or played."

What Congress and the media won’t tell you

My incoming email is simply more than one person can handle; I can’t answer all the questions coming in on issues like social security, the IRS and so many more. This is column number 415 for NWVs. I have written thousands in almost 20 years; a huge number of them are on my CD. By the time this column is posted, I’ll be well on my way to the West coast. God willing, I will return home to West Texas around December 3, 2008. Because I won’t have a column for a couple of weeks, what I’ve done is take a half dozen of the biggest issues like health care and put together a compilation of columns. That way, in your spare time (no chuckling, please), you can use these references for research and get the truth.

Also, many of my columns as well as Dr. Edwin Vieria and others are available for free on audio on my web site. You can listen on your computer while doing things around the house or download to your IPod or a CD and listen while driving or on the commute train or plane. Additionally, I have a limited selection of must view videos on my web site. Please feel free to also download those and get them out to family, colleagues and friends. Click here .

America is not a democracy. Popular web sites and "progressive" sites all push for the destruction of this country when they chirp "Our democracy!" America’s legal form of government is a constitutional republic. Please learn the difference and stop supporting mob rule . Fisher Ames, a founding father said: "A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way." Benjamin Rush said: "A simple democracy is the devil’s own government." John Adams said: "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

What can I do? is the common question. The ballot box is dead, this last election proves it beyond any doubt. The same Congress, with a whopping 17 "new" faces, will go back in in less than two months. Come January, our thrust has to be to the states as I have written about and an all out, constant assault (not violence) on the U.S. Congress. There is no other way until the final break down, and then no one can’t say we the people didn’t do everything the right way first.

As my regular readers know, but perhaps not new readers, I always provide my source reference material. At the end of my columns are additional resources. Over almost 20 years I have learned from warriors; experts in their respective fields on all these issues. Because time is so short, I have made every effort to get the most credible and legally factual information available for you to get the truth. Unless we’re all on the same LEGAL battlefield, Americans will continue to demand more failure instead of the constitutional solutions that held us true for so long — until the special interest groups began purchasing the favors of Congress about a half century ago. We are now at the end of all the corruption as the system has rotted to near extinction.

That compilation file is here .

Here’s one more for the day. Obama’s "home" state is Illinois. The ‘Pick 3′ for the Illinois State Lottery on election night: 666.

Links:

How do I make a difference ?

Do you have a plan? (Personal)

I forgot to add one thing in that column. Everyone has seen people standing in front of what used to be their home when disasters hit. These folks are crying because, not only have their homes been destroyed, their treasured family photos with so many memories got burned up or destroyed in a hurricane or tornado. Scan all your favorite family pictures onto your computer and burn them onto a CD. Put that CD in a small fireproof safe in your home (best place is a floor safe in the closet). That way, if you have to evacuate in a hurry, when you return, your valuables and those pictures of your loved ones will be preserved.

Do you have a plan for freedom ?

This is what happens when the mob takes over