A Georgia federal district court judge, Clay Land, in United States District Court once again turned down a valid challenge by a U.S. citizen with respect to the eligibillity challenges which have been undertaken by several different groups previously calling for production of Barack Obama's birth certificate as confirmation of his lawful natural born citizen status per the express terms of the U.S. Constitution with respect to any individual holding the highest office under it.
It appears that this particular judge no longer holds the common law, and codified law of the United States of "Res Ipsa Loquitur" (the thing as it speaks ) with respect to Constitutional interpretation.
And ignoring such a clear legal duty and provision with respect to the judiciary to make a clear and judicious review of such documentation for both legitimacy and legality is clearly in order here.  Especially since this nation is still involved in a "global" war on terror, and now domestic spying program post 9/11.
Of course, while our own borders still remain unsecured, and the Bush Administration then also afforded over 43 countries free pass Visa waivers with 48 hour turnaround security checks prior to his leaving office.
I think most individuals would agree, that such a provision was made for obvious reasons by the founders.
So that no other allegiance or loyalty to any other country, or their interests, would precede the president's duties and obligations to this country and its citizens in the carrying out of his official duties and functions.  Especially as Commander in Chief of the military.
And this particular case was brought by a soldier who owes allegiance to both this country and its Commander in Chief while on active duty.
And considering Mr. Obama's rather unusual upbringing, much of which was clearly outside the United States which he fully admits, and as a lawyer himself would appear would see the clear need for such provision.
Since political parties themselves were also not at all included as "legal" parties to the Constitution at the outset.  Since those federalists and anti-federalists actually settled their differences upon the ratification process, and agreement and later enactment of Patrick Henry's Bill of Rights in order to protect the "people" from abuses of both their federal and state government with respect to the "unalienable" rights stated thereunder.
The judge clearly showed his bias, and actually disdain for the Constitution in his further comments, calling such requests and measures from LEGAL U.S. citizens in this country, "frivolous."
And yet the federal government under the stimulus enacted legislation calls for the creation of a National Health Care Database containing all Americans very private medical records through their now obvious "state actors," the health insurance industry and their associated organizations ala the East India Tea Company and their "favored status" with the British sovereign at the time of the original revolution?
And are continuing on legislation with respect to this health care deform which is and has been clearly disputed as outside their also legal authority, and Constitutional duties and functions other than to regulate those industries more significantly in order to reduce those costs, since it has been the costs, not the availability, that has been the major problem for most of those that still remain uninsured.
Or denials in honoring most of the representations of many of those agents which sold them to the American public now progressively, in even renegotiating and changing the provisions unilaterally in many instances without any notice, or negotiation of the insureds paying those horrendous premiums.
While closed door meetings were held with the industries on these measures, and it appears will also be so convoluted again with hundreds of pages of legalese involved in order to further give the lawyers in this country and the ACLU another stimulus at the public's expense, the federal courts are now denying proof of the clear eligibility of a publicly paid employee that is facilitating now "fining" citizens in order to once again increase Washington's bottom lines and the insurer's and their stockholder's profit margins and capital gains?
The judge also stated that such a matter was not a "duty" of the court, and went so far as to state that if he so ordered proof, that this would open the door in the event a potential candidate lied about his age in order to gain office.
This just goes to show why Washington said that political parties in and of themselves could destroy this nation from within, if foreign interests didn't do so from without.  And it appears that both the political parties and their "foreign" interests are doing just that "progressively."
And since this off-the-wall ruling that flies in the face of all manner of law and the hundreds years precedent of res ipsa loquitor that precedes it with respect to Constitutional interpretation (which few judges have followed also in the past which also has lead to where we are today, an "unrepresentative" government on every level), I wonder if the district court judge involved just so happened to go to Harvard also.
Which apparently is also either teaching more and more British based "precedents" in this country as law, or is also even at those six figure per semester tuition rates, another of our failing schools.
I bet this one comes up when or if Arnold Schwartenegger decides to take a run for the roses.
But as with our liberally cluesless media, if that is the case and another such movement should occur, I doubt that those individuals will be called "birthers," as has been the spin placed by the Obama worshippers come hell or high water (and hell is looking pretty good to some of us at this point after these first eight months in the levels of back door taxation and property thefts of the citizenry are concerned for Mr. Obama's global agendas ala Bush).
They will simply be called Americans.
And any judge that would in any such event so rule as Mr. Land has in this case, Benedict Arnold.
My only problem with this entire matter is that insofar as my beliefs, Mr. Obama clearly does not fulfill the "intent" of the founders also with respect to the entire provision, and the background from which it came and reasons therefor. And why this particular case was brought in that federal district is beyond me, when it is not really one of the most Constitution honoring jurisdictions to begin with historically in some of their renderings in the past, along the lines of the 9th Circuit in wacko California, so liberal that it also doesn't recognize the Constitution in any manner whatsoever as of late.
And due to the hijacking of our entire government by two mainstream political parties at this juncture without any also Constitutional basis in fact, not "duly elected" per the judges also stated reasons for his refusal in that the "people had chosen" the president (right, and just what were the choices, your honor, since the two political parties have an inside track on the entire process and accept even campaign donations and/or sponsorship from foreigners at this point, and were illegally elected even to Congress in the first place, having accepted "foreign" campaign donations and sponsorship and thus not "representatives" of the citizeny of their respective districts in any manner whatsoever and thus in violation and "pretenders" at this point in violation of the entire basis for the election of candidates for the representatives government written within the clear terms of the Constitution itself.
At this point, not at all "representatives" solely of the districts in which the were elected but more so the national and global lobbying organizations, or even foreign countries lobbyists and their interests.
But just look at what the alternatives are in any event also.
Joe Biden, with Nancy Pelosi second in line?
Hell doesn't even begin to describe that pairing, and the additional havoc they would pile on top of the already crushing burden on the middle and lower income classes and "average" Americans.
And the other branch doesn't clearly know the meaning of the term "conservative" at this point, but simply another branch of the Global Socialist Party but with different and in some instances in varying degrees, even overlapping global corporate benefactors, that's all.
Hail Britainnia.  It appears that Congress and those on the Hill are selecting more and more "British trained" globally focused "global socialist" also judges for high federal office in order to protect also their job security, and power trip moves.
Such as those educated at Harvard, Oxford, Stanford, and those East Coast "ivy league" schools whose law school programs clearly have been teaching the British style of government with the "government as sovereign" mindset.
And appears clearly are not at all teaching the "intent" of those founders behind much of the provisions of both the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution itself.  Nor clear distinctions between the "limits" of and their obligations with respect to their function and  their true powers and duties.
And this one was clearly their function and duty, without any "rights of refusal" whatsoever included within the document which actually provides for Mr. Land's lofty salary, and that of his staff.

For Any And All Constitutional Conserve-atives:

Another story beaten to death by the mainstream media and the Obama Administration came to a conclusion Thursday at the White House with Mr. Obama, Mr. Biden, Dr. Gates and the Cambridge police officer who "arrested" Dr. Gates purportedly due to a "crime in progress" call he received at the Gates residence having a cold one for all the news cameras.

With all the spin that has been occurring in the mainstream media, much of which since 9/11 has left much to be desired in the way of factual journalism and which act more as media reps for "their" politicians due to Big Business corporate ownership and who merely play off each other with respect to political news on the Hill, even the details of this supposed "crime" have been questionable.

Starting with the fact that it has now been reported it was a "senior citizen" who made the call. I'll let that one go for now, since it appears now the seniors are going to be brought into this political circus perhaps for poor eyesight in not recognizing Dr. Gates in the middle of the afternoon, mind you.

The spins on this "story" have been just too incredible to believe at this point.

And appears at least in my educated opinion watching how this has progressed now for almost a week and a half, this was a staged event being used for political purposes most of all. Especially now that even Colin Powell was on Larry King putting in his two cents with respect to supposedly a dereliction of protocol in that an "adult supervisor" (or SWAT negotiator?) hadn't been called in to mediate.

Mr. Obama has been losing points fast with the American public, especially in light of his "solutions" which have not been solutions at all per his campaign rhetoric but simply continuations of the same agendas and even upping the civil rights violations now on the American people of the Bush Administration.

Other than calling for closing Guantanamo he is really 0-3 on his promises to end the war, look out for Joe the Plumber and the middle class (tell that one to the laid off GM workers in Detroit, I dare you), and solving the mortgage mess and crisis.

There was just something a little strange about the "convenience" of this entire incident, and the amount of press it received for my liking. And it appears a good many other Americans also. Good way to shift the pressure and heat off the Hill for the next tax scam on the American people, the L. Ron Hubbard/George Orwell "Science Based" Universal Health Care Plan.

And also keep the racial thing alive as a diversionary tactic and method to use to facilitate civil unrest since civil unrest means the government can use it also as an excuse for much of its extra-Constitutional now security measures against Americans so long as they can keep the fear factor alive.

Inciting civil unrest actually is how many communist leaders and governments came to be. And just why aren't our own borders secured, or some of these foreign individuals from Middle Eastern countries with active terrorist cells not simply deported at this point?

Or, in fact, since America is still at war (although never called Constitutionally or "legally" declared under Bush or that Congress) then why aren't all non-green card holders deported at this point until we have ended this "conflict" or "engagement" or whatever the heck it is since it appears those on the Hill have about as much clue as the American people why we are STILL now eight years later over there? 

And all foreign entry visas denied until it is? 

After all, I'm sure Mr. Powell is aware of this.  After any attack on any military installation in this country is it not SOP that the "base" is locked down until any additional threats are addressed, and all passes then denied to any and all entering or leaving the base until the crime is solved and perpetrators brought to justice?  The military bases in this country actually have far greater "common defense" provisions than our entire country - especially for those living in the border states most of all due to the criminal activity, theft and violent crimes that can be directly tied to it. 

Many Americans could sure use those jobs.

I know, the finale for "So You Think You Can Dance" is next week and Nigel and that other British MC just might have to miss it and the shows producers and network would then have to get an American replacement that might result in a point or two drop in the ratings.

That health care "solution" in appointing a Health Care "God" using actuarial tables for treatment plans is looking more and more like the "science based" Cap & Trade scam which was propagandized to the hilt, and quite obviously meant to feed the Wall Street bankers for that carbon credit market that will be initiated on the backs of the American public in higher utility bills that wipe out that little crumb of a tax rebate and credit thrown out at election time.

Especially now when those inflationary taxes and utility bills start soaring off the charts, in addition to the continued loss of jobs and homes that is still escalating.

I wonder how many members of Congress are heavily invested in energy development and utility companies. Or for that matter Wall Street itself. Maybe 100%?

And then the "spins" on the Beer Summit being a "teachable moment" for America and America's children.
 Please.

Does Mr. Obama and those serving now in our federal government in all three branches truly think that they are examples that America's children should use for role models? A Commander in Chief that speaks of transparency, while hiring three law firms to prevent disclosure of his birth or academic records in order to even verify that he meets the minimum qualifications of the Office of the Presidency? 

A Supreme Court that has gotten increasing more and more political and sovereign favoring in its rulings with respect to Americans Bill of Rights protection, and has refused over six legal challenges to Obama's citizenship status? 

And A Congress that just engaged in a "sleight of hand" in order to also circumvent all those challeges in using a bogus "Resolution" congratulating Hawaii on its 50th anniversary as a state by including a cute little sentence introducting this Resolution with respect to Mr. Obama's birth again without any clear evidence or documentation, in order to also deny the people their right to review the evidence that Obama meets those absolutely minimal requirements (although clear that his status, from the founders "intent" with respect to that provision would clearly make him a foreigner and not "natural born" or "naturalized" American at all, due to reasons behind that provision itself, and their intent in so providing).

Forget the next Beer Summit. Our taxpayer dollars would be better spent in group therapy for those holding federal office, and would assist in at least minimally reducing that federal deficit and taxpayer bite that already has left more Americans homeless and jobless than at any time since the Depression.

Do I hear "Cheers" out there in the South, West and Midwest?

Apparently, when politically things couldn't seem to get more ludicrous than they already are here in the United States, a story comes out that simply is just too incredible to believe.

In a recent news report carried by the Chicago Tribune, it appears that Barack Obama decided that the menu for his 140 invited guests for a Friday night get together was to include pizza. 

But not just any pizza.  Pizza from a St. Louis eatery, Pi Pizza (as in pizza pie).

The White House flew the staff from the restaurant and their dough, sauce, cheese and pizza pans in order to deliver their haute cuisine personally.

In this declining economy and with Mr. Obama's stated concerns about "global warming" and energy conservation, I wonder just exactly how big those carbon footprints were for this take out order?

And to top it all off, the Tribune reported that the owner of one of the largest pizza restaurants in his home state of Illinois was miffed that he had been snubbed in favor of the St. Louis establishment.

The Tribune article:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gqW0jeBmxn9ncFJTUwcQ_6duivTAD97FQ5I80

Simply incredible.

In the continuing saga of the AIG executive bonuses which were extended Sunday by Timothy Geithner and the Department of the Treasury, another player has stepped up to the plate in addition to President Obama's rather weak excuse for an apology to the American people over this "sleight of hand".

Christopher Dodd, that erstwhile senator and former Presidential candidate, has now taken the blame for inserting a sentence into the bank bailout bill that was rushed through Congress last September that afforded the AIG executives to receive these million dollar bonuses.

It appears with Mr. Dodd's "mea culpa" another attempt for those on the Hill to now shift blame from the President and Mr. Geithner, and of course hope on the generosity of the American people to let bygones be bygones. Let's spread the blame around so that we can actually take the focus off what occurred initially that lead to this situation, and blame it on one Congressional member who inserted a sentence in the bill that make the entire bailout itself somehow seem legitimate.

There are two things wrong with this little deception. Many in America are not buying it.

To encapsulate actually what occurred and who is truly to blame, note below:

1. In September under "terrorist warnings" from Secretary Henry Paulson all members of Congress were held over in Washington from their campaign junkets in order to address this "emergency" bank bailout. Otherwise, the American people were informed, Wall Street would crash and their ATM cards would not work.

2. Prior to this catastrophe, two other large financial institutions, Goldman Sachs and Lehrman Brothers, also faced eminent demise. Congress refused to bailout Goldman or Lehman Brothers, although Warren Buffet stepped up to the plate and helped out Goldman Sachs. It just so happens that both Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers are part owners of our own Federal Reserve. How they could be then "bankrupt" is beyond the realm of feasibility for most Americans to comprehend.

3. For the first time in history not only were U.S. based corporate interests involved in this bailout, but a globally based insurer, AIG, was also begging on the steps of the doors of Congress. No matter also that many of these banks and AIG had been heavy contributors to the campaigns of a majority of those in Congress to whom they went begging.

4. The bill was drafted in haste in order to rescue America's economy, and consisted of enough pages to insure that any disinterested Congressional member had no time in order to digest the terms of the bailout. This does not excuse them in any manner, however. In such an instance it was their duty to abstain at the time from voting based on those grounds, and the clearly questionable Constitutional basis for this entire bailout to begin with at the eventual American taxpayer's expense.

5. The measure passed with just a mere two vote margin. Which historically indicates that there was some heavy back room dealing, and also still maybe some who did have enough integrity left (few, I know) to realize the entire bailout itself was a violation of our Constitution by the mere inclusion of a foreign corporate concern at it's outset. AIG's real financial problems, if any, were caused by their London Mayfair office, from all reports.

6. Included within the bailout were other unconstitutional provisions. Namely, a transfer by Congress of their Constitutional powers with respect to foreign agreements, whether public or private, to the Executive office. Such a transfer of power could not legally be accomplished without a Constitutional amendment in and of itself.

7. Rather than this being handled as a corporate restructuring under the provisions of the U.S. bankruptcy code, Mr. Geithner was strictly given unilateral oversight and authority. In other words, Mr. Geithner is now acting as "trustee" for the restructuring, and his "fiduciary duties" are not to the executives or AIG, but to the creditors - the American public and AIG's former stockholders. Thus, when Mr. Geithner and Mr. Obama claim they had no legal power to refuse, they not only had the legal power to do so, they had the legal obligation on behalf of the American people to do so.

And at this point, a good 2/3rds the members of Congress, Mr. Geithner and Mr. Obama should be wearing stripes about now, with all the legal and criminal Constitutional violations that have thus far transpired in this fiasco.