Archive for March 2009
In reading extensively the laws regarding the natural born citizen issue surrounding Barack Obama, and in particular reading Leo Donofrio’s opinions on the matter, (following Donofrio’s own letter to the U.S. Attorney) I decided to email U.S. Attorney Taylor with carbon copy to Attorney General Holder. I will also be following up with hard copies via certified mail with return receipts requested tomorrow. I think for anyone that truly believes this issue is important, you should also construct your own original correspondence to U.S. Attorney Taylor and Attorney General Holder. I think it is important to not just copy and paste a letter but to come up with our own well thought out appeal based on the facts. I have included my letter here but highly encourage you to write your own correspondence as well. Anyone seeking help with their own original correspondence can post their letter in the comment section, and I will be happy to review it and provide editorial notes.
March 16, 2009
United States Attorney Jeffrey Taylor
United States Attorney’s Office
555 4th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Cc: Attorney General, Eric Holder
Dear U.S. Attorney Taylor,
During last year’s Presidential election, many of us questioned the eligibility of several candidates placed on the ballots of various states for the Office of President of the United States. It became even more troublesome to some of us when Barack Obama placed the following statement on his own website Fightthesmears.com:
“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.”
At that point, some of us saw this statement as the first factual statement that might prove Mr. Obama is in fact not a natural born citizen. Many scholars and legal minds believe that to be a natural born citizen of this country and therefore eligible under Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution to be President of the United States that both parents must be U.S. Citizens at the time of the child’s birth and the child must be born on U.S. soil. Although citizenship has been adjudicated in the courts, and has been referenced in the U.S. Constitution and its amendments, a definition for natural born citizen has never been completely and clearly defined in the U.S. Constitution, nor in its amendments nor in the courts. In fact, it seems that with respect to the U.S. Constitution, its amendments and court cases that one would lean more toward the definition above then otherwise.
As a result, there are many in the United States and abroad that fear that President Obama is not a natural born citizen and is therefore usurping the Office of President of the United States. This present situation does not mean that President Obama is aware that he may not be a natural born citizen nor that he is aware that he may be usurping the office. It simply means that his eligibility is in question and that this question in turn has important if not critical implications for our Constitution, our Republic and our Country.
Case in point, there are numerous lawsuits already in the courts regarding President Obama’s eligibility. In one, if not more of those suits, military personnel have been called upon to join the lawsuits as plaintiffs in order to meet standing requirements. In one instance, it was misreported via the Internet that an Officer Easterling was defying Presidential orders leaving him open to potential prosecution under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Our military is made up of honorable men and women whom may believe they have a special duty to pursue litigation to determine President Obama’s eligibility thereby opening themselves up to potential prosecution.
After researching the matter, and in particular reviewing the research of Attorney Leo Donofrio, it has been determined that members of the U.S. Military hold no special duty or standing to bring about litigation regarding President Obama’s eligibility. What has been determined is that once President Obama was elected (not by popular vote or by state popular vote but) by the electoral college system provided for in the U.S. Constitution (and subsequently took the oath of office), the means by which to remove a usurper of the Office of the President of the United States is the District of Columbia’s Quo Warranto statute. Furthermore the statute states in part that:
only the United States attorney and/or the US Attorney General have the authority, without requesting leave of the court, to institute this action.
Furthermore, the following sums up the research done with respect to Quo Warranto and citizenship issues:
1. In accordance with the separation of powers (Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches) of our government as put forth in the U.S. Constitution, the United States Congress exercised their legislative power to deal with a usurper including but not limited to the President of the United States by establishing the Quo Warranto statute, DC Code Sections: 16-3501, 16-3502 and 16-3503.
2. Only you Mr. Taylor and/or present Attorney General Mr. Eric Holder have the proper jurisdiction and Constitutional and judicial powers to adjudicate this matter in the best interests of this nation and her citizenry. You have a special duty to bring forth this action.
3. No case can be brought directly by the U.S. Supreme Court on this matter as the U.S. Supreme Court does not possess original jurisdiction to issue a writ of Quo Warranto and would be violating separation of powers of the three branches of government (Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches). The Congress has exercised their legislative powers and you and Attorney General Holder now hold the judicial means under Quo Warranto to proceed with the matter.
4. Finally, many have argued in accordance with the 14thAmendment to the U.S. Constitution that President Obama is a natural born citizen; however, it seems that this line of thinking cannot be argued because according to the 14thamendment it is inadmissible to assume no effect of the wording “natural born citizen” in Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution as articulated as well as precedent setting in Chief Justice John Marshall’s written opinion in the seminal case of Marbury V. Madison.
Sir, I do not envy the burden placed on you by virtue of your present position as U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. Mr. Taylor, you and/or Attorney General Holder have a duty to bring resolution to this matter via the judicial branch of our government through the Quo Warranto statute. Lacking such an action on the part of you or Attorney General Holder will jeopardize upholding the supreme law of the land (our United States Constitution). It is an awesome burden placed upon you and Attorney General Holder, but I hope that you will act on this matter to secure our laws. If the U.S. Constitution is not upheld, then what laws will be left in our land that must be adhered to? A nation without laws is no longer a nation. I appreciate any consideration you give to this matter.
Name Withheld in this Post
Email Address for Attorney Taylor: firstname.lastname@example.org
Email Address for Attorney General Holder: AskDOJ@usdoj.gov
In order to assist you with writing your own original letter to U.S. Attorney Taylor and Attorney General Holder, your letter should follow this general construction:
Introduction — The introduction should include the primary element that you are requesting which is that they initiate a quo warranto action due to Barack Obama not being a natural born citizen. The introduction can be several paragraphs long but should be tightened up as best as possible. My Introduction really takes up about half of what I wrote and is intermixed with the crux of my arguments that should have been clearly separated into the body of my letter. My letter could be cleaned up considerably on this point.
Body — The body should utilize the research from Leo Donofrio’s site clearly showing that the law leans toward the fact that President Obama is not a natural born citizen and that the quo warranto statue is the only means to remove a usurper from the Office of the Presidency of the United States. The body can also make use of the military concerns as to why this action must be brought forth. My letter has the Introduction and Body too much intertwined. You can write a much better and more coherent letter than mine following these simple basic constructions of essays/letter writing.
Conclusion — The conclusion should reiterate that U.S. Attorney Taylor or Attorney General Holder must act on this matter. You can utilize passionate pleas here but it also important to ensure that you are keeping to the facts of the matter in your passionate discourse.
When government starts making statements about things be very afraid. Nancy Pelosi began to talk about a second Stimulus for the country. Today, she is basically taking it off the table, but what that means is they are just quietly planning a second stimulus. It is time to organize now. We must ensure another huge stimulus package does not come out of this Congress.
The way the first stimulus package was drawn up (which was no stimulus package, but rather a payoff to Democratic interest groups and implementation of their long desired pet projects) much of the money is not spent until after 2010. We are not going to see the first stimulus package be stimulative in any way. They should have never passed the first stimulus package, and, hopefully, in 2011 we can have the Congress reverse as much of the first stimulus package as possible.
For now, we must keep our eye on the ball and prevent by all means necessary any talk and any attempt at a second stimulus package. Start calling your Senators and Representatives now. Explain to them under no circumstances must a second stimulus package come to a vote in Congress. We cannot keep giving this inept federal government our hard earned tax dollars to spend on their pet projects and interest groups.
Just Say No to a Second Stimulus Package
President Obama’s current housing plan is not going to fix the problem, and yet, last July the Congress passed a mortgage aid bill that would have helped and certainly addressed the problem at its core (unlike the Obama plan). Unfortunately the mortgage aid bill has gone by the wayside and has been superceded by the Obama plan. Let’s understand first the biggest problem with home mortgages right now.
The Home Mortgage Problem
Housing prices in much of the country have fallen dramatically. If you look at places like California, Arizona, Florida and Nevada housing prices have dropped as much 33% or more from their height. Let’s say you bought a house in Arizona in 2005 for $285,000.00. That house today is worth approximately $190,000.00 if you are lucky. Let’s say you took out traditional first and second fixed-rate mortgages on this home at fairly low interest rates available in 2005 of 6 and 8 percent respectively. Let’s say you have great credit in the 700’s. You’ve never missed a payment on that home, and yet it is no longer a sound investment and won’t see its paid for value come back for at least a decade. If it weren’t for harming your credit, the business savvy thing to do at this point would be to walk away from your home. Why continue to take a 33% loss on this purchase when it will take a decade to recoup your losses. Instead you could default now, buy another home (maybe with a relative co-signing) at a much lower price and begin to see the equity on that purchase grow within a couple of years. That’s the economic sense at work in the housing market right now.
A Housing Recovery Plan That Might Have Worked
Back in July of last year, the Congress understood this exact situation and passed a mortgage aid bill that would have greatly assisted the homeowner described above. The bill was specifically designed to allow borrowers to refinance their mortgages bringing down the principle owned on the home (hence attempting to align it more closely with its current value). The way the program was supposed to work was the government would back the principle difference in the rewritten loan to the bank (alleviating the bank from having to reduce the value of an asset). The government would then be paid back by the borrow when they went to sell the home. They couldn’t sell the home for a year. If they sold it between years 1 and 2 after refinancing the loan, the government would receive 90% of the profits, between years 2 and 3 80% of the profits, and so on until the government reached 50% of the profits which would remain in effect for the life of the loan. So even if you sold the house 10 years from now the government would still receive 50% of the profits.
This program made a lot of sense. It protected the bank from having to absorb huge losses in real estate divestments and foreclosures. It protected the federal government in the sense that they would eventually receive some money back and in some instances, long term, would even make money. And it made sense for the borrowers because now their home would be valued closer to its worth incentivizing the borrower to keep their investment.
So what happened to this program? When I called my financial institution about it back in August of ’08, they explained to me that they were waiting for the Federal Government to provide the information/terms of how the program would work, and they expected that information to be forthcoming in October of 2008. Of course in September of 2008, the financial crisis hit and all plans were changed with the $750 billion Toxic Asset Relief Package. We’ve seen how well that worked out. And now the 2008 mortgage aid program is defunct, not in service, not funded by the government. The only program that would have truly helped home owners that could actually pay their mortgages and provide incentives to stay in their homes is gone. In its place is the Obama plan.
The Obama Housing Plan
The Obama Housing Plan will not help solve the financial crisis. At best it will prolong it, and then it will contribute to a further decline and further foreclosures in housing. Why do I say this? The Obama Housing Plan does not help the people described above in my problem scenario. According to the New York Times:
Q. What if my home is worth less than my mortgage?
A. “Underwater” homeowners may still be eligible, but your new mortgage can’t exceed more than 105 percent of the property’s current market value. In other words, your loan can’t be 5 percent higher than your home’s current value. So if you live in areas where home values have plunged the most, like Florida, Arizona or Nevada, there’s a good chance you won’t be eligible. According to an article by my colleague John Leland, about 20 percent of the country’s 50 million mortgage holders owe more than 105 percent of their house’s value.
And this my friends is the crux of the problem. The housing bubble and current housing crisis was built on home prices escalating far beyond their worth. They have come down as I mentioned in some states as much as 33%. Most home owners who can afford to pay their mortgages but are so completely upside down in cost to value ratio have no incentive to stay in that home, and they do not qualify under the Obama Housing Plan for assistance. Even those in sub-prime mortgages who could have their home prices greatly reduced by new fixed rate mortgages may not qualify due to the 105% house value clause. For those in sub-prime mortgages that aren’t upside down in their homes, they may not qualify because the plan states that their mortgage payment cannot exceed 31% of their gross monthly incomes. For many of those whom took out sub-prime mortgages, this will be a deal breaker.
What We Are Left With
The result of the Obama plan will be disaster. Few people will be helped. The resulting loan to home value will continue to rise as housing prices continue to decline and more and more foreclosures continue to occur. I’m not sure why I am so surprised by all of this as I’ve never believed that government can help the private sector. Their claims “we are the government, and we are here to help” is as Ronald Reagan claimed the scariest words you’ll ever hear. And today they are words that are not helpful at all.
We could have had a housing crisis plan that may have helped. In fact, one was passed in July of 2008 under the Bush Administration, but it never went into effect. Why? Could it be that it might have mitigated a crisis that Rahm Emanuel says should always be taken advantage of? Is the July 2008 mortgage aid bill retraction in the end going to result in nationalized health care, destruction of our own energy development in the name of a faux global warming crisis. Is all of this obfuscation by the Obama Administration and their implementation of a Housing Plan that won’t work a way to keep this crisis going so that they can continue to cram their socialistic government down our throats? I know the answer, do you?
Update — Links to Info on the Original Mortgage Aid Plan (from Mahalo.com)
- Bloomberg: Bush Signs Measure for Homeowners, Fannie, Freddie (July 30, 2008)
- International Herald Tribune: Bush signs sweeping housing bill (July 30, 2008)
- Yahoo! News: Provisions of housing-mortgage relief bill (July 26, 2008)
- The New York Times: House Passes Housing Bill After Bush Says He Will Sign It (July 24, 2008)
- New York Times: Housing Aid Bill Passes Senate Test (June 25, 2008)
- Reuters: FACTBOX: Comparison of Senate, House mortgage rescue (June 24, 2008)
- Financial Times: White House veto threat to proposed housing law (June 20, 2008)
- Topix.net: Mortgage Aid Plan
- Google News: Mortgage Aid Plan
During the 2008 general election, there were three reasons why I didn’t place my faith nor my vote in now President Barack Obama: Ideology, Character and Experience. Wrapped around these three critical factors is the deceit that is Barack Obama.
As a fiscal conservative and a social moderate (not a registered Republican), ideology is important to me especially from an economic perspective, but it is not necessarily the only or most important factor I use in weighing my vote for elected officials. For example, I wouldn’t vote against a pro-choice candidate just because they were pro-choice, and I wouldn’t cast my vote for Barack Obama for his potentially economic superiority during the campaign to John McCain.
Ideology is an important tool I use to judge a candidate’s attitudes toward government in alignment with mine. During last year’s Presidential election, I found Barack Obama’s ideology diametrically opposed to my views on the role of government. As I’ve mentioned in this blog, I am a proponent of Thoreau’s thought that “government is best which governs least,” and in reading about Obama’s voting record in both the State Senate and U.S. Senate, I quickly discovered that Barack Obama had a far left liberal voting record. I concluded that this was and is a man that believes in big, big government a position we do not share. Mark one in the check box of just say no to Barack for me.
While others including conservatives were promoting Barack Obama as a centrist, I was dumbfounded that these same people whom are intellectually superior to me could not find the same voting records and come to the same conclusion that this man is no centrist. They promoted the lie to themselves and those with the audience to others leaving us with the most leftist politician to take up residence in the White House in several decades.
But ideology is only one aspect of politics, and since I didn’t closely share John McCain’s ideology either, there was more to compare and contrast between the two men.
It is difficult for me to find fault in John McCain’s character. I believe that John McCain is a good man, misguided at times, but a fine man nonetheless. I never questioned his integrity nor his moral character. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of President Obama. I questioned Obama’s character throughout the election process. I no longer question his character for I have found that he has none.
When we define character as moral or ethical quality (which is part of the its definition), we find Obama to be completely lacking. Even for those of you whom are pro-choice on the abortion issue, does it not disturb you that this is a man who did not want to give human status to newborns whom left the womb in a botched abortion and were left to die in a hospital utility closet? Even the most ardent pro-choice advocates can find something a bit immoral and unethical in the treatment of and characterization thereof a human life. If you do not believe that President Obama holds such extreme views than you allowed yourself to be deceived regarding President Obama’s clear record on this issue while he was a member of the Illinois State Senate.
But a person doesn’t become morally and ethically bankrupt for no apparent reason. And the reasons are many as to how Barack Obama came to be the person he is today. We all know the story of President Obama’s youth quite well. We know he was born to a Kenyan father and an American mother. We know his father abandoned him before he was two year’s of age, and we know that his mother later sent him to live with his grandparents at the age of 10 (another form of abandonment). I am no psychologist, but these traumatic childhood experiences had to have an effect.
We know from President Obama’s book Dreams of My Father that he was subjected to Frank Marshall Davis during his youth in an effort to provide Mr. Obama with an African American influence in his life. Another deceit that has been perpetrated on the American people is that this relationship was not fully defined for us during the campaign. Frank Marshall Davis has often been noted as a communist, but he is more accurately describedas a journalist, labor activist, ex-patriat and a leader of the socialist movement in Hawaii. Frank Marshall Davis was once a community organizer in Chicago, and it seems reasonable to believe that Marshall’s tutelage may have been the driving force in Obama becoming a community organizer as well. These influences were a profound part of Obama’s world view as he derived them in childhood under such a mentor and they contribute to his moral bankruptcy to this day.
Besides Frank Marshall Davis, William Ayers has also been linked to President Obama although Obama has not admitted to a serious relationship with William Ayers. I find this disingenuous on Mr. Obama’s part at best citing Obama’s admission that he held one of his first political fundraisers in William Ayers home and received one of his most significant jobs (other than politically elected positions ) at the Annenburg and Woods Foundations where William Ayers served on the board of directors and hired Barack Obama. Unlike Frank Marshall Davis, William Ayers is an admitted communist. There are many YouTube videos available where William Ayers clearly defines his positions in support of communism.
Having lived abroad, not led a traditional American life, and having these types of influences in Barack Obama’s life, it is not surprising that Barack Obama grew up to be a fairly far left political radical in his ideologies. I do not disparage Mr. Obama his views and can appreciate how he came to them. The reason I declare Mr. Obama immoral and unethical, basically completely lacking in character, is he went to great lengths to hide the importance of these relationships and continued to thrive and promote these ideologies all the while pretending to be a centrist during the election.
Case in point, Mr. Obama’s attendance and membership at the Trinity United Church of Christ — a black liberation theology church. Black liberation theology celebrates the African American. On principle, I agree with many of the tenants of black liberation theology although I don’t believe in the manner in which we achieve the goals. Black liberation theology today is a segregated religion even though it was born in an era to eradicate segregation. The primary tenant of this church is social equality, and I don’t begrudge the church the equality they seek. My problem is the method we take to get there. Socialism has never in the past provided for a more just society in fact just the opposite has happened. Segregation pits sects of society against one another and, in my view, does not promote social equality. President Obama embraced the views of this church.
Mr. Obama, while claiming to be a post-partisan candidate, is one the most partisan political figures I’ve seen in quite some time. President Obama in his current day creed of social equality has actually begun to create a class war among the upper class and all of those below them. What President Obama does not acknowledge is the individual spirit, the spirit of individual giving and that the world is a far more just place when individuals are allowed to pursue their own lives, liberties and happiness without interference by our government.
My biggest problem with President Obama is that his actions rarely match his soaring rhetoric. While he berates corporations for their excesses, he has no restraint on his own (i.e. the weekly Wednesday night parties at the White House). His hypocrisy has shown no bounds. While he says to the American people there are no earmarks in the $787 billion stimulus package, we know it is full of unnecessary pet projects. He claims to be acting fiscally responsibly when we know there is nothing fiscally responsible about his current spending and proposed 2010 budget. Barack Obama loves to say what the American people want to hear while his actions portend the exact opposite of his words. This hypocrisy, this constant fabrication of his true agenda, the bold face lies he espouses to the American people does not make of a man a moral and ethical character.
Even if you agree with President Obama’s ideologies, and don’t share my analysis of his character, surely during the Presidential campaign some of you must have considered his lack of experience. Having spent 8 years in the Illinois State Senate and 2 years in the U.S. Senate before he began his Presidential campaign, surely you did not think President Obama came with a wealth of experience to hold the job of the highest public office in our land.
It isn’t surprising that this lack of experience has shown through in his first six weeks in office. He’s unequivocally held to his political ideologies instead of pursuing a course for the country that will help us get out of the economic crisis that his policies are currently exacerbating. His foreign policy is dismal to the point of being incredibly dangerous for our country. He has appointed cabinet members and senior officials that are dangerous to our country on the world stage. He has disrespected one of our greatest allies in Great Britain and the only reason this is not a bigger issue today is Prime Minister Brown of England shares Obama’s socialistic views. The Russians know they are dealing with a political child in the White House and will move forward with their own policies that may greatly diminish the once held power of the United States.
The Deceit We are Left With
It is a scary time for America, all because people didn’t take the time to truly evaluate how important ideologies, character and experience are. It is truly disheartening to watch all of this play out when it was so evident during the last election cycle exactly what was about to happen to our country under this leadership. I pray those of you whom voted for President Obama will be able to live with yourselves when all of the destruction of his political ideologies are complete. You did us all a great disservice when you did not vet this candidate properly and simply voted with emotion and succumbed to the propaganda. I hold those in the Main Stream Media most responsible for our demise under this Administration.
The deceit the Main Stream Media showed in all things Barack Obama is staggering, and it is under their auspice that we are stuck with this frightful Administration. If you thought the Carter years were bad, you haven’t seen anything yet. I beg the Main Stream Media to end the deceit post haste in an attempt to mitigate and lessen the damage they have already caused. They must start reporting the truth about Barack Obama. They must begin to critically analyze his actions versus his empty rhetoric. They must help the American people see the truth of this man. Our country depends on surviving the deceit that is the Barack Obama Presidency. I only hope for all of our sakes that we will survive.