Auldarrow's Flog

Highlights – Think & Do

“Very Interesting Bit Of Detective Work” for those who mock Birthers

leave a comment »

“Very Interesting Bit Of Detective Work”
        1. Back in 1961 people of color were called ‘Negroes.’ So how can the
        Obama ‘birth certificate’ state he is ‘African-American’ when the term
        wasn’t even used at that time?
        2. The birth certificate that the White House released lists Obama’s
        birth as August 4, 1961. It also lists Barack Hussein Obama as his
        father. No big deal, right? At the time of Obama’s birth, it also shows
        that his father is aged 25 years old, and that Obama’s father was born
        in ” Kenya , East Africa “. This wouldn’t seem like anything of concern,
        except the fact that Kenya did not even exist until 1963, two whole
        years after Obama’s birth, and 27 years after his father’s birth. How
        could Obama’s father have been born in a country that did not yet exist?
        Up and until Kenya was formed in 1963, it was known as the ” British
        East Africa Protectorate”.
        3. On the birth certificate released by the White House, the listed
        place of birth is “Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital “. This
        cannot be, because the hospital(s) in question in 1961 were called
        “KauiKeolani Children’s Hospital” and “Kapi’olani Maternity Home”,
        respectively. The name did not change to Kapi’olani Maternity
        Gynecological Hospital until 1978, when these two hospitals merged. How
        can this particular name of the hospital be on a birth certificate dated
        1961 if this name had not yet been applied to it until 1978?
        < <>
        <<>  < > >
        Why hasn’t this been discussed in the major media?????

Written by auldarrow

January 17, 2012 at 11:04 pm

Posted in Front Page

United Nations Agenda 21 (your local neighborhood association)

leave a comment »


I find this progressive drivel somewhat disconcerting.  essentially Agenda 21 uses environmentalism (land use and transportation) to control population and will by law render the end to private property, free movement outside of very narrowly defined Human settlements, and UN control of land, natural resources and national military.  It actually removes nationhood, constitutions and any form of national control.  I have before and continue to oppose the role of UN in the world, as I oppose the concept of globalism, one world government and the ‘global village.’  Having lived in Europe for several years I have seen my thoughts at times tend towards unification where laws and civil irregularities caused inconvenience and where religion, politics, and social norms became an obstruction to convenient living.

The downside to globalization, financial unity, military joint exercises is that they always compromise individual liberty.  The convenience comes at the price of real freedom for individuals to exist without the tyranny of government,  and government hegemony always devolves into tyranny.

I include this material as a warning to the wise and an effort to inform those fools who believe that they are helpless to influence their lives.  It is time to get involved and participate in the patriots duty for civil disobedience.  Don’t look for anyone to save you from this agenda, rely on yourself to stand up preserve this nation we love.  This agenda  has to be weeded out of local laws,  Communitarianism vs nationalism.

I included 2 videos which I found to be educational.  Each one is well worth the time to watch.  I waded through the Agenda 21 original source (reason I included it) after hearing opinions about it.

Core Publications

Agenda 21


Links to Agenda 21 Chapters


عربي | 中文 | English | Français | Русский | Español





















Table of Contents






1.1 – 1.6


*see A/CONF.151/26/REV.1(VOL.I)

عربي | 中文 | English| Русский


عربي | 中文 | English| Français| Русский | Español







International cooperation to accelerate sustainable development in developing countries and related domestic policies

2.1 – 2.43


Combating poverty

3.1 – 3.12


Changing consumption patterns

4.1 – 4.27


Demographic dynamics and sustainability

5.1 – 5.66


Protecting and promoting human health conditions

6.1 – 6.46


Promoting sustainable human settlement development

7.1 – 7.80


Integrating environment and development in decision-making

8.1 – 8.54


*see A/CONF.151/26/REV.1(VOL.II)

عربي | English







Protection of the atmosphere

9.1 – 9.35


Integrated approach to the planning and management of land resources

10.1 – 10.18


Combating deforestation

11.1 – 11.40


Managing fragile ecosystems: combating desertification and drought

12.1 – 12.63


Managing fragile ecosystems: sustainable mountain development

13.1 – 13.24


Promoting sustainable agriculture and rural development

14.1 – 14.104


Conservation of biological diversity

15.1 – 15.11


Environmentally sound management of biotechnology

16.1 – 16.46


Protection of the oceans, all kinds of seas, including enclosed and semi-enclosed seas, and coastal areas and the protection, rational use and development of their living resources

17.1 – 17.136


Protection of the quality and supply of freshwater resources: application of integrated approaches to the development, management and use of water resources

18.1 – 18.90


Environmentally sound management of toxic chemicals, including prevention of illegal international traffic in toxic and dangerous products

19.1 – 19.76


Environmentally Sound Management of Hazardous Wastes, Including Prevention of Illegal International Traffic in Hazardous Wastes

20.1 – 20.46


Environmentally sound management of solid wastes and sewage-related issues

21.1 – 21.49


Safe and environmentally sound management of radioactive wastes

22.1 – 22.9


*see A/CONF.151/26 Vol. III








23.1 – 23.4


Global action for women towards sustainable and equitable development

24.1 – 24.12


Children and youth in sustainable development

25.1 – 25.17


Recognizing and strengthening the role of indigenous people and their communities

26.1 – 26.9


Strengthening the role of non-governmental organizations: partners for sustainable development

27.1 – 27.13


Local authorities’ initiatives in support of Agenda 21

28.1 – 28.7


Strengthening the role of workers and their trade unions

29.1 – 29.14


Strengthening the role of business and industry

30.1 – 30.30


Scientific and technological community

31.1 – 31.12


Strengthening the role of farmers

32.1 – 32.14


*see A/CONF.151/26 Vol. III







Financial resources and mechanisms

33.1 – 33.21


Transfer of environmentally sound technology, cooperation and capacity-building

34.1 – 34.29


Science for sustainable development

35.1 – 35.25


Promoting education, public awareness and training

36.1 – 36.27


National mechanisms and international cooperation for capacity-building in developing countries

37.1 – 37.13


International institutional arrangements

38.1 – 38.45


International legal instruments and mechanisms

39.1 – 39.10


Information for decision-making

40.1 – 40.30

Copyright © United Nations 2009 | Terms of Use | Privacy Notice

Comments and suggestions


Pasted from <>



ORDER NO. 3299
Subject: Establishment of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement. and the Office of Natural Resources Revenue.
Sec. 1 Purpose. The purpose of this Order is to separate and reassign the responsibilities that had been conducted by the Minerals Management Service into new management structures that will improve the management. oversight, and accountability of activities on the Outer Continental Shelf; ensure a fair return to the taxpayer from royalty and revenue collection and disbursement activities; and provide independent safety and environmental oversight and enforcement of offshore activities.
Sec. 2 Authority. This Order is issued in accordance with the authority provided by Section 2 of the Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1950 (64 Stat. 1262).

Sec. 3 Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. Through this Order, and in accordance with the schedule set forth in Section 9, a Bureau of Ocean Energy Management will be established in the Department. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management will be led by a Director, and it will be under the supervision of the Assistant Secretary — Land and Minerals Management. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management will exercise the conventional (e.g., oil and gas) and renewable energy-related management functions of the Minerals Management Service not otherwise transferred pursuant to this Order including, but not limited to, activities involving resource evaluation, planning, and leasing.

Sec. 4 Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement. Through this Order, and in accordance with the schedule set forth in Section 9, a Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement will be established in the Department. The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement will be led by a I)director, and it will be under the supervision of the Assistant Secretary — Land and Minerals Management. The safety and environmental enforcement functions of the Minerals Management Service including, but not limited to, the authority to inspect, investigate, summon witnesses and produce evidence, levy penalties, cancel or suspend activities, and oversee safety, response. and removal preparedness will be exercised by the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement.

Sec. 5 Office of Natural Resources Revenue. Through this Order, and in accordance with the schedule set forth in Section 9. the Office of Natural Resources Revenue will be established in the Department. The Office of Natural Resources Revenue will be led by a Director and it will be under the supervision of the Assistant Secretary — Policy, Management and Budget. The royalty and revenue management functions of the Minerals Management Service including, but not limited to, royalty and revenue collection, distribution, auditing and compliance,

Written by auldarrow

November 6, 2011 at 8:19 pm

We Are Wall Street

leave a comment »

Oct 26


I have no clue who wrote this as “Anonymous” but it should go viral: “Food for Thought from Wall St.” — [cont.]

We are Wall Street. It’s our job to make money. Whether it’s a commodity, stock, bond, or some hypothetical piece of fake paper, it doesn’t matter. We would trade baseball cards if it were profitable. I didn’t hear America complaining when the market was roaring to 14,000 and everyone’s 401K doubled every 3 years. Just like gambling, it’s not a problem until you lose. I’ve never heard of anyone going to Gamblers Anonymous because they won too much in Vegas.Well now the market crapped out, and even though it has come back somewhat, the government and the average Joes are still looking for a scapegoat. God knows there has to be one for everything. Well, here we are.

Go ahead and continue to take us down, but you’re only going to hurt yourselves. What’s going to happen when we can’t find jobs on the Street anymore? Guess what? We’re going to take yours. We get up at 5 am and work until 10pm at a minimum or later. We’re used to not getting up to pee when we have a position. We don’t take an hour or more for a lunch break. We don’t demand a union. We don’t retire at 50 with a pension. We eat what we kill, and when the only thing left to eat is on your dinner plates, we’ll eat that.

For years teachers and other unionized labor have had us fooled. We were too busy to notice. Do you really think that we are incapable of teaching 3rd graders and doing landscaping? We’re going to take your cushy jobs with tenure and 4 months off a year and whine just like you that we are sooooo underpaid for building the youth of America. Say goodbye to your overtime and double time and a half. I’ll be hitting grounders to the high school baseball team for $5K extra a Summer, thank you very much.

So now that we’re going to [be] making $85,000 a year without upside, Joe Main street is going to have his revenge…right? Wrong! Guess what? We’re going to stop buying the new $80K automobile, we aren’t going to leave the 35% tip at our business dinners anymore. No more free rides on our backs. We’re going to landscape our own backyards, wash our cars with a garden hoses in our driveways. Our money *was* your money. You spent it. When our money dries up, so does yours.

The difference is, you lived off of it, we rejoiced in it. The Obama administration and the Democratic National Committee might get their way and knock us off the top of the pyramid, but it’s really going to hurt like hell for them when our fat asses land directly on the middle class of America and knock them to the bottom.

We aren’t dinosaurs. We are smarter and more vicious than that, and we are going to survive. The question is, now that Obama and his administration are making Joe Main street our food supply…will he survive? And will they?

Written by auldarrow

October 26, 2011 at 10:31 pm

Posted in Front Page

Tagged with ,

It is Now Mathematically Impossible To Pay Off the U.S. National Debt

with 2 comments


Pasted from <>

A lot of people are very upset about the rapidly increasing U.S. national debt these days and they are  demanding a solution. What they don’t realize is that there simply is not a solution under the current U.S. financial system. It is now mathematically impossible for the U.S. government to pay off the U.S. national debt. You see, the truth is that the U.S. government now owes more dollars than actually exist. If the U.S. government went out today and took every single penny from every single American bank, business and taxpayer, they still would not be able to pay off the national debt. And if they did that, obviously American society would stop functioning because nobody would have any money to buy or sell anything.

And the U.S. government would still be massively in debt.

So why doesn’t the U.S. government just fire up the printing presses and print a bunch of money to pay off the debt?

Well, for one very simple reason.

That is not the way our system works.

You see, for more dollars to enter the system, the U.S. government has to go into more debt.

The U.S. government does not issue U.S. currency – the Federal Reserve does.

The Federal Reserve is a private bank owned and operated for profit by a very powerful group of elite international bankers.

If you will pull a dollar bill out and take a look at it, you will notice that it says “Federal Reserve Note” at the top.

It belongs to the Federal Reserve.

The U.S. government cannot simply go out and create new money whenever it wants under our current system.

Instead, it must get it from the Federal Reserve.

So, when the U.S. government needs to borrow more money (which happens a lot these days) it goes over to the Federal Reserve and asks them for some more green pieces of paper called Federal Reserve Notes.   

The Federal Reserve swaps these green pieces of paper for pink pieces of paper called U.S. Treasury bonds. The Federal Reserve either sells these U.S. Treasury bonds or they keep the bonds for themselves (which happens a lot these days).

So that is how the U.S. government gets more green pieces of paper called “U.S. dollars” to put into circulation. But by doing so, they get themselves into even more debt which they will owe even more interest on.

So every time the U.S. government does this, the national debt gets even bigger and the interest on that debt gets even bigger.

Are you starting to get the picture?

As you read this, the U.S. national debt is approximately 12 trillion dollars, although it is going up so rapidly that it is really hard to pin down an exact figure.

So how much money actually exists in the United States today?

Well, there are several ways to measure this.

The “M0” money supply is the total of all physical bills and currency, plus the money on hand in bank vaults and all of the deposits those banks have at reserve banks.  As of mid-2009, the Federal Reserve said that this amount was about 908 billion dollars.

The “M1” money supply includes all of the currency in the “M0” money supply, along with all of the money held in checking accounts and other checkable accounts at banks, as well as all money contained in travelers’ checks.  According to the Federal Reserve, this totaled approximately 1.7 trillion dollars in December 2009, but not all of this money actually “exists” as we will see in a moment.

The “M2” money supply includes everything in the “M1” money supply plus most other savings accounts, money market accounts, retail money market mutual funds, and small denomination time deposits (certificates of deposit of under $100,000).  According to the Federal Reserve, this totaled approximately 8.5 trillion dollars in December 2009, but once again, not all of this money actually “exists” as we will see in a moment.

The “M3” money supply includes everything in the “M2” money supply plus all other CDs (large time deposits and institutional money market mutual fund balances), deposits of eurodollars and repurchase agreements.  The Federal Reserve does not keep track of M3 anymore, but according to it is currently somewhere in the neighborhood of 14 trillion dollars.  But again, not all of this “money” actually “exists” either.

So why doesn’t it exist?

It is because our financial system is based on something called fractional reserve banking.

When you go over to your local bank and deposit $100, they do not keep your $100 in the bank.  Instead, they keep only a small fraction of your money there at the bank and they lend out the rest to someone else.  Then, if that person deposits the money that was just borrowed at the same bank, that bank can loan out most of that money once again.  In this way, the amount of “money” quickly gets multiplied.  But in reality, only $100 actually exists.  The system works because we do not all run down to the bank and demand all of our money at the same time.

According to the New York Federal Reserve Bank, fractional reserve banking can be explained this way….

“If the reserve requirement is 10%, for example, a bank that receives a $100 deposit may lend out $90 of that deposit. If the borrower then writes a check to someone who deposits the $90, the bank receiving that deposit can lend out $81. As the process continues, the banking system can expand the initial deposit of $100 into a maximum of $1,000 of money ($100+$90+81+$72.90+…=$1,000).”

So much of the “money” out there today is basically made up out of thin air.

In fact, most banks have no reserve requirements at all on savings deposits, CDs and certain kinds of money market accounts.  Primarily, reserve requirements apply only to “transactions deposits” – essentially checking accounts.

The truth is that banks are freer today to dramatically “multiply” the amounts deposited with them than ever before.  But all of this “multiplied” money is only on paper – it doesn’t actually exist.

The point is that the broadest measures of the money supply (M2 and M3) vastly overstate how much “real money” actually exists in the system. 

So if the U.S. government went out today and demanded every single dollar from all banks, businesses and individuals in the United States it would not be able to collect 14 trillion dollars (M3) or even 8.5 trillion dollars (M2) because those amounts are based on fractional reserve banking.

So the bottom line is this….

#1) If all money owned by all American banks, businesses and individuals was gathered up today and sent to the U.S. government, there would not be enough to pay off the U.S. national debt.

#2) The only way to create more money is to go into even more debt which makes the problem even worse.

You see, this is what the whole Federal Reserve System was designed to do.  It was designed to slowly drain the massive wealth of the American people and transfer it to the international bankers.

It is a game that is designed so that the U.S. government cannot win.  As soon as they create more money by borrowing it, the U.S. government owes more than what was created because of interest.

If you owe more money than ever was created you can never pay it back.

That means perpetual debt for as long as the system exists.

It is a system designed to force the U.S. government into ever-increasing amounts of debt because there is no escape.

We could solve this problem by shutting down the Federal Reserve and restoring the power to issue U.S. currency to the U.S. Congress (which is what the U.S. Constitution calls for).  But the politicians in Washington D.C. are not about to do that.

So unless you are willing to fundamentally change the current system, you might as well quit complaining about the U.S. national debt because it is now mathematically impossible to pay it off.


It has been suggested that the same dollar can be used to pay off debt over and over – this is theoretically true as long as the dollar remains in the system.

For example, if the U.S. government gives China a dollar to pay off a debt, there is a good chance that the U.S. government will be able to acquire that dollar again and use it to pay off another debt.elite

However, this is not true when debt is retired with the Federal Reserve.  In that case, money is actually removed from the system.  In fact, because of the “money multiplier”, when debt is retired with the Federal Reserve it can remove ten times that amount of money (and actually more, but let’s not get too technical) from the system.

You see, fractional reserve banking works both ways.  When $100 is introduced into the system, it can theoretically create $1000 as the example in the article above demonstrates.  However, when that $100 is removed, it can have the opposite impact.

And considering the fact that the Federal Reserve “purchased” the vast majority of new U.S. government debt last year, we have got a real mess on our hands.

Even if a way could be figured out how to pay off all the debt we owe to foreign nations (such as China, Japan, etc.) it would still be mathematically impossible to pay off the debt that we owe to the Federal Reserve which is exploding so fast that it is hard to even keep track of.

Of course we could repudiate that debt and shut down the Federal Reserve, but very few in Washington D.C. have any interest in doing that.

It has also been suggested that instead of just using dollars to pay off the U.S. national debt, we could use the assets of the U.S. government to pay it off.

That is rather extreme, but let us consider that for a moment.

That total value of all physical assets in the United States, both publicly and privately owned, is somewhere in the neighborhood of 45 to 50 trillion dollars.  Of course the idea of the U.S. government “owning” every single asset of the American people is repugnant to our entire way of life, but let’s assume that for a moment.

According to the 2008 Financial Report of the United States Government, which is an official United States government report, the total liabilities of the United States government, including future social security and medicare payments that the U.S. government is already committed to pay out, now exceed 65 TRILLION dollars.  This amount is more than the entire GDP of the whole world.

In fact, there are other authors who have written that the actual figure for the future liabilities of the U.S. government should be much higher, but let’s be conservative and go with 65 trillion for now.

So, if the U.S. government took control of all physical assets in the United States and sold them off, it could not even make enough money to pay for everything that the U.S. government is already on the hook for.


If you have not read the 2008 Financial Report of the United States Government, you really should.  Actually the 2009 report should be available very soon if it isn’t already.  If anyone knows if it is available, please let us know. 

The truth is that the U.S. government is in much bigger financial trouble than we have been led to believe. 

For example, according to the report (which remember is an official U.S. government report) the real U.S. budget deficit for 2008 was not 455 billion dollars.  It was actually 5.1 trillion dollars.

So why the difference?

The CBO’s 455 billion figure is based on cash accounting, while the 5.1 trillion figure in the 2008 Financial Report of the United States Government is based on GAAP accounting. GAAP accounting is what is used by all the major firms on Wall Street and it is regarded as a much more accurate reflection of financial reality.

So needless to say, the United States is in a financial mess of unprecedented magnitude.

So what should we do?  Does anyone have any suggestions?

***UPDATE 2***

We have received a lot of great comments on this article.  Trying to understand the U.S. financial system (even after studying it for years) can be very difficult at times.  In fact, it can almost seem like playing 3 dimensional chess.

Several readers have correctly pointed out that when the U.S. money supply is expanded by the Federal Reserve, the interest that is to be paid on that new debt is not created. 

So where does the money to pay that interest come from?  Well, eventually the money supply has to be expanded some more.  But that creates even more debt.

That brings us to the next point.

Several readers have insisted that the Federal Reserve is not privately owned and that since it returns “most” of the profits it makes to the U.S. government that we should not be concerned about the debt owed to it.

The truth is that what you have with the Federal Reserve is layers of ownership.  The following was originally posted on the Federal Reserve’s website….

“The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by Congress as the operating arms of the nation’s central banking system, are organized much like private corporations – possibly leading to some confusion about “ownership.” For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year.”

So Federal Reserve “stock” is owned by member banks.  So who owns the member banks?  Well, when you sift through additional layers of ownership, you will ultimately find that people like the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers and the Queen of England have very large ownership interests in the big banks.  But there are so many layers of ownership that they are able to disguise themselves well. 

You see, these people are not stupid.  They did not become the richest people in the world by being morons.  It was the banking elite of the world who designed the Federal Reserve and it is the banking elite of the world who benefit the most from the Federal Reserve today.  In the article above when we described the Federal Reserve as “a private bank owned and operated for profit by a very powerful group of elite international bankers” we may have been oversimplifying things a bit, but it is the essence of what is going on.

In an excellent article that she did on the Federal Reserve, Ellen Brown described a number of the ways that the Federal Reserve makes money for those who own it….

The interest on bonds acquired with its newly-issued Federal Reserve Notes pays the Fed’s operating expenses plus a guaranteed 6% return to its banker shareholders. A mere 6% a year may not be considered a profit in the world of Wall Street high finance, but most businesses that manage to cover all their expenses and give their shareholders a guaranteed 6% return are considered “for profit” corporations.

In addition to this guaranteed 6%, the banks will now be getting interest from the taxpayers on their “reserves.” The basic reserve requirement set by the Federal Reserve is 10%. The website of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York explains that as money is redeposited and relent throughout the banking system, this 10% held in “reserve” can be fanned into ten times that sum in loans; that is, $10,000 in reserves becomes $100,000 in loans. Federal Reserve Statistical Release H.8 puts the total “loans and leases in bank credit” as of September 24, 2008 at $7,049 billion. Ten percent of that is $700 billion. That means we the taxpayers will be paying interest to the banks on at least $700 billion annually – this so that the banks can retain the reserves to accumulate interest on ten times that sum in loans.

The banks earn these returns from the taxpayers for the privilege of having the banks’ interests protected by an all-powerful independent private central bank, even when those interests may be opposed to the taxpayers’ — for example, when the banks use their special status as private money creators to fund speculative derivative schemes that threaten to collapse the U.S. economy. Among other special benefits, banks and other financial institutions (but not other corporations) can borrow at the low Fed funds rate of about 2%. They can then turn around and put this money into 30-year Treasury bonds at 4.5%, earning an immediate 2.5% from the taxpayers, just by virtue of their position as favored banks. A long list of banks (but not other corporations) is also now protected from the short selling that can crash the price of other stocks.

The reality is that there are a lot of ways that the Federal Reserve is a money-making tool.  Yes, they do return “some” of their profits to the U.S. government each year.  But the Federal Reserve is NOT a government agency and it DOES make profits. 

So just how much money is made over there?  The truth is that we have to rely on what the Federal Reserve tells us, because they have never been subjected to a comprehensive audit by the U.S. government.


Right now there is legislation going through Congress that would change that, and the Federal Reserve is fighting it tooth and nail.  They are warning that such an audit could cause a financial disaster.

What are they so afraid of?

Are they afraid that we might get to peek inside and see what they have been up to all these years?

If you are a history buff, then you probably know that debates about a “central bank” go all the way back to the Founding Fathers.

The European banking elite have always been determined to control our currency, and that is exactly what is happening today.

Ever since the Federal Reserve was created, there have been members of the U.S. Congress that have been trying to warn the American people about the insidious nature of this institution. 

Just check out what the Honorable Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee had to say all the way back in the 1930s….

“Some people think that the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders.”

The Federal Reserve is not the solution and it never has been.

The Federal Reserve is the problem.

Any thoughts


Pasted from <>

Written by auldarrow

May 24, 2011 at 10:20 pm

Posted in Front Page

Tagged with

Hillary, Eric, Wikileaks and the BATFE Scandal: An Overview and Timeline

leave a comment »


About Me

Vince Warde

I have been blessed with a wonderful and interesting life. The formative experience of my life was my conversion to Christianity at age 18. I say this because every other kid from my neighborhood is now dead – or a convicted felon. Jesus Christ made a very real difference in my life. The second greatest blessing in my life is my wife (of 29 years) Carla. She has taught me a great deal about how to love people. Together we have been blessed with two daughters, a son and a grandson – as well as a great daughter and son in law. Vocationally – my first career was in EMS. I worked as a full time Paramedic and a part time firefighter. After an injury ended my EMS days, I entered the ministry. I have been a Pastor, lead recovery groups, and served as a police chaplain. I am currently a Civil Air Patrol (USAF Aux.)chaplain. About 10 years ago, I started a parallel career as a computer tech. Politically, I a generally right of center – although I believe that many, many issues are a matter of right vs wrong – rather than right vs left.

Pasted from <>

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

Hillary, Eric, Wikileaks and the BATFE Scandal: An Overview and Timeline

Note: This blog’s timeline will be updated several times per week in order to keep this reference current


Note: Timeline updated May 24, 2011


As more evidence emerges, it appears more and more likely that high-ranking administration officials in both the Justice and State Departments not only lied to the American people, but also conspired to increase the number of US firearms being smuggled into Mexico. This week Wikileaks (certainly not a pro-gun group) released diplomatic cables exposing a whole other side to the scandal.


Shortly after President Obama took office in January 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton launched a coordinated effort to pass more gun control laws here in the U.S.. The justification? 90% of military style semi-automatic rifles used in the cartel wars in Mexico were bought in U.S. gun stores and smuggled across the boarder.


There was only one problem: It was all a big lie. We now know that not only did the Justice Department know that the 90% figure was inaccurate, the State Department knew where the bulk of the rifles were actually coming from: Central America and U.S. sales to the Mexican Military.


The current timeline of the scandal provides the strongest support yet for the theory that administration officials first lied about the source of Mexican crime guns and then set about trying to support that lie by increasing the number of guns “going south”.


Early 2009: High ranking members of the administration launch a major campaign to pass a new “Assault Weapons Ban” in the U.S.. Over and over they state that 90% of weapons recovered in Mexico come from U.S. gun shops.


Almost immediately, the 90% figure is called into question. Eventually it becomes apparent that:


1) 90% of guns reported to the U.S. BATFE for tracing are found to have come from the U.S.. HOWEVER: ONLY ABOUT ONE IN FIVE GUNS RECOVERED IN MEXICO IS SUBMITTED FOR TRACING. Even the left leaning recognizes that the real figure is no more than 18%, not 90%.


2) The administration was also including any firearm come from the U.S. in its’ figures – including firearms sold to the Mexican military and diverted to the cartels. Information revealed by Wikileaks confirms that the State Department was well aware that large numbers of these weapons were ending up in the hands of the cartels – and BATFE would discover this when they ran the trace. Counting these guns as coming from U.S. gun shops was flat out dishonest.


3) Wikileaks now also confirms that at the time the “90% lie” was being sold to the U.S. public, Hillary Clinton’s own State Department knew that the majority of weapons (other than handguns) were actually coming from Central America, not the U.S. This would include the so-called “assault weapons” the administration was seeking to ban.


In short, there is now ample proof that one of the first things the new Obama administration did upon taking office was to use information they absolutely knew was false to attempt to pass new gun control laws.


Sadly, the story does not end there. It appears that the administration may have reacted to the exposure of their lie by trying to make it come true.


Early 2009: At virtually the same time: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) began ordering gun dealers to sell guns to suspected smugglers.


Early 2009 to late 2010: Instead of arresting the smugglers, ATF agents are ordered to watch as the guns are smuggled into Mexico. Over and over they beg for permission to stop the guns from going into Mexico – every time the order is the same; Stand down.


Late 2010: Reports of the policy begin to appear on the insider web forum


December 14th 2010, just after 11:00pm: US Boarder Patrol Agent Brain Terry is killed with an AK-47 smuggled into Mexico with the help of ATF.


December 28th 2010: The first whistle-blowing agent makes contact with gun rights media reporters David Codrea and Mike Vanderboegh. This first agent states that the program’s purpose was to increase the number of US guns recovered in Mexico in order to justify further gun control laws in the US and increase ATF’s budget.


January 22, 2011: World Net Daily becomes the first news outlet outside the “gun rights” media to report the story.


Late January 2011: ATF supervisors begin threatening whistle-blowers in an effort to stop the story.


January 30, 2011: Mexican press begins reporting on the scandal. Over the next two months it becomes and remains front page news throughout the country.. Mexican lawmakers are furious and demand that the US Agents be extradited for trial in Mexico. The US Ambassador is forced to resign. In late March the Mexican Attorney General states that an investigation is under way and that he is willing to bring charges against US Officials.


January 30, 2011: Sen. Charles Grassly offers his protection to whistle-blowers. His staffers begin investigating.


February 2, 2011: Fox News Online carries a story on the scandal.


February 2011: ATF officials try to stonewall Sen Grassly – in doesn’t work. He continues to demand answers. Approximately 12 ATF agents come forward to aid his investigation.


February 15, 2011: The Washington Times begins reporting on the story.


February 23, 2011: Sharyl Attkisson of CBS news becomes the first mainstream broadcast news reporter to report the story. She continues to dig and report for the next 6 weeks, joined belatedly by Fox News. Two brave agents go on camera to confirm the story.


March 4, 2011: Rush Limbaugh discovers the story and shares it with his 20 million listeners.


March 16, 2011: Rep. Darrel Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, calls on the ATF to answer questions and produce documents about “gunwalking” operations where guns were allegedly allowed into Mexico in order to track drug cartels. Issa already has copies of many documents supplied by BATFE whistleblowers. Congressional hearings are now certain.


March 23, 2011: In an interview with the Mexican TV network Univision, Pres. Obama goes on the record stating that neither he, nor Attorney General Eric Holder had knowledge of guns being smuggled into Mexico with the knowledge and aid of ATF.


March 27, 2011: The highest ranking agent yet goes on camera. The now retired agent was head of ATF operations in Mexico during the entire time the guns were going south. He described how he protested the policy over and over. The response was that this operation had been approved at the highest levels of both ATF and the Justice Department.


April 1, 2011 – BATFE refuses to provide requested information to Rep. Issa’s oversight committee. Issa’s committee issues subpoenas.


April 9, 2011 – It is revealed that the Phoenix office Special Assistant Agent in Charge, George Gillett, is cooperating with Senator Charles Grassley’s and Rep. Issa’s investigation into the scandal. The majority of the guns smuggled south with the help of BATFE came from the Phoenix office. CBS Report here.


April 20, 2011 – Rep. Issa warns the acting head of BATFE the if he does not provide the requested information, he will be charged with contempt of congress.


April 26, 2001 – The left wing website Huffington Post reports the story, calling it, “Obama’s Mexicogate”.


May 3-4, 2011 – Eric Holder finally testifies before Congress. He denies that he, or Asst. AG Lanny Brewer had any knowledge of the operation. Fox News reports that his testimony was FALSE.


The new Charges:

1) ATF agents actually BOUGHT THE GUNS that went to cartels

2) U.S. Attorney AZ Dennis Burke knew and approved of the operation

3) As did Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer- Holder is his immediate supervisor


May 4, 2011 – CBS confirms HOLDER”S IMMEDIATE SUBORDINATE KNEW ABOUT THE ROUGE OPERATION. They have copies of documents that directly contradict AG Holder’s congressional testimony.


May 5, 2011 – NPR finally breaks the story – focusing upon ATF letting guns across the border, while repeating the dis-proven 90% lie the operation may have been created to support.


May 16, 2011 – Congressional investigators are back on the ground in Arizona, according to CBS news. They are not only interviewing ATF agents, they are interviewing gun shop owners and employees.


May 17, 2011 – CBS news reports ATF management has appointed a new special agent in charge (SAC) of the Phoenix office, part of a major shake up in that office.


May 17, 2011 – According to an interview the Daily Caller, Rep. Issa, reports that investigators have proof that “Operation Gunwalker” was planned “in Washington”, and key decisions were made administration officials there. Remember that his many sources within ATF have provided hundreds, if not thousands of internal agency documents – and he has the testimony of the former head of the Phoenix office. Rep. Issa is quoted as saying that this scandal is looking more and more like Iran-Contra.


May 19, 2011 – CBS News reports that DEA agents recovered 50-60 AK-47s in a drug raid in Phoenix on April 13th. At least some of these firearms were part of “Operation Fast and Furious”. The local CBS affiliate reports that DEA has refused to turn any of these rifles over to BATFE.


May 22, 2011 – Fox News /William La Jeunesse has interviewed a Federal confidential informant. He states the Following: Drug flow into the US is increasing. Cartels have corrupted federal agents from several agencies. In his opinion, corruption on the US side is worse then on the Mexican side – he cited “operation gunrunner” as an example. He believes that this corruption goes ‘all the way to the top”. He obtained the name and location of Boarder Patrol Agent Brian Terry’s killer, he was told to “ignore that, other agencies are working on that, that information isn’t necessary.” He confirms the Wikileaks information that the cartels are receiving large amounts of weapons from Central America. Weapons are flowing in both directions. Not only are guns going into Mexico, but also military weapons that cannot be purchased legally in the US are flowing north. The informant ultimately decided to quit working for US law enforcement.


May 24, 2011 – World Net Daily, which was the first source outside the “gun media” to report the Gunwalker story, publishes an article entitled: “White House ‘strategy’ on Project Gunrunner documented – Is report the ‘smoking gun’ in controversy over guns-to-Mexico?” In am unclassified September 2010 report obtained and posted on the net by MSNBC the ATF stated, “The analysis of trends based on seizures and human intelligence have provided some meaningful insights into the methods of acquisition and transportation utilized by the Mexican cartels. Furthermore, over the past few months enforcement strategies (and other guidance) that address firearms trafficking to Mexican cartels have been developed and released by the White House and the Department of Justice. It is essential that ATF efforts support strategies promoted by the White House and Department of Justice. An examination of these and other strategies reveals similarities among the strategies, but also suggests that some revisions to ATF’s current strategy are necessary.” The WND article further reported accusations that the motivation for this “stratigy” was to justify gun control in the US.


Other than the great work done by CBS News and Fox News, the mainstream broadcast media is trying their best to ignore this scandal because it doesn’t fit their agenda. They can only do this for so long before they will have to report on it. Congressional hearings or a contempt charge may very well force their hand,


Of course, there is another possibility: President Obama could assert executive privilege to avoid handing over documents to the House investigation. The problem with do this is that it screams “cover up” and the many, many witness have provided copies of many documents. Even executive privilege will not stop this investigation.


Given time, we will learn if the Obama administration not only lied in order to promote gun control, but effectively smuggled guns in order to turn their lies into truth – at the cost dozens of Mexican lives and at least one American life. All we have to do is wait.


Pasted from <>

Written by auldarrow

May 24, 2011 at 10:02 pm

Posted in Front Page

Tagged with

The hits just keep coming

leave a comment »


Birth certificate conflicts with father’s real birthday?


Newly released immigration documents indicate Obama Sr. was 2 years older

Posted: April 30, 2011
10:20 pm Eastern

By Art Moore
© 2011 WorldNetDaily

Immigration document listing Barack Obama Sr.’s birthdate as June 18, 1934

Overshadowed by reaction to the release of Barack Obama’s long-form birth certificate was the unearthing of half-century-old files that cast doubt on whether the age of the president’s father indicated on the Hawaii document is accurate.

The applications, memos and other documents from the Immigration and Naturalization Service acquired in a Freedom of Information Act request by Heather Smathers of the Arizona Independent – which indicate Barack Obama Sr. would have been 27 at the time of his son’s birth, not 25 – also suggest that the president’s father did not leave the islands from the time of his August 1959 arrival until he departed for graduate studies at Harvard in June 1962.

Some have speculated that the president’s parents ventured together to Kenya while his mother was pregnant, but the files present a picture of a financially strapped Barack Obama Sr. known for “playboy ways” who two months after his reported marriage to Ann Dunham was still “running around with several girls.” His INS records, which show he had a class F-1 student visa that had to be renewed annually, do not preclude him having made a return trip to Kenya during his U.S. studies. But the only indication of travel outside the U.S. was when officials denied a request for a fifth visa extension and forced him to return to his home country in 1964, when Barack Obama Jr. was 2 years old.

Among the released documents is a copy of a handwritten memo by an immigration official that refers to Barack Obama Jr.’s birth in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961.

The age of Barack Obama Sr. listed on the Certificate of Live Birth released Wednesday by the president is 25, consistent with his commonly reported birthday of June 18, 1936.

Several documents in the newly released immigration files, including applications filled in by hand and signed by Barack Obama Sr., also list a birthdate of June 18, 1936.

However, about a dozen documents – including an alien registration card with fingerprints and an immigration arrival-departure card which presumably accompanied his passport – show a birthdate of July 18, 1934.

Arrival-Departure card, with record of visa extensions, listing Barack Obama Sr.’s birthdate as June 18, 1934

That date of birth would have made him 27 at the time Barack Obama Jr. was born.

In some instances, also, Barack Obama Sr.’s nationality is listed as British, instead of Kenyan.

In an application to extend his visa that was approved July 28, 1960, officials notated: “presents valid British passport 84764 until 4/29/64.

That passport number, 84764, was entered on a June 6, 1963, application to extend his stay that stated he held a Kenyan passport. But this can likely be explained by the fact that Kenya was a colony of the United Kingdom until 1963.

Curiously, on an Aug. 17, 1962, application to extend his visa, Obama Sr. filled in a line asking him to list the names and addresses of children. The only child he listed was Roy Obama, a son from his Kenyan wife, Kezia. At that time, Barack Obama Jr. was 1 year old.

On that application he also listed his mailing address as c/o the Koinoinia Foundation in Pikesville, Md. The organization, according to a website, was a “spiritual community” with “strong Quaker influences” that sought to “take literacy, agriculture, health, and similar practical skills into the undeveloped world.” After 1970, it “shifted to New Age and wholistic activities.”

Image released by the White House April 27, 2011

An Immigration and Naturalization Service arrival-departure record filled in by hand when he left the United States for Kenya in 1964 indicated a 1934 birthdate and British nationality.

The June 18, 1934, birthdate also was handwritten on an application to extend his temporary stay that was submitted in Honolulu on Aug. 31, 1961, just weeks after Barack Obama Jr. was born.

On the application, Obama’s father also indicated he was married to Ann Dunham, and he asked for permission to get employment, explaining: “because unable to get more financial assistance.”

“Alien Registration Fingerprint Chart” listing Barack Obama Sr.’s birthdate as June 18, 1934

On a previous application for permission to work, dated March 3, 1961, he indicated the reason was “economic necessity,” stating, “This is because I did not come with enough for the entire period of my stay and thought would get some from scholarships and work.”

On Aug. 31, 1961, he was granted an exception to the rule that F-1 non-immigrant students not be allowed employment and was permitted to accept up to 25 hours a week of work, expiring Aug. 8, 1962. On the application, he checked: “Because of economic necessity due to unforeseen change in financial circumstances.” In the required explanation, he wrote by hand, “because unable to get more financial assistance.” On the form, he listed his total income as $1,190 and his total yearly expenses as $2,040.

Interestingly, one year before he filled out that application, he had indicated on an application submitted in Hawaii to extend his visa another year that he he had worked for $5 a day as a dishwasher at the “Inkblot coffee shop.”

Yet near the end of his time in the U.S., on April 21, 1964, he indicated on an INS form that he had not “been employed or engaged in business in the United States.”

‘Child born in Honolulu’

An INS official, William Woods, handwrote a memo dated Aug. 31, 1961, that referred to Barack Obama Jr. being born Aug. 4, 1961, in Hawaii.

“They have one child born Honolulu on 8/4/1961 – Barack Obama II, child living with mother (she lives with her parents & subject resides at 1482 Alencastre St.),” Woods wrote.

Woods also noted Obama Sr.’s wife planned “to go to Washington State University next semester.”

As WND reported, school records show Dunham did go to the state of Washington to continue her studies, but she attended the University of Washington in Seattle, not Washington State University in Pullman, Wash. A girlfriend from Ann Dunham’s high school days in Mercer Island, Wash., near Seattle, has said she remembers Dunham visiting her, along with newborn Barack Obama Jr., in “late August” 1961.

Dunham’s departure from Hawaii shortly after Obama Jr.’s birth conflicts with the president’s account of his life story. He told a gathering of schoolchildren in September 2009, for example, “My father left my family when I was 2 years old, and I was raised by a single mother.”

In the speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 that catapulted him to political stardom, Obama told the nation, “My parents shared not only an improbable love, they shared an abiding faith in the possibilities of this nation.”

‘Get rid of him’

The Obama Sr. files show immigration officials rejected his request for yet another visa extension in July 1964 and forced him to return to Kenya amid reports by Harvard officials of scandalous behavior.

An INS investigator, M.F. McKeon, wrote in a June 8, 1964, memo that Harvard officials “weren’t very impressed with him and asked us to hold up action on his application until they decided what action they could take in order to get rid of him.”

“They were apparently having difficulty with his financial arrangements and couldn’t seem to figure out how many wives he had,” the investigator said.

A March 6, 1964, letter from an INS official to the American consul in London expresses concern about a Kenyan woman who came to the U.S. in 1962 as a high school student and had been “associating with” Obama Sr.

INS officials communicated similar concerns when Obama Sr. was at the University of Hawaii.

Lyle H. Dahlin, in a typed memo with a handwritten notation dated April 12, 1961, said that the University of Hawaii foreign student adviser reported April 10, 1961, that Obama had been “married on February 2, 1961 to Stanley Ann Dunham, a United States citizen from Seattle, Washington in Maui, Hawaii.”

“The problem,” Dahlin wrote, “is that when he arrived in the U.S. the subject had a wife in Kenya.”

The memo stated Obama was “born on June 18, 1934 in Kisumu, Nyanza, Kenya, Africa.”

Dahlin said that according to the adviser, a Mrs. McCabe, Obama “has been running around with several girls since he first arrived here and last summer she cautioned him about his playboy ways.”

July 17, 1964, INS memo

“Subject replied that he would ‘try’ to stay away from the girls,” the memo stated.

Dahlin said Obama explained to McCabe that in Kenya all that was necessary to obtain a legal divorce was to declare to the wife that she was divorced.

“Subject claims to have been divorced from his wife in Kenya in this method,” the memo said.

Dahlin noted that Obama could not be deported on a polygamy charge, because he’s a non-immigrant. But he recommended that Obama be closely questioned before another extension was granted. He instructed that if his American citizen wife, Dunham, tried to petition for him, “make sure an investigation is conducted as to the bone-fide of the marriage.”

A Lyle H. Dahlin is listed as a petitioner in a 1977 INS court case as district director of the INS in Portland, Ore.

An INS “Report of Investigation” shows Obama Sr. was to depart the U.S. July 6, 1964, but a memo dated July 17, 1964, indicates he had overstayed his visa and was still in the country.

The report stated: “A [redacted] has called twice and is quite upset because her daughter (27) is planning on marrying this alien.”

“Looks like he has over two wives now,” the report said. “File shows that his departure time expired 7/8/64 and he is apparently still here. Please have investigation conducted as to his status.”

A Report of Investigation states Barack Obama Sr. finally departed the U.S. on July 22, 1964

Read more: Birth certificate conflicts with father’s real birthday?

Written by auldarrow

May 1, 2011 at 9:16 am

Posted in Front Page

Tagged with

KJ Kaufman (aka: curi0us0nefromthe60s) and must reference a link to this blog site

leave a comment »

He’s Not My President?

Thoreau: “Government is Best Which Governs Least”

Natural Born Citizen — Chapter 11: Congressional Duties

Evaluating the measures Congress and the cadidates could have taken to resolve the natural born citizen definition

As was mentioned in the opening of the book, in April of 2008 a non-binding Senate Resolution was passed stating that John S. McCain was a natural born citizen.  It is clear that many were questioning the Constitutional eligibility of Senator McCain, and the Senate found the matter important enough to pursue such a measure.  The non-binding Senate Resolution in total with the exception of individual Senators’ statements reads:


Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ of the United States;

Whereas the term ‘‘natural born Citizen’’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to American citizens serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;

Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term ‘‘natural born Citizen’’;

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.[i]

Two very important statements appear in the above non-binding Senate Resolution.  First, they relied, in part, on The Nationality Act of 1790 when they stated:

Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term ‘‘natural born Citizen’’[ii]

They had to know that the “natural born citizen” language used in The Nationality Act of 1790 was later removed and that they gave such status to it is at least curious.  The second egregious error on their part was placing any significance on the following statement:

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President[iii]

Which previous Presidential candidates?  Did any of these Presidential candidates become President?  Were they referring to Presidential candidates that were eligible through the grandfather clause of Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution“ or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution[?]” [iv]  Is it not clear that this statement in the non-binding Senate Resolution is steeped in incompetence?

Were the Senators trying to illicit some sort of Presidential candidacy precedent regarding who is deemed natural born and who is not based on who has run?  Such a line of thinking is indefensible.  We know for a fact that during the Presidential election of 2008 Roger Calero (he also ran in 2004) was placed on the ballot of many states as the Socialist Workers Party candidate even though he is absolutely not eligible to the hold the office of the President.  According to a website that promotes the Socialist Worker’s Party

Born in Nicaragua, Calero has lived in the United States since 1985 when his family moved to Los Angeles. He joined the socialist movement there in 1993.[v]

Roger Calero certainly was not a natural born citizen having been born in Nicaragua to parents who were not U.S. citizens.  If you doubt that Roger Calero actually made it to the ballot of any State’s general election here is the State of New Jersey’s official governmental website where they list on Page 6 of 11 of their “Official List of Candidates for President For November 2008 General Election” one Roger Calero of the Socialist Workers Party.[vi]  Further, Roger Calero according to the same official website garnered 523 total votes in the State of New Jersey in the 2008 Presidential election.[vii]  So, I ask these Senators, how is it that they can place any legitimacy in the statement:

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President[viii]

Are they including Mr. Calero in this statement?  Mr. Calero clearly was born outside of the United States of America.  Mr. Calero is clearly not a natural born citizen and is ineligible to run for the office of President.

As of April 2008, the Senators were certainly aware that they had a conundrum on their hands.  They had the Republican Candidate for President potentially not eligible to be President of the United States with only seven months left until the General Election, and yet, they were willing to pass a non-binding resolution that could not guarantee John S. McCain’s eligibility risking a potential usurper to the Office of the Presidency.  Had John McCain won, it would have been clear that lawsuits would have ensued testing that eligibility.  John McCain would have begun his Presidency with serious questions as to his eligibility.  If the U.S. Supreme court later defined the term natural born citizen through a proper procedure and decided that John S. McCain did not meet that definition, the country would be thrust into a Constitutional crisis.  Any legislation that John McCain would have approved through signature would have been null and void and would require legislation to be written, approved, and signed again.  There is no doubt that a Constitutional crisis would have resulted.

Further, the Senate put Senator John McCain in quite a predicament with respect to him getting his name placed on the ballot in his own State of Arizona.  In order to be placed on the 2008 general election ballot as a presidential candidate, you had to submit a Presidential Preference Election Candidate Nomination Form (A.R.S. § 16-242)[ix]  Said form specifically requires the Presidential candidate to swear, affirm and have notarized the form which contains in part the following:

I am a natural born citizen of the United States, am at least thirty-five years of age, and have been a resident within the United States for at least fourteen years.[x]

Senator McCain was placed on the Arizona ballot, and, in fact, he won the Electoral votes of the State of Arizona in the 2008 presidential election, but was all of that accomplished in falsely swearing on a nomination form in his own State?  It should be noted that John McCain signed this form before the U.S. Senate passed the non-binding senate resolution; however, John McCain would have known he had already attested and signed the form and that his natural born citizen status remained under suspicion.

The United States Senate, according to our Constitution, is the legislative branch of the government with the purpose of representing the interests of the States.  This is why, regardless of population of the several States, each State is allowed two senators.  The U.S. Constitution originally dictated that Senators would be elected by the legislatures of their States.  It was not until 1913 under the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that the election of Senators was changed to election by the people of their respective states.  How could the Senate, which is supposed to represent the interests of the States, place John McCain in a position where he may have falsely attested to get on his own State’s ballot?

In fairness to the Senate, they most likely had no authority to do anything other than what they did at least by April of 2008.  We have seen legislation come from the Congress regarding citizenship, but that legislation deals with Naturalization laws.  Defining the term natural born citizen is not a naturalization issue.  The only methods at our disposal to define the term natural born citizen are: 1) thorough court cases that specifically address the natural born citizen clause such as the cases currently pending in numerous courts, or 2) through Constitutional Amendment.  It really wasn’t practical at the time for the Congress to attempt to amend the Constitution before the 2008 General Election as there wouldn’t have been enough time to get it accomplished prior to the election that was a mere 7 months away.  The process to amend the Constitution is contained in Article V of the Constitution and reads as follows:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. [xi]

As you can see from the description, this would have been a time consuming process and there just was not adequate time to accomplish this before the 2008 General Election at least not if started in April of 2008 when the non-binding Senate Resolution was passed.  However, this issue of whom is a natural born citizen was not new to this Senate.  In fact, many attempts have been made in the past as to Amending the U.S. Constitution to define natural born citizen.  This same question of John McCain’s eligibility arose in the 2000 Republican primary; however, John McCain did not secure the nomination; therefore, the matter was dropped.  Are we to simply alleviate the United States Senate of its burdens to clarify matters because there wasn’t enough time?  Should we not wonder why the Senate did not take up the matter after many candidates had attempted to gain access to the Presidential ballot whom were not eligible?  I contend that the Senate has had plenty of time to clarify the natural born citizen clause through Constitutional Amendment through the many years of their body’s existence, and if they were interested in protected the people of the United States from usurpation of the Office of the President, they would have written and passed through the proper process an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining natural born citizen.

The House of Representatives, the other branch (with the Senate) of the Congress, is supposed to be the representation of the people in our Constitutional Republic.  The House of Representatives is based on the population in the several States thereby resulting in divvying up statistically its members.  Did the House of Representatives have any method that the Senate did not possess to define natural born citizen?  The answer is no, both the House of Representatives and the Senate make up the Congress and legislative powers granted within the Constitution apply to the Congress as a whole.  The negligence in addressing this matter by the Senate can also be attributed to the House of Representatives.  So what could have or should have been done to resolve this issue after April 2008 and before the November 4, 2008 election?

Both John McCain and Barack Obama were U.S. Senators while running for President in 2008.  Both men were keenly aware of the non-binding Senate resolution passed regarding John McCain’s natural born citizenship status as John McCain was the subject of the bill and Barack Obama was a co-sponsor of the bill.  Both men had to swear and attest to being natural born citizens on Arizona’s Presidential Preference Election Candidate Nomination Form (A.R.S. § 16-242).[xii]  When John McCain signed this form under what knowledge or authority did he make this attestation? 

In Barack Obama’s case, he studied law at Harvard and received his degree, a doctorate of jurisprudence, from Harvard.  According to a New York Times article written by Jodi Kantor on July 30, 2008 entitled “Teaching Law, Testing Ideas, Obama Stood Slightly Apart,” Barack Obama spent twelve years teaching at the University of Chicago Law School.  In the article, Kantor describes Barack Obama’s time at the University of Chicago Law School in part as follows:

At the school, Mr. Obama taught three courses, ascending to senior lecturer, a title otherwise carried only by a few federal judges. His most traditional course was in the due process and equal protection areas of constitutional law.[xiii]

It is easy to understand that Barack Obama’s studies and eventual teaching of constitutional law may not have focused on or taken him into the intricacies of naturalization laws, the natural born citizen requirement and the cases we have presented in this book, but surely he would have had some familiarity with these matters.  When Barack Obama signed Arizona’s Presidential Preference Election Candidate Nomination Form (A.R.S. § 16-242),[xiv] under what authority or understanding of the definition of natural born citizen did he feel comfortable in making this attestation?

Did not John McCain and Barack Obama have some moral duty to ensure they were eligible to be President under Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution?  Since when has political power and gain asked a man to abandon character and his moral compass?  Each man had to know that if it was later proven they did not meet the Constitutional requirement to be President that a Constitutional crisis would result jeopardizing the fundamental stability of our Constitutional Republic and society as a whole.  What type of men risk so much for personal gain?  This is the quandary we find ourselves in today.  Why didn’t either gentleman, file a law suit within the State of Arizona asking for clarification of the definition of natural born citizen?  The form did not define the term natural born citizen.  Each candidate had to know that he could not definitively make the case that he was without doubt a natural born citizen.  After filing suit and obtaining a definition, if the definition provided did not fit the description of the circumstances of the candidates birth, he could have appealed the case all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Given each gentleman’s prominence and what was at stake, it is quite reasonable to suggest that these matters could have made it through the courts before the National Conventions of each party held in July 2008 for the Democrats and August 2008 for Republicans.  Why would these two men, one of which was going to be elected President, take an oath (which they had already taken as U.S. Senators) to protect and defend the Constitution show no fidelity to it in their respective quests to become President?  With their apparent unwillingness to bring resolution to the matter, could not have someone or something else required them to pay fidelity to the Constitution?  The answer is emphatically, yes!  The supposed fourth estate, the media, and, in particular, what we refer to as the main stream media could have thoroughly investigated this matter forcing the issue to be put to rest.  However, the main stream media had no interest in paying fidelity to our Constitution either.

[i] Senate Resolution on McCain’s Eligibility — 

[ii] Senate Resolution on McCain’s Eligibility —

[iii] Senate Resolution on McCain’s Eligibility —

[iv] Cornell University Online Constitution —

[v] Biography of Roger Calero —

[vi] New Jersey Official List of President Candidates For the 2008 General Election —

[vii] New Jersey Official List of President Candidates For the 2008 General Election Results —

[viii] Senate Resolution on McCain’s Eligibility —

[ix] State of Arizona Presidential Preference Election Candidate Nomination Paper —

[x] State of Arizona Presidential Preference Election Candidate Nomination Paper —

[xi] Cornell University Law School 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution —

[xii] State of Arizona Presidential Preference Election Candidate Nomination Paper —

[xiii] New York Times “Teaching Law, Testing Ideas, Obama Stood Slightly Aprt” —

[xiv] State of Arizona Presidential Preference Election Candidate Nomination Paper —

Any reproduction of the content in this blog post must credit the author:  KJ Kaufman (aka:  curi0us0nefromthe60s) and must reference a link to this blog site or link to the specific blog post cited.  You are free to distribute this content in order to educate the populous as long as you adhere to the aforementioned conditions.  Your cooperation in citing this source when reproducing, referencing or redistributing the content contained herein is greatly appreciated.

Written by auldarrow

April 30, 2011 at 10:36 am

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged with