Says issue could decide if 'we are a Constitutional Republic'
Posted: February 24, 2009
8:30 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
WorldNetDaily
Another U.S. soldier on active duty in Iraq is joining a challenge to President Obama's eligibility to be commander-in-chief, citing WND's report on 1st Lt. Scott Easterling, who has agreed to be a plaintiff in a lawsuit over the issue, as his inspiration.
"I was inspired by 1LT Easterling's story and am writing you to inform you that I would like to be added as a plaintiff against Obama as well if you feel it would help your case," the soldier, identified for this report only as a reservist now on active duty in Iraq.
His letter was directed to California attorney Orly Taitz who, along with her DefendOurFreedom.us Foundation, is working on a series of legal cases seeking to uncover Obama's birth records and other documents that would reveal whether he meets the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.
Easterling, who confirmed separately to WND that he is questioning Obama's authority, wrote to Taitz that, "As an active-duty officer in the United States Army, I have grave concerns about the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the office of president of the United States."
The second soldier wrote, "I am an Army reservist who was activated last August and am currently serving with a military police battalion in Camp Bucca, Iraq. I will be here until at least June 2009."
He continued, "When I enlisted last year I had to show my birth certificate, as well as my driver's license, high school diploma, college transcripts, social security card; I also filled out loads of paperwork to include listing the names, addresses and phone numbers of my family members and had to answer any questions regarding foreign travel.
Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 270,000 others and sign up now!
"I think it is reasonable for Obama to prove his citizenship status thus certifying his eligibility. I too raised my right hand and swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States," he told Taitz. "I believe the case you are filing could very well determine if we are in fact a Constitutional Republic or a nation of mob rule. I would be honored to be a part of your efforts."
Perhaps anticipating a wave of outrage from Obama supporters, he asked that he be given no "unnecessary publicity," although his name eventually would become public when a case is filed.
Taitz told WND she was making contingency plans that could include her travel to Iraq should a military case be brought against the soldiers who are speaking their minds about Obama.
"I told him if there is any prosecution, he can get in touch with me. I would even fly to Iraq and work with the attorney there to provide his defense," she told WND.
She said undoubtedly a part of the defense would be a demand for documentation on Obama's actual qualifications to serve as U.S. president.
WND has reported on multiple legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." While representatives for Obama has called such claims "garbage," the Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Several of the cases have involved emergency appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court in which justices have declined to hear arguments. According to a report from the Associated Press today, another such case has been rejected. The appeal by Cort Wrotnowski alleged Obama was a British subject at birth and, therefore, ineligible to be president.
There was no comment from the court, the same treatment the justices have given cases brought by several other lawyers, including Philip Berg, Leo Donofrio and Taitz.
WND reported yesterday when Easterling agreed to be a plaintiff in Taitz' case.
Soldier Scott Easterling
Taitz told WND she had advised Easterling to obtain legal counsel before making any statements regarding the commander-in-chief, but he insisted on moving forward. His contention is that as an active member of the U.S. military, he is required to follow orders from a sitting president, and he needs – on pain of court-martial – to know that Obama is eligible.
Taitz said other legal cases questioning Obama's eligibility filed by members of the military mostly have included retired officers, and courts several times have ruled they don't have standing to issue their challenge.
Easterling, however, is subject to enemy fire and certainly would have a reason to need to know the legitimacy of his orders, she argued.
"Until Mr. Obama releases a 'vault copy' of his original birth certificate for public review, I will consider him neither my Commander in Chief nor my President, but rather, a usurper to the Office – an impostor," Easterling's statement said.
Here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama's eligibility:
New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn't properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.
Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg has three cases pending, including Berg vs. Obama in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a separate Berg vs. Obama which is under seal at the U.S. District Court level and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, brought on behalf of a retired military member who could be facing recall to active duty by Obama.
Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.
Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.
Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public's support.
Chicago attorney Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.
Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.
In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.
In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.
In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.
California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters.
In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama's eligibility include:
In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.
In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.
In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.
In Washington, L. Charles Cohen vs. Obama.
In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.
Verse:
John 3:16; Jn 3:16; John 3
Keyword:
Salvation, Jesus, Gospel
With Operators:
AND, OR, NOT, “ â€
Showing posts with label US Presidency. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US Presidency. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Soldier doubts eligibility, defies president's orders
'As an officer, my sworn oath to support
and defend our Constitution requires this'
Posted: February 23, 2009
9:35 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
WorldNetDaily
Soldier Scott Easterling
A U.S. soldier on active duty in Iraq has called President Obama an "impostor" in a statement in which he affirmed plans to join as plaintiff in a challenge to Obama's eligibility to be commander in chief.
The statement was publicized by California attorney Orly Taitz who, along with her Defend Our Freedom Foundation, is working on a series of legal cases seeking to uncover Obama's birth records and other documents that would reveal whether he meets the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.
"As an active-duty officer in the United States Army, I have grave concerns about the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the office of president of the United States," wrote Scott Easterling in a "to-whom-it-may-concern" letter.
Obama "has absolutely refused to provide to the American public his original birth certificate, as well as other documents which may prove or disprove his eligibility," Easterling wrote. "In fact, he has fought every attempt made by concerned citizens in their effort to force him to do so."
Taitz told WND she had advised Easterling to obtain legal counsel before making any statements regarding the commander-in-chief, but he insisted on moving forward. His contention is that as an active member of the U.S. military, he is required to follow orders from a sitting president, and he needs – on pain of court-martial – to know that Obama is eligible.
Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 250,000 others and sign up now!
Taitz said other legal cases questioning Obama's eligibility filed by members of the military mostly have included retired officers, and courts several times have ruled they don't have standing to issue their challenge.
Easterling, however, is subject to enemy fire and certainly would have a reason to need to know the legitimacy of his orders, she argued.
"Until Mr. Obama releases a 'vault copy' of his original birth certificate for public review, I will consider him neither my Commander in Chief nor my President, but rather, a usurper to the Office – an impostor," his statement said.
Easterling said he joined the Army at age 40 after working in Iraq as a contractor.
"I chose to work … to support my troops and then left that lucrative position when the Army raised its maximum enlistment age to 40. Upon completion of basic training, I entered Officer Candidate School and commissioned as a 2LT in August 2007. After completing the subsequent basic officer leadership courses, I was assigned to Ft. Knox and shortly thereafter deployed to Balad, Iraq," he wrote.
"I implore all service-members and citizens to contact their senators and representatives and demand that they require Mr. Obama prove his eligibility. Our Constitution and our great nation must not be allowed to be disgraced," he wrote.
Taitz said Easterling is among the plaintiffs she is assembling for a new legal action over Obama's eligibility. Others include a list of state lawmakers who also would be required in their official position to follow orders of the president.
"My conviction is such that I am compelled to join Dr. Orly Taitz's lawsuit, as a plaintiff, against Mr. Obama. As a citizen, it pains me to do this, but as an officer, my sworn oath to support and defend our Constitution requires this action," he said.
Easterling was "saluted" in a forum on Taitz' website.
"Lt. Easterling, As a retired US Army SFC, I salute you sir as a true American patriot and hero! Thank you for your unselfish service to our country. It is rare to find someone today with such moral courage to do the right thing regardless of repercussions," said one contributor.
Said another, "For your voluntary service to our country, we owe you a debt we can never pay."
As WND reported yesterday, U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., said during a meeting with constituents in Cullman County he has never seen proof the new president was born in Hawaii.
"Well, his father was Kenyan and they said he was born in Hawaii, but I haven't seen any birth certificate," Shelby said. "You have to be born in America to be president."
Shelby's office later stated the senator is confident of Obama's vetting process, although it did not elaborate.
WND has reported on multiple legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama's eligibility:
New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn't properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.
Philip J. Berg, a Pennsylvania Democrat, demanded that the courts verify Obama's original birth certificate and other documents proving his American citizenship. Berg's latest appeal, requesting an injunction to stop the Electoral College from selecting the 44th president, was denied.
Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.
Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.
Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public's support.
Chicago attorney Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.
Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.
In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.
In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.
In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.
California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters.
In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama's eligibility include:
In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.
In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.
In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.
In Washington, L. Charles vs. Obama.
In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.
and defend our Constitution requires this'
Posted: February 23, 2009
9:35 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
WorldNetDaily
Soldier Scott Easterling
A U.S. soldier on active duty in Iraq has called President Obama an "impostor" in a statement in which he affirmed plans to join as plaintiff in a challenge to Obama's eligibility to be commander in chief.
The statement was publicized by California attorney Orly Taitz who, along with her Defend Our Freedom Foundation, is working on a series of legal cases seeking to uncover Obama's birth records and other documents that would reveal whether he meets the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.
"As an active-duty officer in the United States Army, I have grave concerns about the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the office of president of the United States," wrote Scott Easterling in a "to-whom-it-may-concern" letter.
Obama "has absolutely refused to provide to the American public his original birth certificate, as well as other documents which may prove or disprove his eligibility," Easterling wrote. "In fact, he has fought every attempt made by concerned citizens in their effort to force him to do so."
Taitz told WND she had advised Easterling to obtain legal counsel before making any statements regarding the commander-in-chief, but he insisted on moving forward. His contention is that as an active member of the U.S. military, he is required to follow orders from a sitting president, and he needs – on pain of court-martial – to know that Obama is eligible.
Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 250,000 others and sign up now!
Taitz said other legal cases questioning Obama's eligibility filed by members of the military mostly have included retired officers, and courts several times have ruled they don't have standing to issue their challenge.
Easterling, however, is subject to enemy fire and certainly would have a reason to need to know the legitimacy of his orders, she argued.
"Until Mr. Obama releases a 'vault copy' of his original birth certificate for public review, I will consider him neither my Commander in Chief nor my President, but rather, a usurper to the Office – an impostor," his statement said.
Easterling said he joined the Army at age 40 after working in Iraq as a contractor.
"I chose to work … to support my troops and then left that lucrative position when the Army raised its maximum enlistment age to 40. Upon completion of basic training, I entered Officer Candidate School and commissioned as a 2LT in August 2007. After completing the subsequent basic officer leadership courses, I was assigned to Ft. Knox and shortly thereafter deployed to Balad, Iraq," he wrote.
"I implore all service-members and citizens to contact their senators and representatives and demand that they require Mr. Obama prove his eligibility. Our Constitution and our great nation must not be allowed to be disgraced," he wrote.
Taitz said Easterling is among the plaintiffs she is assembling for a new legal action over Obama's eligibility. Others include a list of state lawmakers who also would be required in their official position to follow orders of the president.
"My conviction is such that I am compelled to join Dr. Orly Taitz's lawsuit, as a plaintiff, against Mr. Obama. As a citizen, it pains me to do this, but as an officer, my sworn oath to support and defend our Constitution requires this action," he said.
Easterling was "saluted" in a forum on Taitz' website.
"Lt. Easterling, As a retired US Army SFC, I salute you sir as a true American patriot and hero! Thank you for your unselfish service to our country. It is rare to find someone today with such moral courage to do the right thing regardless of repercussions," said one contributor.
Said another, "For your voluntary service to our country, we owe you a debt we can never pay."
As WND reported yesterday, U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., said during a meeting with constituents in Cullman County he has never seen proof the new president was born in Hawaii.
"Well, his father was Kenyan and they said he was born in Hawaii, but I haven't seen any birth certificate," Shelby said. "You have to be born in America to be president."
Shelby's office later stated the senator is confident of Obama's vetting process, although it did not elaborate.
WND has reported on multiple legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama's eligibility:
New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn't properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.
Philip J. Berg, a Pennsylvania Democrat, demanded that the courts verify Obama's original birth certificate and other documents proving his American citizenship. Berg's latest appeal, requesting an injunction to stop the Electoral College from selecting the 44th president, was denied.
Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.
Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.
Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public's support.
Chicago attorney Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.
Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.
In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.
In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.
In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.
California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters.
In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama's eligibility include:
In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.
In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.
In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.
In Washington, L. Charles vs. Obama.
In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.
Monday, February 09, 2009
Blair and Obama: Tony walks on water again
Photograph: Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images
When I saw that photo of Tony Blair kissing Michelle Obama in today's papers, I thought of that old Jewish word, chutzpah. As in overwhelming cheek.
He kissed the Clintons, he kissed the Bushes (I won't say exactly where, George) and now he's kissing his new best friends, Barack and Michelle. What a guy!
Strictly speaking, TB didn't beat Gordon Brown, Nicolas Sarkozy and the rest of the over-competitive leadership egos into the Oval Office.
This was a congressional invitation, not from the White House, to be the main speaker at yesterday's national prayer breakfast. Blair is still big box office in the US. Brown will have his turn when the prez joins the G20 in London on 2 April.
But, as you probably saw, the Obamas were present for yesterday's breakfast and the president said nice things about "my good friend" (which can't actually be true, not yet), how he "did it first and perhaps did it better than I will do".
That's a stretch, too. It's not yet clear how history will view the Blair premiership. As with Bill Clinton, there's a general sense of missed opportunities, though it's too soon to say, either at home or abroad.
Those Iraqis, for instance – they had elections last weekend that went off so quietly you hardly read anything about them.
There again, Blair has had far less impact trying to move the Palestine/Israel peace process forward than he had initially hoped or expected.
Today's Mail got excited about the 31 references Blair made to God in the course of yesterday's speech, which warned Obama that he will need "not cheerleaders but partners, not spectators but supporters".
"So Blair does do God," shouted the paper, which always gets overlooked in parliamentary surveys – the Lords produced a thoughtful one yesterday – on the growth of an intrusive surveillance society.
That misses the point, too: Blair is no longer an elected British public official and can say what he likes. It wasn't him that said he "didn't do God" either – it was his atheist bagman, Alastair Campbell.
Blair illustrated residual British disdain for mixing politics and religion – a healthy disdain, says me – by telling his audience that he'd once wanted to say "God bless the British people" at the end of some crisis broadcast.
But officials had slapped him down. "Really, prime minister, this is not America, you know." So he said it anyway in Washington yesterday: "God bless you all."
The papers are full of economic gloom and allegations of British complicity in the supression of torture , not to mention alleged Whitehall nudge-nudge briefing against Rachel Reid in the Afghan official secrets case. Disturbing stuff.
Yet Blair, tanned and trim, wafts serenely above it all.
He touched down in Heathrow just after breakfast, but he'll be back on the other side of the pond again soon. He plans to open a US branch of his Faith Foundation to promote religious understanding this year, with Obama's apparent blessing.
At yesterday's session, both men apparently quoted near identical passages from the Bible, Qu'ran and Torah to explain how moral law binds together all faiths.
"Tony and I didn't coordinate here. There is a little serendipity," explained the president.
Ah, a president who uses "serendipity". I feel better already.
When I saw that photo of Tony Blair kissing Michelle Obama in today's papers, I thought of that old Jewish word, chutzpah. As in overwhelming cheek.
He kissed the Clintons, he kissed the Bushes (I won't say exactly where, George) and now he's kissing his new best friends, Barack and Michelle. What a guy!
Strictly speaking, TB didn't beat Gordon Brown, Nicolas Sarkozy and the rest of the over-competitive leadership egos into the Oval Office.
This was a congressional invitation, not from the White House, to be the main speaker at yesterday's national prayer breakfast. Blair is still big box office in the US. Brown will have his turn when the prez joins the G20 in London on 2 April.
But, as you probably saw, the Obamas were present for yesterday's breakfast and the president said nice things about "my good friend" (which can't actually be true, not yet), how he "did it first and perhaps did it better than I will do".
That's a stretch, too. It's not yet clear how history will view the Blair premiership. As with Bill Clinton, there's a general sense of missed opportunities, though it's too soon to say, either at home or abroad.
Those Iraqis, for instance – they had elections last weekend that went off so quietly you hardly read anything about them.
There again, Blair has had far less impact trying to move the Palestine/Israel peace process forward than he had initially hoped or expected.
Today's Mail got excited about the 31 references Blair made to God in the course of yesterday's speech, which warned Obama that he will need "not cheerleaders but partners, not spectators but supporters".
"So Blair does do God," shouted the paper, which always gets overlooked in parliamentary surveys – the Lords produced a thoughtful one yesterday – on the growth of an intrusive surveillance society.
That misses the point, too: Blair is no longer an elected British public official and can say what he likes. It wasn't him that said he "didn't do God" either – it was his atheist bagman, Alastair Campbell.
Blair illustrated residual British disdain for mixing politics and religion – a healthy disdain, says me – by telling his audience that he'd once wanted to say "God bless the British people" at the end of some crisis broadcast.
But officials had slapped him down. "Really, prime minister, this is not America, you know." So he said it anyway in Washington yesterday: "God bless you all."
The papers are full of economic gloom and allegations of British complicity in the supression of torture , not to mention alleged Whitehall nudge-nudge briefing against Rachel Reid in the Afghan official secrets case. Disturbing stuff.
Yet Blair, tanned and trim, wafts serenely above it all.
He touched down in Heathrow just after breakfast, but he'll be back on the other side of the pond again soon. He plans to open a US branch of his Faith Foundation to promote religious understanding this year, with Obama's apparent blessing.
At yesterday's session, both men apparently quoted near identical passages from the Bible, Qu'ran and Torah to explain how moral law binds together all faiths.
"Tony and I didn't coordinate here. There is a little serendipity," explained the president.
Ah, a president who uses "serendipity". I feel better already.
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Analysis: Daschle debacle humbles Obama
By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer
Tue Feb 3, 6:30 pm ET
WASHINGTON – Two weeks into his presidency, Barack Obama proved that even a clearly gifted politician cannot escape the gravitational pull of Washington forces that have humbled many of his predecessors.
The new president, seen by some as arrogant, was anything but on Tuesday.
"I screwed up," Obama said repeatedly during a series of TV interviews. "I take responsibility for this mistake."
It was a frank admission from an Oval Office where "mistakes were made" has often been the preferred dodge.
An old story, with new actors, played out Tuesday: A new president's team imperfectly vetted top nominees. The nominees, it turns out, had not paid taxes for household help or other services when they were private citizens. The news media and political adversaries bored in. And rather than spend more valuable time and political capital defending the appointees, the administration dropped them and moved on.
In other words, Obama may be more ordinary than some admirers would like to admit. He will surely struggle, over the coming weeks and months, with the economy, health care, military matters and Congress, much as other presidents have.
That's hardly an indictment. But Obama's rocket ride to the White House, his extraordinary speaking skills, and his smooth, I-don't-sweat style had some people calling him "the one," a once-in-a-generation political leader who could rise above his predecessors' foibles.
On Tuesday, at least, he seemed to be trying to learn from their mistakes to cut his losses.
President Bill Clinton stuck with Zoe Baird, his pick for attorney general, for about 10 days after it was disclosed that she had hired illegal immigrants as workers and had failed to pay their Social Security taxes. Clinton's next choice, Kimba Wood, withdrew after acknowledging that her nanny, too, had been illegal.
It was a painful start for a new presidency that Obama and his aides have studied closely. Obama has tapped many of Clinton's top advisers, including his wife, for his own administration. And the Obama team has tried to avoid some of Clinton's early mistakes, such as waiting too long to name top appointees and stumbling into sticky issues such as gays in the military.
Oddly, perhaps, Obama and his advisers did trip over an issue that bedeviled Clinton's early weeks: the failure to pay taxes fully and on time.
At first, Obama dug in, eager to show loyalty and toughness in the face of critics. The man he chose for treasury secretary — a post that oversees the Internal Revenue Service — had been required to pay $34,000 in overdue income taxes.
Obama stood by Timothy Geithner, and the Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed him after comparatively gentle questioning.
The stakes seemed higher, on both sides of the equation, for Tom Daschle, the former Senate Democratic leader chosen by Obama to head Health and Human Services and to lead an overhaul of health care.
Daschle had more status and clout in Washington, with many senators considering him a friend and mentor. But his money problems were bigger than Geithner's.
Daschle belatedly paid $128,203 in taxes and $11,964 in interest. He also had been paid $5.2 million over two years by industries eager for good relations with the government.
A chastened Daschle apologized in public and then in private to his old Senate colleagues, saying he was embarrassed by his mistakes. After his closed-door session with Senate Finance Committee members Monday night, many senators seemed to think he would be confirmed.
But Republicans made it clear his ride would not be easy, something the White House could not miss. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, called on Daschle to withdraw Tuesday morning, shortly before it was announced he was doing just that.
"If Senator Daschle cares about President Obama's success and the success of this new administration," Cornyn said, "he ought to remove this distraction."
Still, Daschle could have survived, several Democrats said. But a separate, less-noticed tax problem also was about to play out, and the combination seemed too much for the new presidency.
The Associated Press had disclosed that in 2005 the District of Columbia filed a $946 tax lien on the home of Nancy Killefer — nominated by Obama to be the government's first chief performance officer — for failure to pay unemployment compensation tax on household help. Killefer withdrew her nomination early Tuesday, saying she did not want to become a distraction for the young administration.
Less than three hours later, Daschle gave the same reason for withdrawing.
It was the administration's lowest point so far. And in the end, the problem was Obama's, not Daschle's.
Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., noted "the fact that President Obama has said that he wants to stop the revolving door, that he doesn't want lobbyists as part of his administration."
"Well, I don't know how you get paid $2 million by a lobbying firm and not call yourself a lobbyist," Ensign said, referring to Daschle.
Another Republican, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, offered the best justification for Obama giving up on Killefer and his good friend Daschle.
"I think the story has largely ended," McConnell told reporters shortly after noon. Daschle "has withdrawn, and the administration will be looking for a new nominee for secretary of health and human services."
In his inaugural address, Obama said: "Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America."
The same words applied Tuesday to his administration, a feeling that Clinton and other past presidents could surely appreciate.
Tue Feb 3, 6:30 pm ET
WASHINGTON – Two weeks into his presidency, Barack Obama proved that even a clearly gifted politician cannot escape the gravitational pull of Washington forces that have humbled many of his predecessors.
The new president, seen by some as arrogant, was anything but on Tuesday.
"I screwed up," Obama said repeatedly during a series of TV interviews. "I take responsibility for this mistake."
It was a frank admission from an Oval Office where "mistakes were made" has often been the preferred dodge.
An old story, with new actors, played out Tuesday: A new president's team imperfectly vetted top nominees. The nominees, it turns out, had not paid taxes for household help or other services when they were private citizens. The news media and political adversaries bored in. And rather than spend more valuable time and political capital defending the appointees, the administration dropped them and moved on.
In other words, Obama may be more ordinary than some admirers would like to admit. He will surely struggle, over the coming weeks and months, with the economy, health care, military matters and Congress, much as other presidents have.
That's hardly an indictment. But Obama's rocket ride to the White House, his extraordinary speaking skills, and his smooth, I-don't-sweat style had some people calling him "the one," a once-in-a-generation political leader who could rise above his predecessors' foibles.
On Tuesday, at least, he seemed to be trying to learn from their mistakes to cut his losses.
President Bill Clinton stuck with Zoe Baird, his pick for attorney general, for about 10 days after it was disclosed that she had hired illegal immigrants as workers and had failed to pay their Social Security taxes. Clinton's next choice, Kimba Wood, withdrew after acknowledging that her nanny, too, had been illegal.
It was a painful start for a new presidency that Obama and his aides have studied closely. Obama has tapped many of Clinton's top advisers, including his wife, for his own administration. And the Obama team has tried to avoid some of Clinton's early mistakes, such as waiting too long to name top appointees and stumbling into sticky issues such as gays in the military.
Oddly, perhaps, Obama and his advisers did trip over an issue that bedeviled Clinton's early weeks: the failure to pay taxes fully and on time.
At first, Obama dug in, eager to show loyalty and toughness in the face of critics. The man he chose for treasury secretary — a post that oversees the Internal Revenue Service — had been required to pay $34,000 in overdue income taxes.
Obama stood by Timothy Geithner, and the Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed him after comparatively gentle questioning.
The stakes seemed higher, on both sides of the equation, for Tom Daschle, the former Senate Democratic leader chosen by Obama to head Health and Human Services and to lead an overhaul of health care.
Daschle had more status and clout in Washington, with many senators considering him a friend and mentor. But his money problems were bigger than Geithner's.
Daschle belatedly paid $128,203 in taxes and $11,964 in interest. He also had been paid $5.2 million over two years by industries eager for good relations with the government.
A chastened Daschle apologized in public and then in private to his old Senate colleagues, saying he was embarrassed by his mistakes. After his closed-door session with Senate Finance Committee members Monday night, many senators seemed to think he would be confirmed.
But Republicans made it clear his ride would not be easy, something the White House could not miss. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, called on Daschle to withdraw Tuesday morning, shortly before it was announced he was doing just that.
"If Senator Daschle cares about President Obama's success and the success of this new administration," Cornyn said, "he ought to remove this distraction."
Still, Daschle could have survived, several Democrats said. But a separate, less-noticed tax problem also was about to play out, and the combination seemed too much for the new presidency.
The Associated Press had disclosed that in 2005 the District of Columbia filed a $946 tax lien on the home of Nancy Killefer — nominated by Obama to be the government's first chief performance officer — for failure to pay unemployment compensation tax on household help. Killefer withdrew her nomination early Tuesday, saying she did not want to become a distraction for the young administration.
Less than three hours later, Daschle gave the same reason for withdrawing.
It was the administration's lowest point so far. And in the end, the problem was Obama's, not Daschle's.
Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., noted "the fact that President Obama has said that he wants to stop the revolving door, that he doesn't want lobbyists as part of his administration."
"Well, I don't know how you get paid $2 million by a lobbying firm and not call yourself a lobbyist," Ensign said, referring to Daschle.
Another Republican, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, offered the best justification for Obama giving up on Killefer and his good friend Daschle.
"I think the story has largely ended," McConnell told reporters shortly after noon. Daschle "has withdrawn, and the administration will be looking for a new nominee for secretary of health and human services."
In his inaugural address, Obama said: "Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America."
The same words applied Tuesday to his administration, a feeling that Clinton and other past presidents could surely appreciate.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Obama retakes oath of office (without the Bible I add)
'The Constitution is clear that its 35 words must be spoken exactly'
Posted: January 21, 2009
4:23 pm Eastern
WorldNetDaily
Barack Obama has retaken the oath of office that was administered by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts at the ceremonial inauguration yesterday.
Legal experts had suggested the move because of the multiple stumbles and flubs at the original event.
Obama ended up transposing the word "faithfully" during his inauguration in Washington. When he should have said he would "faithfully execute the office of president of the United States," he instead said he will "execute the office of president of the United States faithfully."
Roberts began administering the oath by stating the president-elect's name, but Obama cut him off before he could finish.
"I Barack …" Obama eagerly chimed in before Roberts could complete the first sentence.
Obama then allowed Roberts to continue.
(Story continues below)
"I Barack Hussein Obama do solemnly swear that I will execute the office of president to the United States faithfully," Roberts said.
"That I will execute …" Obama said.
Roberts repeated, " … faithfully the office of president of the United States."
"The office of president of the United States faithfully," Obama said.
"And will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, so help me God," he finally finished.
According to a Fox News report, Roberts went to the White House late today and administered the oath, correctly, to Obama. Also present were a pool reporter and a White House photographer.
The Associated Press reports, "The president said he did not have his Bible with him [for the second oath], but that the oath was binding anyway."
Josh White of the Washington Post said the oath of office is required of a new president "before he can execute his power."
And he noted, "the Constitution is clear that its 35 words must be spoken exactly."
"He should probably go ahead and take the oath again," Jonathan Turley had told the Post.
The professor of constitutional law at George Washington University said without doing that, "there are going to be people who for the next four years are going to argue that he didn’t meet the constitutional standard."
In case you missed it, get WND's special in-depth report on THE SECRET LIFE OF BARACK OBAMA.
According to the chief of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel during Ronald Reagan's presidency, Charles Cooper, a mistake in the oath should be fixed.
The newspaper said two previous presidents, Chester A. Arthur and Calvin Coolidge, both repeated the oath later because of similar mistakes.
"Out of a super-abundance of caution, perhaps he should do it again," Akhil Reed Amar, a Yale professor, had suggested.
Retaking the oath, however, will not answer the multiple questions about Obama's eligibility that have been raised in a long list of lawsuits filed over his election in November.
The lawsuits allege in various ways Obama does not meet the "natural born citizen" clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which reads, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
Some allege his birth took place in Kenya, and his mother was a minor at the time of his birth – too young to confer American citizenship. They argue Obama's father, Barack Obama Sr., was a Kenyan citizen subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time and would have handed down British citizenship.
There also are questions raised about Obama's move to Indonesia when he was a child and his attendance at school there when only Indonesian citizens were allowed and his travel to Pakistan in the '80s when such travel was forbidden to American citizens.
One California lawsuit, on which the United States Justice Foundation is working, was filed on behalf of presidential candidate Alan Keyes and others, and describes the potential damage an ineligible president could create.
"Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void," argues a case brought on behalf of Keyes, "Americans will suffer irreparable harm in that (a) usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal."
A number of the arguments have reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which so far has declined to give any of the cases a hearing.
However, another conference before the justices is scheduled on the dispute Friday. The case is brought by Orly Taitz, a California lawyer.
Taitz said her arguments rest on precedents from both the California Supreme Court, which years ago removed a candidate for president from the ballot because he was only 34, and the U.S. Supreme Court's affirmation of the ruling. The Constitution requires a president to be 35.
She also raised the issue of the concealment of Obama's records.
"Obama has refused to submit certified copies of any of his original long form 'vault' birth certificates in Hawaii to any public officer or to any Petitioner. Relevant records in Kenya have also been officially restricted," she said. "Obama has sealed all educational records which might reveal his stated citizenship. These include Punahou High School, Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard Law School."
Obama has claimed in his autobiography and elsewhere that he was born in Hawaii in 1961 to parents Barack Hussein Obama Sr., a Kenyan national, and Stanley Ann Dunham, a minor. But details about which hospital handled the birth and other details provided on the complete birth certificate have been withheld by Obama despite lawsuits and public demands for release.
WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi went to both Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama's birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.
The biggest question was why, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists as his campaign has stated, Obama hasn't simply ordered it made available to settle the rumors.
The governor's office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii?
Posted: January 21, 2009
4:23 pm Eastern
WorldNetDaily
Barack Obama has retaken the oath of office that was administered by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts at the ceremonial inauguration yesterday.
Legal experts had suggested the move because of the multiple stumbles and flubs at the original event.
Obama ended up transposing the word "faithfully" during his inauguration in Washington. When he should have said he would "faithfully execute the office of president of the United States," he instead said he will "execute the office of president of the United States faithfully."
Roberts began administering the oath by stating the president-elect's name, but Obama cut him off before he could finish.
"I Barack …" Obama eagerly chimed in before Roberts could complete the first sentence.
Obama then allowed Roberts to continue.
(Story continues below)
"I Barack Hussein Obama do solemnly swear that I will execute the office of president to the United States faithfully," Roberts said.
"That I will execute …" Obama said.
Roberts repeated, " … faithfully the office of president of the United States."
"The office of president of the United States faithfully," Obama said.
"And will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, so help me God," he finally finished.
According to a Fox News report, Roberts went to the White House late today and administered the oath, correctly, to Obama. Also present were a pool reporter and a White House photographer.
The Associated Press reports, "The president said he did not have his Bible with him [for the second oath], but that the oath was binding anyway."
Josh White of the Washington Post said the oath of office is required of a new president "before he can execute his power."
And he noted, "the Constitution is clear that its 35 words must be spoken exactly."
"He should probably go ahead and take the oath again," Jonathan Turley had told the Post.
The professor of constitutional law at George Washington University said without doing that, "there are going to be people who for the next four years are going to argue that he didn’t meet the constitutional standard."
In case you missed it, get WND's special in-depth report on THE SECRET LIFE OF BARACK OBAMA.
According to the chief of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel during Ronald Reagan's presidency, Charles Cooper, a mistake in the oath should be fixed.
The newspaper said two previous presidents, Chester A. Arthur and Calvin Coolidge, both repeated the oath later because of similar mistakes.
"Out of a super-abundance of caution, perhaps he should do it again," Akhil Reed Amar, a Yale professor, had suggested.
Retaking the oath, however, will not answer the multiple questions about Obama's eligibility that have been raised in a long list of lawsuits filed over his election in November.
The lawsuits allege in various ways Obama does not meet the "natural born citizen" clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which reads, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
Some allege his birth took place in Kenya, and his mother was a minor at the time of his birth – too young to confer American citizenship. They argue Obama's father, Barack Obama Sr., was a Kenyan citizen subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time and would have handed down British citizenship.
There also are questions raised about Obama's move to Indonesia when he was a child and his attendance at school there when only Indonesian citizens were allowed and his travel to Pakistan in the '80s when such travel was forbidden to American citizens.
One California lawsuit, on which the United States Justice Foundation is working, was filed on behalf of presidential candidate Alan Keyes and others, and describes the potential damage an ineligible president could create.
"Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void," argues a case brought on behalf of Keyes, "Americans will suffer irreparable harm in that (a) usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal."
A number of the arguments have reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which so far has declined to give any of the cases a hearing.
However, another conference before the justices is scheduled on the dispute Friday. The case is brought by Orly Taitz, a California lawyer.
Taitz said her arguments rest on precedents from both the California Supreme Court, which years ago removed a candidate for president from the ballot because he was only 34, and the U.S. Supreme Court's affirmation of the ruling. The Constitution requires a president to be 35.
She also raised the issue of the concealment of Obama's records.
"Obama has refused to submit certified copies of any of his original long form 'vault' birth certificates in Hawaii to any public officer or to any Petitioner. Relevant records in Kenya have also been officially restricted," she said. "Obama has sealed all educational records which might reveal his stated citizenship. These include Punahou High School, Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard Law School."
Obama has claimed in his autobiography and elsewhere that he was born in Hawaii in 1961 to parents Barack Hussein Obama Sr., a Kenyan national, and Stanley Ann Dunham, a minor. But details about which hospital handled the birth and other details provided on the complete birth certificate have been withheld by Obama despite lawsuits and public demands for release.
WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi went to both Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama's birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.
The biggest question was why, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists as his campaign has stated, Obama hasn't simply ordered it made available to settle the rumors.
The governor's office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii?
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
What Recession? The $170 Million Inauguration
Obama's Inauguration Has Been Financed Partially by Bailed-Out Wall Street Executives
By SCOTT MAYEROWITZ
ABC NEWS Business Unit
Jan. 19, 2009—
The country is in the middle of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, which isn't stopping rich donors and the government from spending $170 million, or more, on the inauguration of Barack Obama .
The actual swearing-in ceremony will cost $1.24 million, according to Carole Florman, spokeswoman for the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies.
It's the security, parties and countless Porta-a-Potty rentals that really run up the bill.
The federal government estimates that it will spend roughly $49 million on the inaugural weekend. Washington, D.C., Virginia and Maryland have requested another $75 million from the federal government to help pay for their share of police, fire and medical services.
And then there is the party bill.
"We have a budget of roughly $45 million, maybe a little bit more," said Linda Douglass, spokeswoman for the inaugural committee.
That's more than the $42.3 million in private funds spent by President Bush's committee in 2005 or the $33 million spent for Bill Clinton's first inaugural in 1993.
Douglass said that this will be the "most open and accessible inauguration in history," with members of the general public able to participate on a greater scale than ever before.
"The money is going toward providing events which we hope are going to connect people, make them feel like we are all in this together and reinforce the notion that when we pull together, we're stronger," Douglass said. "And we need to pull together to face the challenges that are before us today."
Among the expenses: a Bruce Springsteen concert, the parade, large-screen TV rentals for all-free viewing on the national Mall, $700,000 to the Smithsonian Institution to stay open and, of course, the balls, including three that are being pitched as free or low cost for the public.
But there are plenty of rich donors willing to pick up the tab.
"They are not the $20 and $50 donors who helped propel Obama through Election Day," said Massie Ritsch, communications director for the Center for Responsive Politics. "These are people giving mostly $50,000 apiece. They tend to be corporate executives, celebrities, the elite of the elite."
Best Seats in the House
The biggest group of donors were none other than the recently bailed-out Wall Street executives and employees.
"The finance sector is well represented, despite its recent troubles," Ritsch said. "Those who worked in finance still managed to pull together nearly $7 million for the inauguration."
The donors will get some of the best seats in the house for the inauguration, as well as admittance to some of the best balls and other events.
"I don't think that they're going to get a whole lot of face time with the new president himself," Ritsch said, "but they are certainly establishing themselves from day one as his biggest financial supporters. And if there's something they need or to tell him down the road, they will have an easier time doing that than everyone else."
Besides Wall Street firms, a large chunk of the money came from employees at companies such as Microsoft, Google and DreamWorks Animation, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Microsoft CEO Steven Ballmer and his wife, Connie, each gave $50,000. So did Microsoft chairman and co-founder Bill Gates and his wife, Melinda.
DreamWorks CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg and his wife, Marilyn, each gave $50,000. Filmmaker and DreamWorks co-founder Steven Spielberg and his wife, Kate, both also gave $50,000. And DreamWorks employees gave a total of $275,000.
Billionaire investor George Soros and his family contributed $250,000 to the inauguration, and Google co-founder Larry Page and CEO Eric Schmidt each donated $25,000.
Other big-name donors who gave $50,000 include filmmaker George Lucas, artist Dale Chihuly, Los Angeles Dodgers President Jamie McCourt. Citigroup managing director Raymond J. McGuire; Oracle President Charles E. Phillips Jr.; actresses Halle Berry and Sharon Stone; and Melvin Simon, co-founder of Simon Property Group, the largest mall owner in the United States.
Despite all the donations, Obama's team has made donations much more restrictive than in the past.
Obama capped donations at $50,000 per person, which is still more than 10 times what individuals could give to his campaign, but a lot less than the $250,000 cap President Bush had at his last inauguration. Contributions from corporations, labor unions, political action committees and registered lobbyists are not being accepted by Obama.
The Real Money
For Bill Clinton's second inaugural in 1997, contributions were capped to $100. But that committee had some leftover money from the previous inauguration and charged people up to $3,000 for inaugural tickets.
"We have the broadest fundraising restrictions in inaugural history," Douglas said.
The inauguration team is also posting all donations of $200 or more on the Internet almost as quickly as they are coming in. The law only requires it to disclose the information 90 days after the actual swearing-in.
"The transparency of this inaugural fundraising effort is unprecedented as far as we can remember," Ritsch said. "We see that as a positive step and hope it's an indication that President Obama will use technology to make government more responsive and transparent to people."
That's all the play money. The bulk of cash will actually be spent on security and logistics.
In a letter to members of Congress, the governors of Maryland and Virginia, and the mayor of Washington said that their combined costs could exceed $75 million. That's on top of the $49 million the federal government is spending, again mostly for security.
"The historical significance of inaugurating the first African-American president of the United States alone makes the event unprecedented," they wrote. "Given its political significance, we expect that the event will be attended by hundreds, if not thousands, of elected U.S. government officials and foreign dignitaries. Turnout by the general public for the swearing-in ceremony alone is likely to exceed 2 million. Transportation officials estimate that roughly 10,000 charter buses will enter the District with approximately 500,000 riders alone, a number which nearly matches the city's population."
The emergency managers for the three jurisdictions said they expect this to be the most complex and challenging inaugural in history.
"The mass of attendees expected will challenge fire, law enforcement, emergency medical and mass transit capabilities," the governors and mayor wrote. "Moreover, the high volume of buses/traffic, weather factor and other threats will create additional demands."
By SCOTT MAYEROWITZ
ABC NEWS Business Unit
Jan. 19, 2009—
The country is in the middle of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, which isn't stopping rich donors and the government from spending $170 million, or more, on the inauguration of Barack Obama .
The actual swearing-in ceremony will cost $1.24 million, according to Carole Florman, spokeswoman for the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies.
It's the security, parties and countless Porta-a-Potty rentals that really run up the bill.
The federal government estimates that it will spend roughly $49 million on the inaugural weekend. Washington, D.C., Virginia and Maryland have requested another $75 million from the federal government to help pay for their share of police, fire and medical services.
And then there is the party bill.
"We have a budget of roughly $45 million, maybe a little bit more," said Linda Douglass, spokeswoman for the inaugural committee.
That's more than the $42.3 million in private funds spent by President Bush's committee in 2005 or the $33 million spent for Bill Clinton's first inaugural in 1993.
Douglass said that this will be the "most open and accessible inauguration in history," with members of the general public able to participate on a greater scale than ever before.
"The money is going toward providing events which we hope are going to connect people, make them feel like we are all in this together and reinforce the notion that when we pull together, we're stronger," Douglass said. "And we need to pull together to face the challenges that are before us today."
Among the expenses: a Bruce Springsteen concert, the parade, large-screen TV rentals for all-free viewing on the national Mall, $700,000 to the Smithsonian Institution to stay open and, of course, the balls, including three that are being pitched as free or low cost for the public.
But there are plenty of rich donors willing to pick up the tab.
"They are not the $20 and $50 donors who helped propel Obama through Election Day," said Massie Ritsch, communications director for the Center for Responsive Politics. "These are people giving mostly $50,000 apiece. They tend to be corporate executives, celebrities, the elite of the elite."
Best Seats in the House
The biggest group of donors were none other than the recently bailed-out Wall Street executives and employees.
"The finance sector is well represented, despite its recent troubles," Ritsch said. "Those who worked in finance still managed to pull together nearly $7 million for the inauguration."
The donors will get some of the best seats in the house for the inauguration, as well as admittance to some of the best balls and other events.
"I don't think that they're going to get a whole lot of face time with the new president himself," Ritsch said, "but they are certainly establishing themselves from day one as his biggest financial supporters. And if there's something they need or to tell him down the road, they will have an easier time doing that than everyone else."
Besides Wall Street firms, a large chunk of the money came from employees at companies such as Microsoft, Google and DreamWorks Animation, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Microsoft CEO Steven Ballmer and his wife, Connie, each gave $50,000. So did Microsoft chairman and co-founder Bill Gates and his wife, Melinda.
DreamWorks CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg and his wife, Marilyn, each gave $50,000. Filmmaker and DreamWorks co-founder Steven Spielberg and his wife, Kate, both also gave $50,000. And DreamWorks employees gave a total of $275,000.
Billionaire investor George Soros and his family contributed $250,000 to the inauguration, and Google co-founder Larry Page and CEO Eric Schmidt each donated $25,000.
Other big-name donors who gave $50,000 include filmmaker George Lucas, artist Dale Chihuly, Los Angeles Dodgers President Jamie McCourt. Citigroup managing director Raymond J. McGuire; Oracle President Charles E. Phillips Jr.; actresses Halle Berry and Sharon Stone; and Melvin Simon, co-founder of Simon Property Group, the largest mall owner in the United States.
Despite all the donations, Obama's team has made donations much more restrictive than in the past.
Obama capped donations at $50,000 per person, which is still more than 10 times what individuals could give to his campaign, but a lot less than the $250,000 cap President Bush had at his last inauguration. Contributions from corporations, labor unions, political action committees and registered lobbyists are not being accepted by Obama.
The Real Money
For Bill Clinton's second inaugural in 1997, contributions were capped to $100. But that committee had some leftover money from the previous inauguration and charged people up to $3,000 for inaugural tickets.
"We have the broadest fundraising restrictions in inaugural history," Douglas said.
The inauguration team is also posting all donations of $200 or more on the Internet almost as quickly as they are coming in. The law only requires it to disclose the information 90 days after the actual swearing-in.
"The transparency of this inaugural fundraising effort is unprecedented as far as we can remember," Ritsch said. "We see that as a positive step and hope it's an indication that President Obama will use technology to make government more responsive and transparent to people."
That's all the play money. The bulk of cash will actually be spent on security and logistics.
In a letter to members of Congress, the governors of Maryland and Virginia, and the mayor of Washington said that their combined costs could exceed $75 million. That's on top of the $49 million the federal government is spending, again mostly for security.
"The historical significance of inaugurating the first African-American president of the United States alone makes the event unprecedented," they wrote. "Given its political significance, we expect that the event will be attended by hundreds, if not thousands, of elected U.S. government officials and foreign dignitaries. Turnout by the general public for the swearing-in ceremony alone is likely to exceed 2 million. Transportation officials estimate that roughly 10,000 charter buses will enter the District with approximately 500,000 riders alone, a number which nearly matches the city's population."
The emergency managers for the three jurisdictions said they expect this to be the most complex and challenging inaugural in history.
"The mass of attendees expected will challenge fire, law enforcement, emergency medical and mass transit capabilities," the governors and mayor wrote. "Moreover, the high volume of buses/traffic, weather factor and other threats will create additional demands."
Sunday, January 18, 2009
All hail King Obama: President for life
Move underway to repeal Constitution's term limits
Posted: January 16, 2009
11:40 pm Eastern
By Drew Zahn
WorldNetDaily
Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y.
As Inauguration Day approaches and Barack Obama prepares to assume his first term as president, some in Congress are hoping to make it possible for the Democrat to not only seek a second term in office, but a third and fourth as well.
The U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary is considering a bill that would repeal the Constitution's 22nd Amendment prohibiting a president from being elected to more than two terms in office.
Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., earlier this month introduced the bill, H. J. Res. 5, which, according to the bill's language, proposes "an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President."
In the past, some presidents have been critical of the 22nd Amendment, including Eisenhower, Clinton and Reagan.
In 1807 Thomas Jefferson, however, warned that presidents not bound by term limits could use their popularity and power to become kings.
"If some termination to the services of the chief magistrate be not fixed by the Constitution or supplied in practice," Jefferson wrote to the Legislature of Vermont, "his office, nominally for years, will in fact become for life; and history shows how easily that degenerates into an inheritance."
Presidential term limits, however, were not "fixed by the Constitution" until ratification of the 22nd Amendment. Congress passed the Amendment on March 21, 1947, shortly after the death of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the first and only president to be elected to more than two terms – in Roosevelt's case, four. The Amendment was ratified by the required number of states on Feb. 26, 1951.
The 22nd Amendment states, "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."
The Amendment limits presidents to a maximum of eight years in office – or, under unusual circumstances, such as succession following the death of a president, a maximum of ten years in office. Should Rep. Serrano succeed in repealing the Amendment, Obama would be cleared to run for an unlimited number of terms, restricted only by the vote of the electorate.
In order to achieve repeal of the 22nd Amendment, Serrano's proposal must be approved by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress and ratified by three-quarters of the states' legislatures.
H. J. Res. 5 is not the first attempt by Serrano to repeal the 22nd Amendment. In 2003, Serrano introduced H. J. Res. 11 to the 108th Congress to accomplish the same purpose. A similar resolution, H.J. Res. 25, was also proposed the same year and received co-sponsorship from a bipartisan group of six other representatives. In 1987, during Reagan's term of office, Earl Michener, R-Mich., also proposed a repeal of the 22nd Amendment.
At the current time, H.J. Res. 5 has not tallied any cosponsors and has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Prior to Franklin Roosevelt, presidents honored the precedent established by George Washington, who – though widely popular – refused to run for a third term of office.
Thomas Jefferson, who became the second vice president of the U.S. after Washington declined to run for a third term and who then later became the third president, not only affirmed following the Washington's example, but also foresaw the eventual passage of the 22nd Amendment.
"General Washington set the example of voluntary retirement after eight years," Jefferson wrote in an 1805 letter to John Taylor. "I shall follow it, and a few more precedents will oppose the obstacle of habit to anyone after a while who shall endeavor to extend his term. Perhaps it may beget a disposition to establish it by an amendment of the Constitution."
In the same letter to the Legislature of Vermont where he warned of a presidential monarchy, Jefferson further explained why he refused to run for a third term.
"Believing that a representative government, responsible at short periods of election, is that which produces the greatest sum of happiness to mankind," Jefferson wrote, "I feel it a duty to do no act which shall essentially impair that principle; and I should unwillingly be the person who, disregarding the sound precedent set by an illustrious predecessor, should furnish the first example of prolongation beyond the second term of office."
WND attempted to contact Rep. Serrano about his reasons and argument for repeal of the 22nd Amendment, but phone calls to his communications director were not returned.
Posted: January 16, 2009
11:40 pm Eastern
By Drew Zahn
WorldNetDaily
Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y.
As Inauguration Day approaches and Barack Obama prepares to assume his first term as president, some in Congress are hoping to make it possible for the Democrat to not only seek a second term in office, but a third and fourth as well.
The U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary is considering a bill that would repeal the Constitution's 22nd Amendment prohibiting a president from being elected to more than two terms in office.
Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., earlier this month introduced the bill, H. J. Res. 5, which, according to the bill's language, proposes "an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President."
In the past, some presidents have been critical of the 22nd Amendment, including Eisenhower, Clinton and Reagan.
In 1807 Thomas Jefferson, however, warned that presidents not bound by term limits could use their popularity and power to become kings.
"If some termination to the services of the chief magistrate be not fixed by the Constitution or supplied in practice," Jefferson wrote to the Legislature of Vermont, "his office, nominally for years, will in fact become for life; and history shows how easily that degenerates into an inheritance."
Presidential term limits, however, were not "fixed by the Constitution" until ratification of the 22nd Amendment. Congress passed the Amendment on March 21, 1947, shortly after the death of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the first and only president to be elected to more than two terms – in Roosevelt's case, four. The Amendment was ratified by the required number of states on Feb. 26, 1951.
The 22nd Amendment states, "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."
The Amendment limits presidents to a maximum of eight years in office – or, under unusual circumstances, such as succession following the death of a president, a maximum of ten years in office. Should Rep. Serrano succeed in repealing the Amendment, Obama would be cleared to run for an unlimited number of terms, restricted only by the vote of the electorate.
In order to achieve repeal of the 22nd Amendment, Serrano's proposal must be approved by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress and ratified by three-quarters of the states' legislatures.
H. J. Res. 5 is not the first attempt by Serrano to repeal the 22nd Amendment. In 2003, Serrano introduced H. J. Res. 11 to the 108th Congress to accomplish the same purpose. A similar resolution, H.J. Res. 25, was also proposed the same year and received co-sponsorship from a bipartisan group of six other representatives. In 1987, during Reagan's term of office, Earl Michener, R-Mich., also proposed a repeal of the 22nd Amendment.
At the current time, H.J. Res. 5 has not tallied any cosponsors and has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Prior to Franklin Roosevelt, presidents honored the precedent established by George Washington, who – though widely popular – refused to run for a third term of office.
Thomas Jefferson, who became the second vice president of the U.S. after Washington declined to run for a third term and who then later became the third president, not only affirmed following the Washington's example, but also foresaw the eventual passage of the 22nd Amendment.
"General Washington set the example of voluntary retirement after eight years," Jefferson wrote in an 1805 letter to John Taylor. "I shall follow it, and a few more precedents will oppose the obstacle of habit to anyone after a while who shall endeavor to extend his term. Perhaps it may beget a disposition to establish it by an amendment of the Constitution."
In the same letter to the Legislature of Vermont where he warned of a presidential monarchy, Jefferson further explained why he refused to run for a third term.
"Believing that a representative government, responsible at short periods of election, is that which produces the greatest sum of happiness to mankind," Jefferson wrote, "I feel it a duty to do no act which shall essentially impair that principle; and I should unwillingly be the person who, disregarding the sound precedent set by an illustrious predecessor, should furnish the first example of prolongation beyond the second term of office."
WND attempted to contact Rep. Serrano about his reasons and argument for repeal of the 22nd Amendment, but phone calls to his communications director were not returned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To my Blog!
Posts
All Comments
