Nothing About Obama Is On The Level

The Obama File

Robert Bauer is the chief of the political law group at Perkins Coie, the Seattle law firm hired by the Obama Campaign to prevent the American public from seeing a wide range of Obama’s records that could prove, or disprove, his eligibility to occupy the Oval Office under the Constitution’s requirement that the president be a “natural born” citizen under Article Two, Section 1 of the Constitution.

Obama continues to stonewall the release his bona fides to the American People.  These documents include his long-form birth certificate, his medical records, passport records, as well as other records that may possibly be relevant, such as records regarding Obama’s possible adoption by his Indonesian stepfather or college application and tuition financial aid records which would reveal whether Obama was ever registered as a foreign student.

Federal Election Commission records show more than $1,650,000 in payments made by Obama for America to Perkins Coie, while the law firm was representing Obama in various court cases which have sought to obtain Obama’s long-form birth certificate to determine if he is a “natural born” citizen

The FEC allows elected officials to use campaign funds to pay legal fees only if the action/investigations arise as a result of their tenure in office or campaigns, according to Politico.

The following is information was compiled by FReeper Starwise from the official Federal Elections Commission website for disbursements by the Obama campaign to the law firm of Perkins Coie, Obama’s primary law firm in various eligibility suits:

Year-End 2008 Obama for America disbursements to Perkins Coie were:  $173,052.52

Amended post-general election Obama for America disbursements to Perkins Coie were:  $205,323.00

April 2009 Obama for America quarterly disbursements to Perkins Coie were:  $688,316.42

July 2009 Obama for America quarterly disbursements to Perkins Coie were:  $270,754.18

October 2009 Obama for America quarterly disbursements to Perkins Coie were:  $314,018.06

January 2010 Obama for America quarterly disbursements to Perkins Coie are not yet available.

The official FEC website, to which the Obama and other campaigns must report their financial activity, must be taken by even the most skeptical among us as valid documentation of the reported $1.4 or $1.8, or anything in between, figure that the Obama campaign has spent to hide Barack Obama’s questionable background from the American People.

Now that Bauer is safely tucked away in the White House, Obama has resorted to illegally using Justice Department attorneys to represent him in his ongoing battle to hide his questionable background from the American People.

The use of civil servants to further Obama’s coup d’etat is clearly illegal. Torm Howse, the co-founder, and National Board Director of United Civil Rights Councils of America says the statutory law of the United States Code is extremely clear, even often in multiple ways, that:

a)  the Attorney General cannot represent/defend Obama in any challenge that involves a question of his citizenship, for the relevant statutory laws mandate that the AG be on the prosecuting side against Obama, if the AG is involved, at all… In fact, whether intentional or not, Obama and Holder can be hit with “constructive fraud,” at the very least…

b)  the AG also *cannot* represent/defend Senators or the Senate body, itself, in these constitutional questions, either… Again, whether intentional or not, you have that “constructive fraud” against the rule of law thing again…

c)  there are various statutory standings provided for even “mere” individual Citizens to sue Obama, Congress, etc.

d)  Obama’s “Presidential records” are expressly PUBLIC by mandate of simple written law (and, combined with using AG Holder & U.S. Attorneys, i.e., our *taxdollars*, in an expressly-unconstitutional manner, defending Obama in any citizenship issues, then Obama gets to pay back every single red cent of that $1.7+ million spent so far… plus interest and penalties, naturally… plus, getting deported, or imprisoned, or whatever else…).

Howse has detailed and provided the direct links to all of these applicable federal statutes, here.
And if you don’t think Obama, his stooge that’s running the Justice Department, and the Democrats aren’t above perverting the law of the land, just read this — nothing about Obama, his administration and the Democrats is on the level.

Obamas Throw A Party Every 3 Days

The Obama File

Gateway Pundit reminds us that Back in January 2009, before he signed his failed $787 billion stimulus bill into law, Barack Obama told America that everyone must sacrifice for the greater good.  Everyone must have “some skin in the game.”

What he meant, of course, was that everyone would have to sacrifice to lift American out of the worst recession since the Great Depression — except for Barack and Michelle Obama.

Now we learn that the the Obama White House has held one party every three days in first year of Obama reign.

Rep. Bob Latta (R-OH) reported:

“Let the good times roll” — and roll they have at the Obama White House, while nearly 11% of the workforce remains unemployed, nearly four million Americans are losing their homes, and terrorists ride the open skies.

In fact, according to the Chicago Tribune, the stylish Ms. Rogers and the party-hearty First Couple hosted no less than 170 parties and social events through December 3 of 2009.  And that does not even include the 17 parties and 11 open houses — feting more than 50,000 guests — ABC News reported the Obamas hosted throughout the Holiday Season.

For those not counting, that means by January, 2010, Ms. Rogers had staged one gala White House event every three days throughout the first year of the Obama Administration, making the once austere Executive Mansion look more like party central.


Black Panthers Get Free Pass On Voter Intimidation

The Washington Times

Jan. 15, 2010

By Jerry Seper

The Democrat-controlled House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday rejected by a 15-14 vote a resolution of inquiry that would have forced the Justice Department to tell Congress why it dismissed a civil complaint against members of the New Black Panther Party who disrupted a Philadelphia polling place in the November 2008 election.

The party-line vote had been sought by Rep. Frank R. Wolf, Virginia Republican, who, along with Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said they have been unable to get information from the department on the complaint’s dismissal.

“I am deeply disappointed that the Judiciary Committee defeated my resolution of inquiry on a party-line vote. There has been no oversight, no accountability and certainly no transparency with regard to this attorney general and this Department of Justice,” Mr. Wolf said.

Complete Story:


NRO (National Review Online)

The silver lining in the health-care-reform nightmare that is taking place in America might be the unconstitutionality of certain aspects of the bill. According to this morning’s Wall Street Journal, “constitutional-law scholars say that if the health-care overhaul becomes law, it could give courts an opportunity to test the limits of congressional authority in areas that haven’t been examined since the New Deal era.”

Preeminent legal scholars have written and made this point before. Here are some very useful links compiled by Manny Klausner.

Over at The Volokh Conspiracy, George Mason University’s Ilya Somin asks whether Congress has the authority to enact a health-insurance mandate using its power to tax. The answer is likely no.

Check out also, Georgetown University’s Randy Barnett’s post called “Why the Personal Mandate to Buy Health Insurance Is Unprecedented and Unconstitutional.”

Also, Richard Epstein recently published a detailed analysis of the Senate version of the bill, “Impermissible Ratemaking in Health-Insurance Reform: Why the Reid Bill is Unconstitutional.” Epstein concludes that there is “little doubt that its central arrangements are unconstitutional, and will face serious legal challenge for years to come.”

Epstein notes that “that the Fifth Amendment affords regulated health-insurance companies protection against the taking of property without compensation and without due process of law” — but “the Reid Bill emphatically fails this test by imposing sharp limitations on the ability of health-insurance companies to raise fees or exclude coverage.”

Epstein’s analysis also ran in the Wall Street Journal, “Harry Reid Turns Insurance Into a Public Utility — The health bill creates a massive cash crunch and then bankruptcies for many insurers.”

Overall, it seems obvious that there are serious constitutional problems with Reid’s bill. Yet, can we trust the courts that gave us rulings such as Kelo to deliver justice this time around?


Ideological Rationalization of the Senate

American Thinker

Jan. 15, 2010

Blanche Lincoln is in deep trouble. Harry Reid is, too. Byron Dorgan, facing deep reelection problems, has simply given up his Senate seat. Ben Nelson may well do that in the 2012 election cycle. Mary Landrieu is feeling some heat. All of these senators well ought to be in trouble. Others like Pryor in Arkansas, Tester in Montana, and Conrad in North Dakota should be in big trouble, too, in coming elections.
These Democrat senators simply do not at all represent what the voters of their states believe or want. Some of the ones from red states are called “moderate.” Are they, though? Blanche Lincoln is out of step with Arkansans not only on health care — she is out of step with Arkansans, period.  Her lifetime voting record with the American Conservative Union is a paltry 18%. “Moderate” Mary Landrieu has a 23% lifetime voting record with the ACU. The only real moderate Democrat in the Senate is Ben Nelson, whose lifetime rating is 47% with the ACU, and yet he notoriously could be bought by Big Leftism.
Here are some Democrat senators from states which traditionally go Republican in national elections. None of them have a lifetime rating by the American Conservative Union higher than 23%: Baucus (MT), Bayh (IN), Begich (AK), Bennet (CO), Bingaman (NM), Conrad (ND), Dorgan (ND), Hagan (NC), Johnson (SD), Landrieu (LA), Lincoln (AR), McCaskill (MO), Pryor (AR), Reid (NV), Rockefeller (WV), Salazar (CO), Tester (MT), Udall (CO), Udall (NM), Webb (VA), and Warner (VA.) Aside from Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson of Florida and Robert Byrd of West Virginia were marginally less liberal, but none of these 24 Democrat senators from red states have a voting record as conservative as Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins, the two most RINO of RINO Republicans.
These Democrat senators are wildly out of sync with the ideological rhythms of their respective states. Gallup conducted a state-by-state poll last summer that broke down the ideology of the voters. In Arkansas, a state that has two Democrat senators with ACU rankings of 18% (Lincoln) and 18% (Pryor), the people identified themselves as 43% conservative, 37% moderate, and only 16% liberal. North Dakota is a state with two Democrat senators, Dorgan (22%) and Conrad (22%), where 45% of the people define themselves as conservative, 37% moderate, and only 17% liberal. Montana also has two Democrats: Baucus with a 14% ACU rating and Tester with 16%. What is the ideological breakdown of Montana? Gallup says 41% conservative, 35% moderate, and only 21% liberal.
Not only did John McCain carry Arkansas, North Dakota, and Montana, but so did Bush in 2004 and 2000. Since 1968, only a few times has the Democrat nominee carried any of those three states in a presidential election. These states represent a number which have “moderate” (really, fairly liberal) senators despite the fact that the people (among whom conservatives strongly outnumber liberals) vote Republican in presidential elections. Among these states with Democrats now helping Obama, the advantage of self-defined conservatives over liberals in each case is very large.
How large, exactly? The following states have Democrat senators, and in each state, the percentage of conservatives is greater than that of liberals by at least 20 percentage points (+33 means that if 47% of the state’s voters call themselves conservative, only 14% of the state’s voters call themselves liberal). Here they are: Louisiana + 33%, North Dakota + 28%, Arkansas + 27%, South Dakota +26%, Iowa +23%, Delaware +22%,  West Virginia +21%, North Carolina +21%, Indiana +21%, New Mexico +21%, Montana +20%, Nebraska +20%, Alaska +20%, Ohio +20%. How many Democrat senators come from these overwhelmingly conservative states? Twenty. If the Democrat senators from these states were Republicans, then the GOP would have a filibuster-proof majority.
Now consider those states in which conservatives outnumber liberals by at least 15 percentage points: Florida +19%, Missouri +19%, Pennsylvania +18%, Wisconsin +17%, Virginia +17%, Colorado +16%, Nevada +16%, and Michigan +15%. Out of the eighteen senators in these nine states, only three are Republicans. If Republicans held only half of those Senate seats, then there would be an additional seven of them in the Senate.
How many Republicans come from liberal states? None, really. The Gallup Poll showed that in every single state of the union, conservatives outnumber Democrats. More to the point, though, in the eleven least conservative states — Massachusetts, Vermont, Hawaii, Oregon, New York, New Jersey, California, Washington, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Maryland — there are no Republican senators at all. How many Democrat senators hail from the eleven most conservative states? Five, including four with very liberal voting records.

Conservatives constitute the huge majority of America according to the Battleground Poll, and yet conservatives are a weak minority in the Senate. Liberal Democrats hold Senate seats which, if ideology counted, should be conservative Republican seats. The radicalism of Obama and the sheep of Harry Reid is causing the ideological rationalization of the Senate. Lincoln, Reid and Dorgan may just be the tip of the iceberg

Voting Democrat Causes Cancer

American Thinker

Jan. 15, 2010

Voting Democrat is associated with over 150,000 cancer deaths every year, according to the Hoven Institute for Studies Just as Valid as Studies Cited by Democrats.

To help visualize the data used in the study, consider the two maps below. In the first, high cancer rates are indicated by red and low ones by blue. In the second map, counties that voted for George W. Bush in 2000 are indicated by red, and those that voted for Al Gore are indicated by blue.

SEC Orders AIG Info Sealed Until 2018!


It could take until November 2018 to get the full story behind the U.S. bailout of insurance giant American International Group (AIG.N) because of an action taken last year by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

In May, the SEC approved a request by AIG to keep secret an exhibit to a year-old regulatory filing that includes some of the details on the most controversial aspect of the AIG bailout: the funneling of tens of billions of dollars to big banks like Societe Generale, Goldman Sachs (GS.N), Deutsche Bank (DBKGn.DE) and Merrill Lynch.

The SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance, in granting AIG’s request for confidential treatment, said the “excluded information” will not be made public until Nov. 25, 2018, according to a copy of the agency’s May 22 order.

The SEC said the insurer had demonstrated the information in the exhibit, called Schedule A, “qualifies as confidential commercial or financial information.”

The expiration date for the SEC order falls on the 10th anniversary of Federal Reserve of New York’s decision to provide emergency financing to an entity set up to specifically acquire some $60 billion in collateralized debt obligations from 16 banks in the United States and Europe.

All the banks that got money from the Fed-sponsored entity — Maiden Lane III — had purchased insurance contracts, or credit default swaps, on those mortgage-related securities from AIG.

The SEC’s decision to approve AIG’s request for confidential treatment got scant attention at the time. But it could spark controversy now following the release last week of 14-month-old emails that reveal that some at the New York Fed had discussions with AIG officials about how much information should be disclosed to the public about the Maiden Lane III transaction.

The New York Fed, then led by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, plays a critical role in the world of finance given its close dealings with all the major Wall Street banks, many of which were counterparties of AIG.

SEC spokesman John Nestor declined to comment on the reasons for granting AIG’s request to treat the exhibit as confidential.

In a typical year, the SEC receives 1,500 requests from U.S. companies for confidential treatment for portions of regulatory filing, said Nestor. The agency grants those requests, “all or in part,” 95 percent of the time, he said.

It’s not clear what information is in the exhibit beyond a listing of the 16 banks that were beneficiaries of the Maiden Lane transaction. Last March, under pressure from Congress, AIG released the names of the banks that sold CDOs to Maiden Lane and how much money the banks got in the process.

When AIG filed the Schedule A exhibit with the SEC, it redacted the information it wanted to keep confidential, in anticipation regulators would approve its request.

The Fed’s bailout of AIG long has been controversial because the banks that sold CDOs to Maiden Lane III were paid 100 percent of face value, even though many of the securities were worth substantially less at the time of the government bailout.

Last Thursday the furor over the Maiden Lane transaction was reignited after Rep. Darrell Issa, a California Republican, released copies of emails detailing discussions between the New York Fed and AIG over how much information to disclose.

The emails have provided fresh ammunition for critics of Geithner. New York Fed General Counsel Thomas Baxter Jr. said in a letter to Issa’s office that Geithner “played no role in, and had no knowledge of” the emails.

Issa, the highest-ranking Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said the panel will soon hold hearings about how information was disclosed to the public about the Maiden Lane deal.

Issa’s spokesman Kurt Bardella declined to comment on the SEC’s handling of the AIG’s confidentiality request.

But Issa, in a prepared statement, said “as much information as possible should be made available to Congress to review the details and decisions” regarding the payments.

The batch of emails released by Issa discussed the SEC’s requests for more information about the exhibit that AIG wanted to keep secret. But the emails did not mention the SEC’s decision to grant AIG’s request for confidential treatment


Obama to meddle with your retirement account?

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

President Obama

The Obama administration

appears to have come up with a novel way of financing trillion-dollar budget deficits – demanding IRA and 401(k) holders buy trillions of dollars in Treasury bonds.

With the Treasury needing this year to see another $1 trillion in debt to finance the anticipated federal budget deficit, and the Federal Reserve about to discontinue its 2009 program of buying Treasury bonds for the Fed’s asset portfolio, the Obama administration is scrambling to find ways to sell government debt without having to raise interest rates.

Bloomberg reported Friday that Assistant Labor Secretary Phyllis C. Borzi and Deputy Assistant Treasury Mark Iwry are planning to stage a public comment period before implementing regulations that would require private investors to structure IRA and 401(k) accounts into what could amount to a U.S. Treasury debt-backed government annuity.

Complete Story: