WEEK OF DECEMBER 14, 2008

Educating the Uneducated

Jeff Schreiber of America’s Right opines: 

So the Anointed One has a degree from Harvard Law School and undergraduate work at Columbia. Whoopee! It will soon be time for him to finally get a real education. Unfortunately, it will, in all likelihood, be delivered by Islamic jihadists. As Benjamin Franklin said, “Experience keeps a school, yet fools will learn in no other.”

RETURN TO ARCHIVES PAGE                                                     RETURN TO HOME PAGE

The Question Goes Away

As we fully expected, the U.S, Supreme Court on Monday, December 15, refused to grant a stay in the Wrotnowski v. Bysiewic case. (No, this case was not about Chicago politics.) Cort Wrotnowski had filed with the Supreme Court to issue a stay prohibiting Barack Obama from being sworn in as President until the question regarding his constitutional ability to serve was resolved by the Court. Wrotnowski’s claim did not address whether Obama was born in the United States, as most other cases have. Instead, the case was brought arguing that, because the president-elect’s father was a British citizen at the time of Obama’s birth, Obama was likewise a British citizen, and therefore not a natural-born American citizen. The fundamental question was whether Obama could claim to have had dual citizenship and therefore be “natural-born”. 

The denial leaves two cases regarding eligibility before the Court, and neither is expected to gain a hearing. It appears that Obama’s eligibility to serve is essentially a dead issue. Obama supporters, joined by some leading conservatives such as David Horowitz and Hugh Hewitt, looked upon this hullabaloo over Obama’s status as nothing more than an attempt by a few reactionary, sore loser conservatives to overturn the November election. No doubt there were a few people from the Right who did view this as such an opportunity, but the majority of us who had expressed legitimate concern about the sanctity of the U.S. Constitution were not suffering from “Obama derangement”, as Horowitz labeled it. 

Blogger Jeff Schreiber at America’s Right made the same point that has been presented here on numerous occasions, when he wrote:

We are rapidly approaching the point in time when those of us who have been closely following this issue sincerely hope that neither information surfaces nor any court rulings confirm Obama’s ineligibility to serve, simply because of the constitutional crises that would result from such a finding. Once the new President takes office in January, any new challenges emanating from other than official governmental agencies based on new information would be counterproductive, and his legitimacy should be otherwise assumed. There will no doubt be other challenges to the U. S. Constitution in the next four to eight years, and those of us who believe that it is the duty of each and every American to protect and defend our Constitution must be ready to oppose those challenges at every turn.

RETURN TO ARCHIVES PAGE                                                     RETURN TO HOME PAGE

It isn't very often that I offer kudos to the Denver Post's political cartoonist Mike Keefe, but his offering on Saturday's Opinion page
deserves them. Although political humor often relies on a certain amount of exaggeration to make its point, this one is not too far off the mark in illustrating public education's current priorities. With the mush that passes for education today, it is little wonder that American kids score so low on comparative test scores with kids in other industrialized countries.

RETURN TO ARCHIVES PAGE                                                     RETURN TO HOME PAGE

A Sign of Things to Come 

Having grown up in the Milwaukee area, I can clearly remember how, long ago, the locals there would tout their big-city civic pride by jokingly referring to nearby Chicago as “Milwaukee’s biggest suburb”. That all ended about 50 years ago when Mayor Richard Daley Sr. became entrenched as the kingpin of the city’s Democratic political machine, one that would have made mobsters Al Capone and Baby Face Nelson proud. Milwaukeeans began to wish then that the Windy City could be blown about 100 miles further south because the stench became so bad. That was about the time that Milwaukee built its own regional airport, replacing the old Mitchell Field and eliminating the need for its citizens to fly into or out of Chicago’s Midway or O’Hare airports before or after using alternative modes of transportation to get wherever they were going. It was during this same time period that the once famous Chicago-to-Milwaukee North Shore (electric) Railway was abandoned. Milwaukee obtained its own major league baseball team, eliminating the need to cheer for the Cubs or White Sox. The Packers-Bears football rivalry became the equivalent to today’s War on Terror. Except for a few attractions such as its Museum of Science and Industry, the Adler Planetarium, and the Shedd Aquarium, Chicago almost became a third world country to many Milwaukeeans. 

It therefore came as no surprise whatsoever when earlier this week it was announced that Illinois Governor Rod R. Blagojevich, himself a product of Chicago politics, had been arrested on numerous charges of corruption that Federal Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald referred to as “staggering” in number and severity. I am sure that the good citizens of Milwaukee and Chicago, like many other Americans around the country, casually asked, “So what else is new?” Slime and sleaze go with the territory. 

Conservative bloggers and talk show hosts quickly pounced on the opportunity to pose the question, “How much and when did Barack Obama know?” Meanwhile, The Anointed One’s supporters and worshippers are castigating conservatives or anyone else for even daring to ask such a question about the Man Who Would Save the World, just like they label those who do not unquestionably accept Obama’s claims about his birthplace as being “nutters”, conspiracy wonks, or “poor losers”.  

Will a President Obama eventually be implicated in the swirling mess around the Illinois governor? I would seriously doubt it, now that he has been elected to a position of such power. However, to even suggest that he cut his political teeth in such a swirling mass of corruption without even once getting his hands dirty is too much for even his most ardent supporters to believe. More likely than not, he will be able to avoid any political fallout just as he has thus far been able to avoid resolving the questions regarding his eligibility to serve based on the constitutional question of his place of birth. 

What is far more worrisome is the probability that the cancer that is Chicago politics will spread to infect other states and the federal government as well. The large debt that is owed to labor unions by so many recently elected candidates will give those organizations new-found national power and influence that they have not enjoyed since the 1930s and 40s. The affects that unions have had in Chicago politics clearly illustrates the negative aspects of their goals and their use of power. We saw a hint of that power this week as the Senate was addressing the automobile industry bailout.  

Republican in the Senate insisted that one of the requirements of providing relief to the Big Three auto makers was that the United Auto Workers union members would be required to agree to significant reductions in pay and benefits so as to make the companies more competitive with their foreign counterparts with plants in the United States, and thus, more profitable. They, of course, refused, and the bailout failed. 

The first thought that came to mind was the blatant ignorance that their stand projected, as if to say, “We would rather have no jobs at all than to have jobs at lower pay.” That type of perverted and self-defeating thinking has permeated the labor unions for decades. This time, however, the tactic will probably not backfire. The new Congress taking power in January will have fewer Republicans to staunch the tide of unreasonable union power, and the buyout will probably pass without the unions having to share any of the responsibility for correcting the companies’ problems. Instead, the burden will be passed on to the American taxpayer. 

Big government brings big spending. Big spending almost guarantees big corruption. For those Americans who are ignorant and lazy enough to expect the government to solve all of their problems, they will only find new and greater problems. Unfortunately, it is all of us who will pay the price.
__________________________

Related Articles:

Even Chicago's Crooks Are Appalled by Blagojevich
Extorting Children's Hospital is a new political low
By SCOTT SIMON
December 13, 2008 at Wall Street Journal Online 

Chicagoans and Illinoisans love political scandal the way that Milanese love opera. We trade recollections, like baseball cards, about the secretary of state (Paul Powell) who stashed money in shoeboxes, and the Chicago mayor (Harold Washington) whose birthday was April 15 but never filed his income tax return.
__________________________

Illinois seat scandal roils Congress
By ALEXANDER BOLTON 
12/09/08 at The Hill

With just more than 40 days before the president-elect takes the oath of office, the federal allegations cast a pall over the incoming administration and the Chicago political community from which Obama sprang and from which he picked many of his top advisers.
__________________________

RETURN TO ARCHIVES PAGE                                                     RETURN TO HOME PAGE

A Reply to David Horowitz’s Article at Townhall.com

Ninety-nine point nine percent of the time I find myself in total agreement with David Horowitz’s opinions as expressed on the internet or on talk radio shows. It was, therefore, somewhat surprising to come across David’s Townhall.com article this morning, entitled Obama Derangement Syndrome: Conservatives Need to Shut Up about the Birth Certificate. With all due respect, I have to disagree with Mr. Horowitz here. To state that promoting this issue is nothing more than a conspiracy by right-wing nutters to overthrow the election is nothing but a repetition of the talking points being put out by the Obama Team and the “MSM” on this issue. And whether or not it hurts the Republican Party is wholly irrelevant. We are all Americans first and Republicans or Democrats second, or at least that is how it should be. As such, our primary concern should be adherence to the spirit and letter of the Constitution. If there is a constitutional point that we do not agree with, we have a process for changing it. If anyone believes that Article II, Section 1 is either antiquated or unimportant, then let him or her set about changing it. While they are at it, they should think about overturning the 22nd Amendment that limits the U.S. President to two terms in office. That amendment is no less or no more important than the requirement for the President to be a natural born citizen. If 64 million Americans had voted to grant George Bush a third term in office, would Mr. Horowitz, the media, and the majority of Americans acquiesced so easily? Would such an event in any way legitimize those 64 million votes? Can we selectively choose those pieces and parts of the Constitution with which we want to comply? 

At this point, I do not know if Barack Obama is or is not a natural born citizen. There is currently insufficient information available to know for sure. For those who insist that the document that was reproduced and posted on a few websites constitutes proof of his Hawaiian birth, please face reality. That document is a “Certificate of Live Birth”, not a “Birth Certificate”. Whether or not it is a forgery, as many claim, is not the important issue here. What is important is that the document that was posted does not sufficiently prove that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, since children born anywhere outside of Hawaii could have obtained the same piece of paper. 

That the Supreme Court refused to hear Mr. Donofrio’s case is not at all surprising (see article below, entitled Why the Supreme Court Will Not Take up Obama’s Presidential Eligibility Issue). I would expect the same result for any or all of the similar cases that are currently pending in various states. While the Court no doubt has the authority to rule on Obama’s constitutional eligibility to serve as president, the arguments and evidence that have been brought forward thus far have been too vague or inconclusive to warrant the Court’s attention. At the same time, however, they have been sufficiently serious and well documented to leave the question open and subject to further scrutiny. It serves no useful purpose whatsoever to sweep this issue under the rug, nor is it accurate to portray those of us who refuse to let it go as being a part of a radical conspiracy to overthrow the wishes of the American people. If questioning the integrity of the Obama cabal is inconvenient or embarrassing to some people, so be it. Just do not portray those of us who do as being out of touch with reality.
_________________________________

Related Articles: 

Obama and the Natural Born Citizen Clause
By RANDALL HOVEN
December 09, 2008 at American Thinker 

Let's get this issue out of the newspapers and the blogs and into a courtroom.  A courtroom, you know, where facts and the law are dealt with in this country.

_________________________________

RETURN TO ARCHIVES PAGE                                                     RETURN TO HOME PAGE

Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Donofrio v. Wells Case
Monday, Dec. 8, 2008

As expected, the U.S. Supreme Court announced this morning that it would not hear the case Donofrio v. Wells relating to Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility to serve as U.S. President. A second case, brought by Attorney Phillip Berg, has not yet been addressed. The latter case was previously turned down by the District Court in Pennsylvania, and is not expected to be taken up by the highest court.

For more details, see the reports at chicagotribune.com and at WorldNetDaily.

RETURN TO ARCHIVES PAGE                                                     RETURN TO HOME PAGE

Setting the Record Straight

The issue regarding Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve as President of the United States is beginning now to appear in some of the non-web related media. As usual, any resemblance between what the media is reporting and the actual facts is purely coincidental.

In every article that I have seen, the author states that the internet followers of this issue are a part of a conspiracy, whether they know it or not, and that all of us firmly believe that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, rather than in Hawaii.. They go on to say that those who are pressing the Supreme Court to get involved with this issue refuse to acknowledge the truth as it has presented by the Obama Team. That Obama has not provided the truth escapes them, for they take what he and his followers say as a matter of faith without having any basis for doing so.

If I were to write here that all reporters for the old media are bed-wetting perverts who practice bestiality, some eyebrows might be raised. Yet these same reporters can get away with lumping all of us together as some sort of ignorant conspirators if we are not yet fully convinced that the president-elect really was born in Hawaii, as he claims,. This is a clear illustration of the fact that there is no direct correlation between intelligence and liberal journalists’ thought processes. They apparently fail to understand that there are some people on all sides of the political spectrum who are concerned about the integrity our nation’s Constitution. Most of us do not believe with absolute certainty that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. In fact, most of us believe that, more likely, he was born in Hawaii, as he claims. Our persistence is solely because of the constitutional crisis that would occur if, by chance, he was born somewhere other than in Hawaii. Until this is firmly established, rather than blandly accepted as a convenient fact, we will continue to seek the truth. The information that he has provided thus far simply does not constitute the level of proof needed to arrive at that truth. If there is any conspiracy taking place, it is Obama’s refusal to make available his actual birth certificate (not a mere Certification of Live Birth) showing that he was born in Hawaii. One would think that objective journalists would want the same information. Then again, that is probably too much to expect.

RETURN TO ARCHIVES PAGE                                                     RETURN TO HOME PAGE

Why the Supreme Court Will Not Take up Obama’s Presidential Eligibility Issue 

This might become the shortest enduring article ever to appear on The Drum and Cannon. On Friday, December 5, the nine justices met in conference to review the case of Leo C. Donofrio v. New Jersey Secretary of State Nina Mitchell Wells, which claims that Obama does not meet the Constitution's definition and requirement of being natural-born citizen. The conference was a normal weekly assembly of the justices, the goal of which is to determine which of the many cases brought to the court will actually be heard. The case itself is just one of 16 cases brought in twelve states challenging Obama’s eligibility to serve. 

Many of us who have been following this issue were disappointed that the results of the conference were not released on Friday as expected. Instead, we will have to wait until Monday to learn of the justices’ determination. Therefore, I have decided to go out on a limb and explain why, in my opinion, the Court will not take this issue on, at least for now. This would not be my preference, inasmuch as I would prefer to have the issue settled as quickly as possible, preferably by the release of Obama’s original birth certificate, his medical records, and his school records from Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard. This, I believe, will not happen either. 

I am not an attorney, so I would welcome any comments or corrections regarding the facts and logic expressed here.  

I first base my assertions on the fact that, thus far, no crime has been committed, nor has anyone proven that Obama is not a natural born citizen. Accordingly, I do not believe the Supreme Court or any court would issue a stay based on the supposition that a crime might be committed at some future time, without any corroborating history of criminal activity on Obama’s part. To do so would be equivalent to forbidding a bank to hire a new employee with no criminal record of any kind merely because someone else believes that the employee would embezzle funds at some future time. There is a matter of degree in my example, but the principle is the same. 

Secondly, in the absence of any proof that Obama does not meet the constitutional requirements for the presidency, the actions of the Electoral College in casting their votes for Obama would not constitute any type of crime, since the electors would be performing their assigned duties in good faith. Only if his ineligibility were to be proven before December 15, when the Electoral College meets, would there be any malfeasance involved with the electors’ voting. 

While Article II, Section I clearly spells out the eligibility requirements, nowhere does the Constitution specify how a political candidate’s eligibility to serve is to be determined. Mr. Donofrio’s case makes the assertion that it is the responsibility of the Secretaries of State in each state to verify candidates’ eligibility. Several of the other cases pending in various courts make this same assertion. Other opinions place this responsibility at the Federal Election Commission or at the political parties’ national committees. This only serves to illustrate the general confusion on this issue. Unless New Jersey statute assigns the responsibility to the Secretary of State and said Secretary of State negligently or intentionally failed to do so, I do not envision the Supreme Court being interested in addressing this state issue. 

Similarly, unless proof exists that President-elect Obama is not eligible to serve and Chief Justice Roberts (or someone else) administers the Oath of Office on January 20, 2009, he or she would not be guilty of any crime if unaware of such proof. I make this assertion based on the fundamental principle of American jurisprudence that states that a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty. That person, in this case, is Barack Obama. It is not the function of the Supreme Court, or any court, to prove that someone is guilty of wrongdoing; we leave that up to law enforcement organizations and prosecuting attorneys. 

If, at some point subsequent to Obama’s assumption of the presidency, a law enforcement agency were to obtain sufficient evidence to successfully prosecute President Obama for failing to meet the constitutional requirements, he could then face arrest and removal from office for numerous crimes, not the least of which would be perjury. The problem here, of course, is the influence that Obama himself would have over any such investigation and prosecution. We could only hope that, because of the illegitimacy of his office, he could somehow be prevented from wielding such influence, but that is very unlikely. It is even more unlikely that the Democratic Congress would impeach him and remove him from office to allow the prosecution to move forward. Undoubtedly, public opinion and the media would be in Obama’s corner in such an event, and most members of Congress are far more interested in partisan politics and being re-elected to office than in doing what is right. 

In summary, I do not believe that the Supreme Court will accept Mr. Donofrio’s case, nor any of the others that are making their way through the court system. I agree with Jeff Schreiber of America’s Right and Joseph Farah at WorldNetDaily  who say that the Obama Team probably shares this assessment and, because of that, has refused to release any documents other than what it falsely claims to be a copy of Obama’s birth certificate posted on various websites. Because  this issue has been ignored by the media in general and my firm belief that the majority of Americans are either unaware of the controversy or unconcerned about the constitutional implications that are involved, I do not expect that a positive report will be emanating from the Court on Monday.

RETURN TO ARCHIVES PAGE                                                     RETURN TO HOME PAGE