Friday, July 31, 2009


Subject: Prof. Gates' Racist Rant...

Every cop on the planet understands that Prof. Gates is the sole cause of his predicament in Cambridge, but it’s nice to see a fellow prof at Harvard straighten him out. The media have this one all wrong---not a surprise to anyone, I’m sure…


An open letter to Henry Louis Gates.
by Ruth R. Wisse

Dear Skip,

My first thought on hearing of your arrest was for your welfare, so I was relieved to learn that that the case against you had been dropped and you were off to join your family on Martha's Vineyard. From what I can piece together, you must have been exhausted after a long flight, exasperated to have your front door jammed, and then dumbfounded to find yourself suspected of breaking and entering your own home. To that point, you have my sympathy.

But thereafter your case becomes disturbing, and while the president's unwise comments turned a local episode into a national referendum, it's the local issue that troubles me. Like you, I live in Cambridge, commonly known as the "People's Republic of Cambridge" for its left-leaning political correctness. Our congressional district has not sent a Republican to Washington since 1955.

Not surprisingly, the officers who came to your door--a rainbow of black, Hispanic, and white--were led by a man hand-picked to provide training on the avoidance of bias in policing. To accuse the Cambridge police of racial profiling, as you did, is about as credible as charging Barack Obama with favoring Republicans.

What puzzles me most in the report of your actions--or reactions--on July 16 is why you would have chosen, as I've heard you put it elsewhere, to "talk Black" to officer Crowley instead of "talking White" as you so eloquently and regularly do? These are distinctions I've heard you expound--how educated African Americans switch their register of speech depending on what part of themselves they want to get across.

Many of us do something similar inside and outside our particular communities, but you make it sound like a sport that is also for African Americans a tool of survival. So why didn't you address the policemen as fellow Cambridgians? What was that "yo' mama" talk instead of saying simply, in the same register your interlocutor was using, "Look, officer, I'm sorry for your trouble. Thanks for checking on my house when you thought I was being burgled, but this is my home, and if you give me a minute, I'll find the piece of mail or license that proves it to you."

It seem! s it wasn't the policeman doing the profiling, it was you. You played him for a racist cop and treated him disrespectfully. Had you truly feared bias, you would surely have behaved in a more controlled, rather than a less controlled, way.

Do you really think anyone in this country has reached adulthood without having undergone the humiliation of self-justification to police? As it happens, a few days prior to your arrest, I was pulled over on the highway near Saranac Lake, New York.

My husband and I had driven into town for dinner and were on our way back to our camp in the Adirondacks. When I saw that I was being stopped, I said, "I don't get it. I'm going under 55 mph." Nonetheless, when the officer approached the car, I quickly rolled down the window, reached for my driver's license as my husband got the registration out of the glove compartment, and said to the officer as gently as I could, "Excuse me officer, have I done anything wrong"?

(I had not noticed that one of our headlights was out: we were told to repair it at the next gas station.) It would not have occurred to this gray-haired Caucasian female to count on a policeman's sympathy; the last time I tried joking with a policeman, some forty years ! ago, my quip cost me an extra $15 on my fine.

Rather than taking offense at being racially profiled, weren't you instead insulted that someone as prominent as you was being subjected to a regular police routine? A Harvard professor and public figure--should you have to be treated like an ordinary citizen? But that's the greatness of this country: enforcers of the law are expected to treat all alike, to protect the house of a black man no less carefully than that of white neighbors.

You and I entrust our protection to these police, and we also entrust to them the protection of Harvard students. These are the police who were called in on May 18 to deal with the shooting of Justin Cosby, 21, inside one of the Harvard dorms by suspects who, like him, were African Americans. Has any case ever been dealt with more discreetly--likely at least in part because it involved African Americans?

Should we not be encouraging all students to live within the law and to consider ourselves on the side of the law unless clearly and manifes! tly demonstrated otherwise? Is it not for faculty to set an example of politeness, civility, responsibility, and cool temper?

The ironies of progress can hardly be lost on you. When I came to Harvard in 1993, you had just published in the New York Times an op-ed urging Black intellectuals to face up to their own racist attitudes. Invoking the spirit of Martin Luther King, Jr., you wrote, "While anti-Semitism is generally on the wane in this country, it has been on the rise among black Americans.

A recent survey finds not only that blacks are twice as likely as whites to hold anti-Semitic views but--significantly--that it is among younger and more educated blacks that anti-Semitism is most pronounced." You argued then that owning up to such internal racism was the key to self-respect.

Now that America has a black president, Massachusetts a black governor, and Cambridge a black mayor, you appear to have adopted the posture of racial victim. Are you trying to keep alive the politically potent appeal to liberal guilt?

I'm concerned for you, but would not like to see the authority of our police diminished, their effectiveness reduced, or their reputation unfairly tarnished. Since, inadvertently I assume, you have made the work of our police force more difficult than it already is, I wish that you would help set the record straight. You are the man to do it.


Ruth R. Wisse is the Martin Peretz Professor of Yiddish Literature, and Professor of Comparative Literature, at Harvard

Wednesday, July 29, 2009


Obama is Guilty on at least one count of false swearing.

[Ed. This story was edited and updated at 7:38 AM on July 28, 2009 to reflect that only one count of false swearing is documented by the document below. The original story included two counts based upon two statements allegedly given to the State of Arizona and the State of Virginia. This was originally posted by The Obama File blog. That blog was wrong in that the two documents were actually separate pieces of one document forwarded by Obama to the State of Arizona. The notary was in Virginia and that is where the confusion arose. Below is a signed sworn statement by Obama forwarded to the State of Arizona and notarized by a notary in Virginia. The legal analysis remains unchanged and unedited from my original post.]

On Nov. 30, 2007 Obama swore to and signed the document below:

Arizona full version swear

The US Constitution requires that the President must be a "natural born citizen" of the US. The Constitution makes a clear distinction between a basic citizen – who may be a Senator or Representative – and a "natural born citizen" – the higher standard which is required for the President/Commander In Chief.

Obama was a Constitutional law professor and Harvard Law graduate running for President. He was fully aware of the most on point US Supreme Court holding which discussed the meaning of "natural born citizen" – Minor v. Happersett – wherein the Supreme Court stated:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

In the Minor case, the person wasn't running for President of the US so the court didn't have to reach the nbc issue. But the court did note that the foreign nationality of a native born person's parents could effect that native born person's natural-born citizen status.

Furthermore, the court also stated that the definition of "natural-born citizen" was not found in the Constitution so "Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that." Why is this important?


The most predominant argument that Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be President relies on the wording of the 14th Amendment which states that a person born on US soil and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a US citizen. But the 14th Amendment does not say that every person born on US soil is a "natural-born citizen", it just says "citizen". Obama supporters have argued that 14th Amendment citizenship makes one eligible to be President and satisfies the natural born- citizen requirements of Article 2 Section 1. This is the "native born" = "natural born" argument.

The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868. But the Minor decision was issued in 1874 wherein SCOTUS said:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.

The 14th Amendment had already been part of the Constitution for six years when SCOTUS made that statement. SCOTUS clearly and unequivocally states in Minor that the 14th Amendment does NOT define who is a "natural-born citizen". Anybody who says the 14th Amendment does define "natural-born citizen" is lying and/or ignorant as to the Supreme Court's holding in Minor – the most on point discussion of the definition of the Article 2 Section 1 "natural-born citizen" requirement for POTUS.

Obama - the famed brilliant Constitutional scholar – had to be aware that the most directly on point US Supreme Court case in our nation's history directly stated that there were doubts as to his nbc status. Yet, regardless of these doubts expressed by the highest court in the land, Obama went ahead and swore – under oath – that he was eligible to be President.



Editors Note: In December ‘08 a retired CIA officer commissioned an investigator to look into the Barack Obama birth certificate and eligibility issue. On July 21, 2009 obtained a copy of the investigator’s report. Here is an unedited version of the report.

June 10, 2009 Report, updated July 18, 2009

The Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii

I think that I now understand the legal background to the question of where Obama was born.

Let’s begin with the statement that Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health released on October 31, 2008. The television and print media used this statement as a reason to prevent and treat with contempt any investigation into whether Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii. But the language of the statement was so carefully hedged and guarded that it should have had the opposite effect.

“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record. Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”

It is understandable that after such an apparently definitive statement most news outlets, whether conservative or liberal, would accept this as sufficient grounds to relegate the controversy to the status of a fringe phenomenon. Unless they happened to take the trouble to look into the “state policies and procedures” as laid down by the relevant statutes. If they had done so, they would have seen that Dr. Fukino’s press release was carefully hedged and “lawyered” and practically worthless. But the media in general should not be faulted. The statement seems to roll out with such bureaucratic certainty and final authority. I believed it to be significant until a Honolulu attorney mailed me the relevant statutes. I was so surprised that I laughed out loud.

Here is a summary of Hawaii’s “state policies and procedures” in 1961.

In the State of Hawaii, back in 1961, there were four different ways to get an “original birth certificate” on record. They varied greatly in their reliability as evidence. For convenience, I’ll call them BC1, BC2, BC3, and BC4.

BC1. If the birth was attended by a physician or mid wife, the attending medical professional was required to certify to the Department of Health the facts of the birth date, location, parents’ identities and other information. (See Section 57-8 & 9 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).

Actual long form Certificate of Live Birth similar to one Obama refuses to release

BC2. In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or midwife, then all that was required was that one of the parents send in a birth certificate to be filed. The birth certificate could be filed by mail. There appears to have been no requirement for the parent to actually physically appear before “the local registrar of the district.” It would have been very easy for a relative to forge an absent parent’s signature to a form and mail it in. In addition, if a claim was made that “neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as above provided is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local registrar shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.” (Section 57-8&9) I asked the Dept of Health what they currently ask for (in 2008) to back up a parent’s claim that a child was born in Hawaii. I was told that all they required was a proof of residence in Hawaii (e.g. a driver’s license [We know from interviews with her friends on Mercer Island in Washington State that Ann Dunham had acquired a driver’s license by the summer of 1961 at the age of 17] or telephone bill) and pre-natal (statement or report that a woman was pregnant) and post-natal (statement or report that a new-born baby has been examined) certification by a physician. On further enquiry, the employee that I spoke to informed me that the pre-natal and post-natal certifications had probably not been in force in the ‘60s. Even if they had been, there is and was no requirement for a physician or midwife to witness, state or report that the baby was born in Hawaii.

BC3. In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or midwife, then, up to the first birthday of the child, a “Delayed Certificate” could be filed, which required that “a summary statement of the evidence submitted in support of the acceptance for delayed filing or the alteration [of a file] shall be endorsed on the certificates”, which “evidence shall be kept in a special permanent file.” The statute provided that “the probative value of a ‘delayed’ or ‘altered’ certificate shall be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence.” (See Section 57- 9, 18, 19 & 20 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).”

[In other words, this form of vault birth certificate, the Delayed Certificate, required no more than a statement before a government bureaucrat by one of the parents or (the law does not seem to me clear on this) one of Barack Obama’s grandparents. If the latter is true, Ann Dunham did not have to be present for this statement or even in the country.]

BC4. If a child is born in Hawaii, for whom no physician or mid wife filed a certificate of live birth, and for whom no Delayed Certificate was filed before the first birthday, then a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth could be issued upon testimony of an adult (including the subject person [i.e. the birth child as an adult]) if the Office of the Lieutenant Governor was satisfied that a person was born in Hawaii, provided that the person had attained the age of one year. (See Section 57-40 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961.) In 1955 the “secretary of the Territory” was in charge of this procedure. In 1960 it was transferred to the Office of the Lieutenant Governor (“the lieutenant governor, or his secretary, or such other person as he may designate or appoint from his office” §338-41 [in 1961]).

Certification of Live Birth, released by Obama

In 1982, the vital records law was amended to create a fifth kind of “original birth certificate”. Under Act 182 H.B. NO. 3016-82, “Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that the proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.” In this way “state policies and procedures” accommodate even “children born out of State” (this is the actual language of Act 182) with an “original birth certificate on record.” So it is even possible that the birth certificate referred to by Dr Fukino is of the kind specified in Act 182.

This possibility cannot be dismissed because such a certificate certainly satisfies Dr Fukino’s statement that “I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”

If this is the case, Dr Fukino would have perpetrated so unusually disgusting a deception that I find it practically incredible (and I greatly doubt that anyone could be that shameless). On the other hand, if the original birth certificate is of types 2, 3, or 4, Dr Fukino’s statement would be only somewhat less deceptive and verbally tricky. I only bring up this possibility to show how cleverly hedged and “lawyered” and basically worthless Dr Fukino’s statement is.

Sections 57-8, 9, 18, 19, 20 & 40 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act explain why Barack Obama has refused to release the original vault birth certificate. If the original certificate were the standard BC1 type of birth certificate, he would have allowed its release and brought the controversy to a quick end. But if the original certificate is of the other kinds, then Obama would have a very good reason not to release the vault birth certificate.

For if he did, then the tape recording of Obama’s Kenyan grandmother asserting that she was present at his birth in Kenya becomes far more important. As does the Kenyan ambassador’s assertion that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, as well as the sealing of all government and hospital records relevant to Obama by the Kenyan government. And the fact that though there are many witnesses to Ann Dunham’s presence on Oahu from Sept 1960 to Feb 1961, there are no witnesses to her being on Oahu from March 1961 to August 1962 when she returned from Seattle and the University of Washington. No Hawaiian physicians, nurses, or midwives have come forward with any recollection of Barack Obama’s birth.

The fact that Obama refuses to release the vault birth certificate that would instantly clear up this matter almost certainly indicates that the vault birth certificate is probably a BC2 or possibly a BC3.

It is almost certainly a BC 3 or even a BC 4 if the “Certification of Live Birth” posted on the Daily Kos blog and the website by the Obama campaign is a forgery. Ron Polarik has made what several experts claim to be a cogent case that it is a forgery. There have been a couple of attempts to refute his argument and Polarik has replied to the most extensive of them. I do not claim expertise in this area, but I think it would be best for journalists and politicians to familiarize themselves with the arguments on both sides before they casually dismiss Polarik’s position without taking the trouble to understand it.

Here are 2 of Polarik’s websites:

Because the disputants know far more about this subject than I do, I am an agnostic about Polarik’s argument. However, the likelihood that this computer-generated “Certification of Live Birth” was forged, is, I believe, increased by the fact that it has been pretty clearly established that Obama “either didn’t register for the draft or did so belatedly and fraudulently. The documents indicate that it’s one or the other.” archives/004431print.html The forgery of Obama’s selective service registration was necessary, because according to Federal law, “A man must be registered to be eligible for jobs in the Executive Branch of the Federal government and the U.S. Postal Service. This applies only to men born after December 31, 1959.” )

It is also very strange that Dr Fukino’s statement in no way attested to (or even addressed the issue of) the authenticity of the “Certification of Live Birth” (and the information that appears on it) that the Daily Kos blog and the Obama campaign posted on line. Dr Fukino merely stated that “I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”

If there is no hospital or physician record in the vault birth certificate, then he wasn’t born in a hospital in Hawaii. And a home birth or non-hospital birth can then be ruled out for the following reason.

When someone has a home birth or is not born in a hospital, this becomes a part of his family’s lore and is now and again spoken of by his parents. He and his siblings grow up knowing that he was born at home or his uncle’s house, etc. The fact that someone in the campaign told a Washington Post reporter that he was born in Kapioliani hospital and his sister said he was born at Queens hospital indicates that there was not and is not any Obama/Dunham family memory of a home birth or non-hospital birth in Hawaii.

And if there is no hospital record in the original vault birth certificate, then he was not born in a hospital in Hawaii.

Instead of the birth certificate on file at the Hawaii Dept of Health, the Obama campaign posted on the Daily Kos blog and the Fightthesmears website a “Certification of Live Birth”. The Certification of Live Birth is not a copy of the original birth certificate. It is a computer-generated document that the state of Hawaii issues on request to indicate that a birth certificate of some type is “on record in accordance with state policies and procedures”. And there is the problem.

Given the statutes in force in 1961, the Certification of Live Birth proves nothing unless we know what is on the original birth certificate. There are several legal areas (involving ethnic quotas and subsidy) for which the state of Hawaii up until June 2009 did not accept its computer-generated Certification of Live Birth as sufficient proof of birth in Hawaii or parentage. Why should the citizens of the United States be content with lower standards for ascertaining the qualifications of their President?

If you combine an awareness of what the Certification of Live Birth posted on the internet really is with 1) a knowledge of the relevant statutes in 1961 and 2) Obama’s stubborn refusal to permit the release of the real birth certificate and his determination to fight any legal actions that would compel him to do so, it becomes clear that there is no logical explanation for Obama’s refusal without taking into consideration the relevant statutes. Then his behavior becomes clear. The Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii is the missing piece of the puzzle.

Most people think of a birth certificate as a statement by a hospital or midwife with a footprint, etc. (That may be why some main-stream journalists have straight out lied about this. Jonathan Alter, senior editor at Newsweek magazine, for example, told Keith Olbermann on MSNBC on Feb 20, 2009 that “They [the Republicans] are a party that is out of ideas so they have to resort to these lies about the fact that he’s not a citizen. This came up during the campaign, Keith.

The Obama campaign actually posted his birth certificate from a Hawaii hospital online.” But it is Alter who resorted to lying to the American people on television. “The Obama campaign” never “actually posted his birth certificate from a Hawaii hospital online.” On July 17, 2009 CNN’s Kitty Pilgrim lied when she stated that the Obama campaign had produced “the original birth certificate” on the internet and that had examined the original birth certificate; whether it was forged or not, the Certification of Live Birth that was posted by the campaign and is not, and by definition, cannot be the original birth certificate or a copy of the original birth certificate.

There were no computer generated Certifications of Live Birth in 1961, the year Obama was born. Obama’s original birth certificate (whether it was filed in 1961 or later) was a very different document from the Certification of Live Birth on On the web site, the claim is made that “ staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate.” So is lying about this as well. gets its prestige from a reputation for objectivity. Why would those who run this site choose to tell so obvious a lie and so endanger the site’s reputation? The answer is in the date of the posting, August 21, 2008. It was in mid-August that questions about the Certification of Live Birth began to reach a critical mass and threaten to enter the public discourse. The mostly pro-Obama television and newspaper/magazine media had to be given an excuse and cover for their collective decision to dismiss or ignore the substantial questions about whether Obama met the qualifications for the office set forth in Article II section I of the Constitution.

And those reporters and editors who were not in the tank for Obama had to be deceived. After Labor Day the swing voters would begin to pay attention to the Presidential campaign. The truth had to be killed. And with its lie about “how it examined and photographed the original birth certificate“, killed it.)

Most people would not consider a mailed-in form by one of his parents (who could have been out of the country or whose signature could have been forged by a grandparent) or a sworn statement by one of his grandparents or by his mother or even a sworn statement by himself many years later to be sufficient evidence (when set next to the statements by his maternal grandmother and the Kenyan ambassador that he was born in another country).

Unless the American people are shown the original birth certificate, all of these are possibilities. And if Obama refuses to allow the state of Hawaii to release the original birth certificate, it begins to look like he was not born in a Hawaii hospital or at home with the assistance of a doctor or midwife. A reasonable person would acknowledge that there are serious reasons to doubt that Barack Obama was born in the United States. This is especially true because, if Obama was born in a foreign country, his family had a compelling reason to lie about it.

In 1961 if a 17 year old American girl gave birth in a foreign country to a child whose father was not an American citizen, that child had no right to any American citizenship, let alone the “natural born” citizenship that qualifies someone for the Presidency under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.

In 1961, the year that Barack Obama was born, under Sec. 301 (a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Ann Dunham could not transmit citizenship of any kind to Barack Obama.

“ 7 FAM 1133.2-2 Original Provisions and Amendments to Section 301

(CT:CON-204; 11-01-2007)

“a. Section 301 as Effective on December 24, 1952: When enacted in 1952, section 301 required a U.S. citizen married to an alien to have been physically present in the United States for ten years, including five after reaching the age of fourteen, to transmit citizenship to foreign-born children. The ten-year transmission requirement remained in effect from 12:01 a.m. EDT December 24, 1952, through midnight November 13, 1986, and still is applicable to persons born during that period.

“As originally enacted, section 301(a)(7) stated: Section 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph.”

The Immigration and Nationality Corrections Act (Public Law 103-416) on October 25, 1994 revised this law to accommodate “a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years”.

But in 1961, if Barack Obama had been born outside of the country, the Dunham family had no way of knowing that in 1994 Congress would pass a law that would retroactively make him a citizen. At that time, the only way to get citizenship for him would be to take advantage of one of the loopholes in the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act.

People can debate the meaning of the term “natural-born citizen” as long as they like but this is clear: If, in 1961, 17 year old Ann Dunham gave birth to a child on foreign soil whose father was not an American citizen, then the Immigration and Nationality Act at that time denied Barack Obama any right to American citizenship of any kind. Therefore if at the time of his birth Obama was ineligible for American citizenship of any kind, then he cannot be a “natural-born citizen”. This is true even if the Immigration and Nationality Act was changed 33 years after he was born. Even if the law was retroactively changed to grant citizenship (but not “natural-born” citizenship) to some of those who had at birth been denied it. If a person is not at the time of his birth an American citizen, he cannot be a natural-born citizen. Therefore, that person is ineligible under Article II, Section1 for the Office of President of the United States.

It is only by examining the 18th century usage and definition of a term that we can ascertain its meaning in the Constitution. In the 18th century, and at the time of the framing and ratification of the Constitution by the states, the term “natural-born” subject or citizen was always used or defined in such a way as to exclude the child of a British or American girl or woman when that child was born in a foreign country and that child’s father was a foreign citizen. No 18th century jurist would have thought the term “natural-born” citizen or subject could have been extended to the child of a British or American girl or woman when that child was born in a foreign country and that child’s father was a foreign citizen.

Here is Blackstone’s classic exposition in 1765 of the legal meaning of the term from the Commentaries on the Laws of England.

William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:354, 357–58, 361–62


“Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it.. . .

“When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king’s dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty’s English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king’s embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king,…might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.” [The italics are Blackstone's]

The irresponsible confirmation in the Senate of the irresponsible tallying of votes in the Electoral College does not supersede the clear meaning of Article II, Section 1. If it is allowed to stand, disregard of the Constitution by all branches of the government would be openly established. To all who believe that the Constitution is the government’s basic law, that the Constitution is the only instrument that gives the enactments of Congress and the commands of the Executive validity, it will be clear that the rule of law in the United States is a fiction.

Journalists and politicians complain that we must avoid a Constitutional crisis, but there already is a Constitutional crisis. It has been caused by Obama’s refusal to take the simple step to clear the matter up. The power of the Executive branch has been compromised. Its right to collect taxes and sign Congressional enactments into law, in fact all of its powers, have become problematic. Since their validity under Section I is now doubtful, they depend on the illegal exercise of force. Since officers of the American military take their oath on commissioning to the Constitution and not the President, their obedience to the Commander-in-Chief has lapsed and, if they challenge or resist his authority, any courts-martial will also be an illegal exercise of force. The only way out of the present Constitutional crisis is for Obama to do as McCain did when he was confronted by far less pressing doubts about the circumstances of his birth. He must disclose his vault birth certificate. Since the document has been so suspiciously withheld for so long, it should be subjected to rigorous forensic tests. Then whatever is on it should be judicially assessed together with the claims that have been made that Barack Obama was born on foreign soil.

It should be added that “Obama’s top terrorism and intelligence adviser, John O. Brennan, heads a firm that was cited in March for breaching sensitive files in the State Department’s passport office, according to a State Department Inspector General’s report released this past July.

“The security breach, first reported by the Washington Times and later confirmed by State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, involved a contract employee of Brennan’s firm, The Analysis Corp., which has earned millions of dollars providing intelligence-related consulting services to federal agencies and private companies.

“During a State Department briefing on March 21, 2008, McCormack confirmed that the contractor had accessed the passport files of presidential candidates Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and John McCain, and that the inspector general had launched an investigation.

“Sources who tracked the investigation tell Newsmax that the main target of the breach was the Obama passport file, and that the contractor accessed the file in order to ‘cauterize’ the records of potentially embarrassing information.

“ ‘They looked at the McCain and Clinton files as well to create confusion,’ one knowledgeable source told Newsmax. ‘But this was basically an attempt to cauterize the Obama file.’

“At the time of the breach, Brennan was working as an unpaid adviser to the Obama campaign.

” ‘This individual’s actions were taken without the knowledge or direction of anyone at The Analysis Corp. and are wholly inconsistent with our professional and ethical standards,’ Brennan’s company said in a statement sent to reporters after the passport breach was made public.

“The passport files include ‘personally identifiable information such as the applicant’s name, gender, social security number, date and place of birth, and passport number,’ according to the inspector general report.

“The files may contain additional information including ‘original copies of the associated documents,’ the report added. Such documents include birth certificates, naturalization certificates, or oaths of allegiance for U.S.-born persons who adopted the citizenship of a foreign country as minors.”

“The State Department Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a 104-page report on the breach last July. Although it is stamped ‘Sensitive but Unclassified,’ the report was heavily redacted in the version released to the public, with page after page blacked out entirely.”

The following may be relevant:

Key witness in passport fraud case fatally shot

Saturday, April 19, 2008

“A key witness in a federal probe into passport information stolen from the State Department was fatally shot in front of a District church, the Metropolitan Police Department said yesterday.

“Lt. Quarles Harris Jr., 24, who had been cooperating with a federal investigators, was found late Thursday night slumped dead inside a car, in front of the Judah House Praise Baptist Church in Northeast, said Cmdr. Michael Anzallo, head of the department’s Criminal Investigations Division.

“Cmdr. Anzallo said a police officer was patrolling the neighborhood when gunshots were heard, then Lt. Harris was found dead inside the vehicle, which investigators would describe only as a blue car.

“Emergency medics pronounced him dead at the scene.

“City police said they do not know whether his death was a direct result of his cooperation with federal investigators.

“We don’t have any information right now that connects his murder to that case,” Cmdr. Anzallo said.

“Police say a “shot spotter” device helped an officer locate Lt. Harris.

“A State Department spokeswoman yesterday declined to comment, saying the investigation into the passport fraud is ongoing.

“The Washington Times reported April 5 that contractors for the State Department had improperly accessed passport information for presidential candidates Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain, which resulted in a series of firings that reached into the agency’s top ranks.

“One agency employee, who was not identified in documents filed in U.S. District Court, was implicated in a credit-card fraud scheme after Lt. Harris told federal authorities he obtained “passport information from a co-conspirator who works for the U.S. Department of State.” “

There is a possibility that the breaches of the passport files associated with the “credit-card fraud scheme” were a cover for or associated with the breaches of the passport files by the employee of Brennan’s Analysis Corp. This certainly at least should be looked into.

July 11th Addendum to Report

1. Until June 2009, the reasonable doubts about where Obama was born could have quickly and finally been resolved if he had authorized the release by the Hawaiian Dept of Health of his original birth certificate or else applied for it himself and released it to the media. But as these doubts have increased and reached the point where they are no longer a “fringe” phenomenon, the Hawaiian state govt has recently taken certain steps that would create procedural and possibly legal barriers to a resolution of the controversy. Given the slipperiness that characterized the statements of Chiyome Fukino, the Dept’s Director, and Janice Okubo, the Dept’s spokesperson, to the media on this issue, it is, I think, also reasonable to regard these steps with suspicion.

A family that I am acquainted with has a child who was born in Hawaii 6 months ago. They filled out and mailed in a form to the Dept of Health, as did their doctor. In return the Dept sent them in the first week of June, 2009, the same abbreviated computer-generated form that last year on the Daily Kos and subsequently on the Obama campaign web site was called a “Certification of Live Birth”. The form that this family received this year is identical in format to the Certification of Live Birth on the Daily Kos web site with one exception: the title at the top of the form.

On June 12, 2008 the title for this abbreviated form was Certification of Live Birth. The title for the form that this family received in the first week of June 2009 is Certificate of Live Birth. I called The Dept of Health and confirmed that the title of the form had been changed. The bureaucrat that I spoke to said the change had been made “recently”, but could not or would not tell me when. Sometime between June 12, 2008 and the first week of June 2009 the Hawaiian Dept of Health changed the title of this abbreviated form from “Certification of Live Birth” to “Certificate of Live Birth“. Why?

The use of the word “Certificate” rather than “Certification” makes the form feel somewhat more like a traditional birth certificate than the “Certification of Live Birth” that the Daily Kos website and subsequently the Obama campaign posted on the Internet even though, like the “Certification“, it also lacks any information about the hospital, doctor, or midwife. There is no footprint etc. This renaming of the document will be very convenient for the Hawaiian Dept of Health in future stonewalling should any legal pressure be brought against them to produce Obama’s “Certificate of Live Birth”. Instead of producing the original “Certificate of Live Birth”, they will produce the abbreviated “Certification of Live Birth” form that the Dept of Health has now renamed a “Certificate of Live Birth” and claim that they are doing so “in accordance with state policies and procedures” in the words of the Dept’s Director, Dr. Chiyome Fukino.

But whether it is called (as it was last year) a Certification or (as it is now) a Certificate of Live Birth this abbreviated document provides none of the probative information that was or wasn’t on Barack Obama’s original Certificate of Live Birth. Unlike the Certificate of Live Birth of the time when Barack Obama was born, this new Certificate of Live Birth provides no real evidence of where a child was born or indication of where such evidence might be found. It provides no information that would demonstrate to the people of the United States whether there is convincing evidence that he was actually born here or whether a relative or two (or possibly even Barack Obama himself) just made a statement to that effect to a low level bureaucrat. (As is permitted under Section 57-40 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii.)

2. On June 7, 2009, a spokeswoman for the Hawaii Department of Health told a rather obvious lie (or engaged in a pretty transparent verbal deception) in another attempt to discourage further investigation into the issue of whether Barack Obama was born on Oahu. “The state Department of Health no longer issues copies of paper birth certificates as was done in the past”, said spokeswoman Janice Okubo. “The department only issues ‘certifications’ of live births, and that is the ‘official birth certificate’ issued by the state of Hawaii, she said. ” [Honolulu Star Bulletin]

This statement was false or deliberately very misleading. Here, from a Hawaii state document that was posted on June 10, 2009, is a description of how to apply for “the original Certificate of Live Birth” (the original birth certificate) as opposed to the Certification of Live Birth:

“In order to process your application [to prove native Hawaiian ancestry], DHHL [Department of Hawaiian Homelands] utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.

“Please note that DOH [Department of Health] no longer offers same day service. If you plan on picking up your certified DOH document(s), you should allow at least 10 working days for DOH to process your request(s), OR four to six weeks if you want your certified certificate(s) mailed to you.”

Ms. Okubo’s statement gave the false impression that Obama could not gain access to or release “the original Certificate of Live Birth”, and that it was the DOH’s policy rather than his own reluctance that was responsible for the holding back of this Certificate. This was an obvious deception. The document at the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands website indicates that at the time she made this statement it was false, and that a procedure was in place for application for “the original Certificate of Live Birth.”

Only the information on the original birth certificate, “the original Certificate of Live Birth”, can demonstrate to the people of the United States whether there is convincing evidence that he was actually born here or whether a relative or two (or possibly even Barack Obama himself) just made a statement to that effect to a low level bureaucrat.

3. On July 8, 2009 the web site World Net Daily reported that “The state, which had excluded the controversial document [the Certification of Live Birth] as proof of native Hawaiian status, has changed its policy and now makes a point of including it.”

Here is the new statement on the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands web site [July 8, 2009]. “The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth [original birth certificates and the recently renamed abbreviated computer printouts] and Certifications of Live Birth [as the abbreviated computer printouts were up till recently called] because they are official government records documenting an individual’s birth… Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth.”

The web site picked up this significant change in procedure on the Dept of Hawaiian Homelands website on June 18, 2009.

Sometime between June 10, 2009 and June 18, 2009 the State of Hawaii changed its rule on what documents and data were necessary to prove Hawaiian ancestry, thereby upgrading the apparent status of the abbreviated Certification of Live Birth which it had formerly regarded as insufficiently probative. Why?

4. On June 6, Janice Okubo, the Dept of Health spokeswoman, also told the Star Bulletin that “The electronic record of the birth is what (the Health Department) now keeps on file in order to provide same-day certified copies at our help window for most requests.” There is a troubling ambiguity in this statement. A sophisticated forensic investigation would probably be able to determine whether the original paper Certificate of Live Birth was forged, altered, or authentic. But if the data from the original paper Certificates of Live Birth has been transferred to an electronic record and then the original documents were discarded, part of the data could easily have been changed in the transfer or subsequently altered.

On July 23, 2009 Jon Klein, the president of CNN-US told staffers that political researchers at CNN had discovered that “*In 2001 – the state of Hawaii Health Department went paperless. *Paper documents were discarded*”.

On July 27, 2009 Janice Okubo told WorldNetDaily, “I am not aware of any birth certificate records that have been destroyed by the department. When the department went electronic in 2001, vital records, whether in paper form or any other form, [were] maintained. We don’t destroy records. Any records that we had in paper or any other form before 2001 are still in file within the department. We have not destroyed any vital statistics records that we have.”

What is going on here? Either the political research department at CNN is a complete joke or the Hawaiian Dept of Health has been changing its story.

We know from a document posted on June 10, 2009 on the Department of Hawaiian Homelands website that, up until very recently, either the original paper Certificates of Live Birth and/or scanned images of those paper certificates were maintained by the Dept of Health, and copies of them were provided to confirm claims of Hawaiian ancestry.

But if in June 2009 the Department of Hawaiian Homelands has decided that it will no longer require the original Certificate of Live Birth as proof for special privileges and the Department of Health spokesman says firmly that they will no longer provide copies of these original certificates, is it possible that, in the midst of the controversy over where Barack Obama was born, the Hawaiian state govt has destroyed the original paper certificate of live birth?

This seems almost incredible to me, but the authorities have been so deceptive and evasive on this issue, that it cannot be dismissed as impossible.

Friday, July 24, 2009


The criminal case against ACORN
Congressional report demands probe, block of $8.5 billion in stimulus funds

By Jerome R. Corsi

In a move to block designation of $8.5 billion in economic stimulus funds, Republicans on a House committee released a report calling for a criminal investigation of ACORN, the community activist group tied to numerous charges of voter fraud nationwide.

The 88-page report asks whether ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, is intentionally structured as a criminal enterprise.

Commissioned by Rep. Darrell Issa of California, the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the report charges ACORN "hides behind a paper wall of nonprofit corporate protections to conceal a criminal conspiracy on the part of its directors, to launder federal money in order to pursue a partisan political agenda and to manipulate the American electorate."

The report expresses concern that ACORN would channel $8.5 billion in economic stimulus funds through a criminal corporate structure designed to mask the distribution of public money to partisan activities, including voter fraud to advance the campaigns of radical Democratic politicians.

"It is undisputed that ACORN engages in politically partisan activity," the report declared, noting ACORN was paid $832,000 by the Obama 2008 presidential campaign for get-out-the-vote efforts.

As though the future of your country depended on it ... Get "Taking America Back," Joseph Farah's manifesto for sovereignty, self-reliance and moral renewal

One-third of the 1.3 million voter registration cards turned in by ACORN in 2008 were invalid, the report said, noting a series of criminal actions involving voter fraud have been taken against ACORN in Arkansas, Pennsylvania and Nevada since 1998.

"ACORN cannot be receiving government money," Issa told Glenn Beck on the Fox News Channel in his first interview after releasing the report. "ACORN should lose its tax-free status."

(Story continues below)

Within the last week, Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, has introduced several amendments to various pieces of legislation to prohibit ACORN from receiving taxpayer funds and to prevent the group from helping carry out the 2010 census.

Congressional Democrats have fought King's efforts, rejecting each amendment he has submitted.

Since 1994, ACORN has received more than $53 million in federal funds, according to the report.

Specifically, the report made the following criminal allegations:

ACORN has evaded taxes, obstructed justice, engaged in self-dealing, and aided and abetted a cover-up of embezzlement by Dale Rathke, the brother of ACORN founder Wade Rathke.

ACORN has committed investment fraud, deprived the public of its right to honest services, and engaged in racketeering affecting interstate commerce.

ACORN has committed a conspiracy to defraud the United States by using taxpayer funds for partisan political activities.

ACORN has submitted false filings to the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Labor, in addition to violating the Fair Labor Standards Act.

ACORN falsified and concealed facts concerning an illegal transaction between related parties in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
ACORN's radical socialist origins

WND previously reported ACORN owes its origin to a revolutionary strategy developed in the 1960s by Columbia University's professor of social work Richard A. Cloward and his research associate, Frances Fox Piven.

In what became known as the Cloward-Piven strategy, the two sociologists argued for a revolutionary approach to mobilizing the poor. They advocated a form of class warfare against capitalist forces perceived as exploiters of labor and oppressors of the poor.

David Horowitz, a long-time student of leftist political movements in the United States, characterized the Cloward-Piven strategy as seeking "to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse."

Cloward and Piven argued a "guaranteed annual income" should be established as an entitlement for the poor.

Arguing for massive registration of the poor in existing social welfare programs, Cloward and Piven sought to create a crisis that could be exploited to obtain a fundamental redistribution of power in favor of the "have nots."

Advancing their socialist revolutionary aims, Cloward and Piven explained the crisis they sought "can occur spontaneously (e.g., riots) or as the intended result of tactics of demonstration and protest which either generate institutional disruption or bring unrecognized disruption to public attention."

The Cloward-Piven strategy sought to apply the tactics of the revolutionary civil rights movement, including urban riots, to the poor as a whole, transcending interest-group politics defined by race to involve interest group politics defined by class.

Radical black activist George Wiley created the National Welfare Reform Organization, or NWRO, to implement the Cloward-Piven strategy.

Sol Stern, writing in the City Journal, noted that foot soldiers hired by the NWRO were successful in expanding welfare rolls from 4.3 million to 10.8 million by the mid-1970s. The result was that in New York City, where the strategy had been particularly successful, there was one person on the welfare rolls for every two working in the private economy.

James Simpson, a former White House staff economist and budget analyst, writing in American Thinker argued the "vast expansion of welfare in New York City that came of the NWRO's Cloward-Piven tactics sent the city into bankruptcy in 1975."

Obama's close ties to ACORN

WND has also reported that Barack Obama, as a community organizer in 1992 in Chicago, headed the Chicago operations of Project Vote!, an ACORN effort to register voters nationally. In Chicago, Obama had his biggest impact registering African-American voters on the city's South Side.

ACORN also played an instrumental role in urging lenders to extend home mortgages to subprime lenders. In the 1980s, the group pushed charges that the home lending practices of banks amounted to "red-lining" in violation of the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, according to a report by Stan Liebowitz in the New York Post.

In 1994, Obama, a graduate of Harvard Law School then fresh from his Project Vote! experience, represented ACORN in the Buycks-Roberson vs. Citibank Federal Savings Bank case in which ACORN pressed for Citibank to make more loans to marginally qualified African-American applicants "in a race neutral way."

After obtaining a settlement in the Citibank litigation, ACORN used its subsidiary organization ACORN Housing, an organization with offices in more than 30 U.S. cities, to push the group's radical agenda to acquire mortgages for subprime home buyers under the most favorable terms possible.

The meltdown in subprime home mortgages has been widely seen as a major cause of the current recession that officially began in December 2008 after two consecutive quarters of negative growth in gross domestic product, or GDP.

During 2008, the Obama presidential campaign attempted to distance the candidate from ACORN voter fraud by arguing that the U.S. Department of Justice was on the same side of the Citibank case as was lawyer Obama, reflecting the Clinton administration's determination to expand homeownership among the poor.

"Barack Obama strongly condemns voter registration fraud or any other breach of election law by any party or group," Ben LaBolt, an Obama campaign spokesman, said at the time in a statement reported by the New York Times.

Conyers backs off probing ACORN

Last month, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr., D-Mich., backed off his plan to launch a congressional investigation of ACORN, telling reporters "powers that be put the kibosh on the idea," the Washington Times reported.

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele responded to Conyers, asserting the congressman "has a responsibility to explain who is blocking the investigation and why." "Is it Speaker Pelosi?" Steele asked, according to the Washington Post. "Others in the Democratic leadership? Who in Congress is covering up ACORN's corruption?"

Tuesday, July 21, 2009


Will North Korea and Iran Make Joe Biden a Prophet?

by Clare M. Lopez

Posted 07/21/2009 ET

It was only last October that then vice-presidential candidate Joe Biden told a Seattle fundraising crowd in October 2008 that the next president would face a “major international crisis” within six months of taking office. He said, “Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy…And he's gonna need help…we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right.” Prophetic words.

While world attention has been riveted on massive street protests that erupted in the wake of June presidential elections in Iran, word is leaking out of North Korea about the possibly critical condition of Kim Jong-Il’s health, reportedly due to pancreatic cancer. These developments raise questions of stability and succession in two of the world’s most dangerous regimes, the one already a nuclear power and the other on the verge.

In both Iran and North Korea, early regime reactions indicate that military and security forces in each country are stepping up to take on even more dominant roles in preserving those regimes.What’s more, those militaries are working together in sync to challenge the U.S. and international system’s ability to hold them in check.

Top leaders of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) spoke out publicly in early July to announce a takeover of national security and “a revival of the revolution,” according to Maj. Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari, commander of the IRGC. The streets of Iran’s big cities were flooded with security forces, including swarms of baton-wielding Bassij thugs on motorcycles, who clubbed, gassed, knifed, and shot unarmed demonstrators. The Bassij is a subordinate division of the IRGC that functions as a backup militia to quell civil disturbances. Critics decried a coup d’état by elite Guards loyal to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

The IRGC takeover of Iran is less a coup d’état than a calculated campaign that has been in progress at least since Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took over the presidency in 2005. Created in 1979 during the earliest days of Khomeini’s revolution, the IRGC has always had just one mission, as indicated by its full name in Farsi: Sepāh-e Pāsdārān-e Inqelāb-e Islāmi (Army of the Guardians of the Revolution). The IRGC defends the revolution and thereby the mullahs’ regime that is Khomeini’s legacy.

Over the years and especially since former IRGC commander Ahmadinejad became president, its power has grown steadily. The IRGC is in charge of all of Iran’s WMD programs, including its nuclear weapons program. It commands the development of Iran’s ballistic missile program and heads the bilateral cooperative missile program with North Korea. Through its Qods Force, the IRGC manages Iran’s liaison relationships with terror organizations such as Al-Qa’eda, Hamas, and Hizballah as well as with the Taliban, regional organized crime syndicates, and the opium trade out of Afghanistan and Pakistan. It boasts a broad representation in the institutions of Iran’s democratic façade, such as the Majles (Parliament). The IRGC also owns massive segments of the Iranian economy including banks, construction and mining companies, oil and gas properties, and petrochemical plants.
The IRGC’s economic grab is bringing it into direct conflict with the established financial interests of some of the revolution’s founding clerics. Over the centuries, Iran’s mullahs have amassed enormous familial wealth that is partly the inheritance of a long-entrenched Shi’ite theological establishment. Key regime clerics such as Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Supreme Leader Khamenei have also raked in hundreds of millions in ill-gotten gains since the revolution, much of it reportedly socked away in foreign bank accounts. Now these erstwhile comrades-in-arms are squabbling openly over the diminishing spoils of a thoroughly corrupted and mismanaged economy.

The Rafsanjani clan cynically chose to back populist candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi, whose loss to Ahmadinejad (by fraud or otherwise) predictably brought into the streets the only power in Iran that can stand against the guns of the regime: the population of Iran in its millions. And the regime fought back with the IRGC.

In North Korea, too, the military has always dominated and is every bit as determined to defend its privileged position as the IRGC in Iran. For over sixty years, however, the Kim dynasty has ruled the country with an iron fist and even after it became known as a nuclear power in the early 1990s. North Korea, however brutally dysfunctional, remained stable. Now, however, things seem to be moving in a less certain direction.

In the wake of a reported stroke last year and gathering speculation about life-threatening cancer, Kim Jong-Il has appeared but rarely in public and was looking gaunt and sickly in his most recent appearance earlier this month. Kim Jong-Un, the North Korean dictator’s youngest son, reportedly has been groomed for succession, but at 26, is hardly ready to step into the leadership of a militarized terror state in a society that typically pays deference only to age and power. In addition, there is a brother-in-law, Jang Song Thaek, who could ensure internal destabilization with a power grab of his own.

Tensions on the Korean peninsula and throughout the nearby region have been running high in recent months due to North Korea’s increasingly belligerent tone and its steady succession of nuclear and missile tests. The 2007 Israeli strike on a nuclear reactor in Syria being built with North Korean assistance and the more recent half-hearted shadowing by a U.S. destroyer of a North Korean freighter thought to be carrying prohibited cargo have been the only tangible responses.

Analysts cite an exceptionally weak U.S. track record led by Ambassador Christopher Hill during the George W. Bush administration and a continuing policy of lame ‘expressions of concern’ from the Obama administration for doing little to discourage an already hyper-aggressive regime now possibly on the brink of a succession struggle. The April 2009 announcement by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates that the U.S. would cut the missile defense budget by $1.4 billion was met the very same day (April 6) by a North Korean launch of a multi-stage missile that delivered its payload some 2,390 miles away in the Pacific Ocean, and quickly followed by an Iranian test-firing of a solid-fuelled ballistic missile with a 1,200 mile range (on May 20) and a North Korean explosive nuclear weapons test (May 25).

The Iranian and North Korean regimes are the two surviving members of President Bush’s “axis of evil”. Today the criminal leaderships of both are facing internal crises that their powerful militaries are using to expand their grip on both domestic and foreign policy. Not only have the Iranian people declared their alienation from their leaders, but the theological legitimacy of Iran’s Supreme Leader Khamenei and even the very institution of Velayat-e Faqih are under assault: Qom’s Association of Religious Scholars issued a call for new elections, Grand Ayatollah Montazeri has declared the mullahs’ regime illegitimate, and Rafsanjani sermons amount to a frank challenge to the regime.

With open fitna in the ranks of the clergy, the IRGC is the last defense of a disintegrating dictatorship. Its ideological zealotry and direct control of the regime’s most lethal weapons make its role in directing Iran’s foreign policy a matter of critical concern for U.S. national security. The same is true for North Korea: if the million-strong People’s Army, in control of intercontinental ballistic missiles and a tested nuclear weapons capability, should step into a succession fight following the demise of Kim Jong-Il, the rogue defiance of the international system seen to date would be merely prelude to the chaos that could follow. This is no longer just an axis of evil: it is an axis of instability, slipping toward loss of control, and fixed on blaming the U.S. for everything.

Joe Biden’s “major international crisis” is nearly upon us. Is the U.S. prepared to show itself the powerful, decisive leader of the free world the oppressed people of Iran and North Korea hope it is and American citizens depend on it to be? The Obama administration has given no indication to date that it is willing to reconsider its decision to stand down against the Axis of Evil and the War on Terror. By the time events in Iran and North Korea cause those regimes to implode, the consequences for an enfeebled U.S. and the free world may be catastrophic


By: Alan Peters

Re-post from April 2006 still holds true. Note date as President Bush was in office at the time of the original writing.

PROLOGUE: Military Tactical, Strategic and Intel analysts fall down the same chute that Politicians seem to slide into. An almost total lack of real life assessment capability of Iranian mentality.

Most scenarios and opinions appear to be formed, even by the supposed "experts", on their contact with Iranians of various kinds, mostly those living abroad and as ex-pats offering a "skin deep" mis-perception of who the Joe Six Pack Iranian really is.

Or use the "skin" layer covering of the Iranian populace presented by those inside Iran, who have the ability to communicate with the outside world. Probably as little as 3% of the nation.

This thin covering layer of intellectuals, students and mostly outdated politicians going back to the Mossadegh era, with some to the monarchy, have no role to play at this point. Other than mind games.

Thrashed, killed, discouraged and rendered impotent over a quarter century of violent suppression, they only have philosophical and academic energy to contribute to a regime change.

They can neither muster forces to fight the neo-Islamic regime of Ahmadi-Nejad, intensely populated by Revolutionary Guards in all executive positions, nor be active in any kind of regime change till their freedom of speech is restored without fear of violent and deadly retribution.

Beneath that skin is a very different flesh, blood and guts that is virtually ignored, thus throwing off analysis and skewing decisions. This distortion becomes aggravated as Arabists, with openly pro-Mullah lobbyists advising them, instead of anti-mullah Iranians, are charged with making policy and Iraq situations are used to provide givens that do not fit the Iranian landscape.

Instead of basing concepts on input from the thin layer with which we come into contact in the West, including a limited profile of those inside Iran, poll the 400,000 street kids who live in cardboard boxes.

The hundreds of thousands of workers who have not been paid in months, sometimes nearly a year.

Those who will be arrested and abused as the crackdown on un-Islamic dress code becomes an excuse to arrest and abuse girls and women.

And those who, come September, will face rationing of gasoline for their vehicles and will often be unable to get to work at all or obtain food and daily necessities.

Again, only some 2% of the population of 70 million inside Iran are among these, who can make themselves heard to the analysts and tacticians. And distort reality the flows beneath that.

An all day, live poll by an Iranian TV station, Channel One, in Los Angeles, where call-ins were accepted from inside Iran, usually from cell phones, provided a response of at least 50% of callers stating openly they would welcome USA bombing raids, even if civilians died in the process. As long as it removed the Mullahs.

What follows may read like a bizarre, politically incorrect, war-mongering treatise. But then you, personally, did not fail to face down Hitler politically; probably did not endure his concentration camps; fight his storm troopers; nor were among the millions, no, tens of millions of dead in World War II. Neither did I but that's not the point.

Deaths that occurred exactly for the same reasons we had then, we use again to avoid seriously opposing Ahmadi-Nejad and his Hojatieh neo-Islamic Iran. As a result, not simply risking but blithely inviting a repeat in spades of what went wrong last time we had a global threat, where we tried so hard to avoid confrontation.

Negotiate, appease, and procrastinate with an enemy who needs a Hiroshima, Nagasaki response to blow out his war candle - in concept - rather than by a real nuclear explosion.

We diddle while the world burns - or is about to. Trying to stay within accepted political parameters of the impractical, corrupt United Nations, which appointed Iran to the Vice-Chairmanship of the UN Disarmament Committee, a wishy-washy European Union and trying to achieve common goals with Russia and China – we thus try to do the impossible to escape adopting the real life, only practical solution.

None of the reasons touted to prevent firm and perhaps brutal action against Iran, based on political or humanitarian correctness, are supposed to be a global suicide pact, which increasingly becomes the most likely result from our lack of decisiveness.

And leads to the question of which "innocent" lives are we supposed to save and protect?

Those trapped inside a country of a brutal and heartless Islamic regime, hell-bent on destroying the West and imposing a monolithic, Islamic Caliphate dictate on the world? Or avoid collateral damage – probably around 20,000 civilians, during attacks on some 400,000 targeted MILLITARY people at 5,000 locations – but allow the tens of millions to perish if we do not "sandblast" Iran to clean it for a saner future administration.

If only our world leaders had shown guts, confronted Hitler, and stopped him a tiny bit earlier before he really got going.

Will we be moaning a similar refrain about Ahmadi-Nejad and his atomic or oil weapons and apocalyptic religious beliefs in a decade or so? After the fall of our civilized world to senseless destruction he promises with every breath?

Or do we resolve to kill nearly half a million Iranian military and paramilitary personnel – not civilians - to save millions of others – both inside Iran and around the world?

Do we need to destroy that many? Do we kow-tow to bleeding hearts who cannot see further than the tip of their noses and to vested interests or do we, like surgeons, take out the scalpel and excise the deadly cancer that has pervaded the global body's health?

This "total" excision requires the destruction of every, I mean every, military site, barrack, piece of equipment, even trucks and small arms in one massive, conventional weapon, bombing campaign. Night and day until every objective and every elite Pasdar, Basiji, Ghods Brigade and similar core unit ceases to exists.

A run at nuclear sites to bury or destroy them, again with deep penetration conventional weapons, would round out the attack yet becomes almost secondary as a prime objective. Without the players in place, the nukes become less consequential.

Within some weeks of intensive, non-nuclear bombing and continued air support to mop up and "keep the peace", we would have wiped out the fanatical core of the Iranian "military" – personnel, weapons and equipment.

But no Mullahs? Without inserting troops into Iran? Pretty much so. At that point, the populace will take care of the Mullahs.

Without their repressive "military and para-military" bodyguards to defend them, the Mullahs will fall prey to the people of Iran they have abused for so long. Revenge will take place on a neighborhood level and on a national scale.

Resentments against those who have enslaved, tormented, tortured and killed will suddenly find free reign to exact retribution for past wrongs. Down to little villages where the clerics have raped, killed, corrupted and executed at will for over a quarter century.

The uprising of the people, something so many people wish to promote, will, for the first time, be pragmatically possible without fear from the Mullahs and their henchmen. For the first time, the populace can then speak freely without being repressed.

No, the populace will not hate America as apologists and pro-Mullah adherents espouse to prevent an attack!

Will they rise up? Give me a university street corner, megaphone and ten minutes to harangue them after their fears abate and see. (Obviously, I speak Farsi).

Clearly radio broadcasts and TV stations (not the insipid Voice of America and similar ones hogging regime change budgets) from outside the country, some which connect to people by cell-phone as they often do now in Los Angeles (Channel One), for example, and conducted the recent poll, would be more effective in mobilizing the masses than my single megaphone. Same easy principle of dry tinder and a spark, though.

This myth of "hating the USA if attacked", falsely based on Western mentality and mindsets, plus pro-regime apologists and some well-wishers with families in Iran, unable to see into the future if we fail to act, totally ignores the Joe Six Pack, Persian thought process.

Unwilling to shed blood themselves, more gentle in nature than commonly perceived, the man in the street of Iran, chafing under the boot of the Mullahs will not openly or publicly support the death of fellow Iranians – as a whole – but will not hate whoever takes out their hated ones – the Mullahs and their Pasdars, Basijis etc.

Families of those grieving for their lost relatives in the military will have to consider their neighbors, too. They will be concerned for their own safety and well-being at the hands of their fellow compatriots so will not rise up as a resistance against anyone. Specially with a prospect of a better life dangling before them.

In any event, do the math. With an average of four to a family, times 400,000 becomes about 1.5 million potential "opponents". Say even two million people angered by the direct pain they have suffered. They are, however, mourners not combatants. They are not fighting for the survival or retrieval of their political beliefs as in Iraq.

On the other side of the scales are the millions whose pain has ceased or diminished and after vengeance against the clerics has been wreaked by them, will be ready and grateful for a new beginning. Chaotic though it may be at first.

Who fills the consequent administrative void? To get into detail here requires a lengthier article than even this one. But conceptually the answer is straightforward enough.

An "Iranian" coalition "government" or NGO of any kind set up in exile in advance, will move in with aid and succor and nominally assume administrative functions. Perhaps with some limited Western coalition troops for initial protection.

There is already work being done to putting into place a nationwide network of volunteers inside Iran (details being withheld on purpose) to allow a neighborhood by neighborhood set of Assistance Committees to take over and provide some formal local nucleus all over the country.

In the Khomeini revolution, after the fall of the Shah's government, the only remaining national network was the thousands of mosques. This factor alone snatched the revolution from the Marxist-Islamists and Communists and dropped it into the outstretched hands of the Mullahs.

The aftermath should definitely not be managed by the United Nations, which recently officially elected Iran to a vice-chair disarmament committee membership.

Again, Iranians respect strength and with the Mullahs "gone" (mostly dead by the hands of Iranians), though demanding the world in aid and food and shelter will not attack as did insurgents in Iraq.

The final nail in the coffin of the late Shah was when he was persuaded by liberals like Ehsan Naraghi to speak to the people and tell them he "got their message" when they thronged in the streets against him at the behest of Khomeini and pro-Soviet agitators.

The social infrastructure in Iran in no way resembles the situation in pre-war or post-war Iraq. An insurgency, after such a massive destruction of the Pasdars etc., will not fall on fertile mental soil. Specially with the insurgents in Iraq killing Iraqis proving a lesson and example for Iranians of what not to support.

Will there be negative considerations? Yes.

Outwardly, while breathing a sigh of relief, privately and secretly also admiring the strength and USA resolution, Arab nations will spew verbal criticism.

Liberal do-gooders and mainstream media will berate the world for saving them from what neo-Iran would have unleashed, never understanding the scope of it.

The Kennedy and John Kerry clan and the Bush haters will all criticize those who end up saving their hides and their continued freedom to spew nonsense without fear of lashings and execution.

Hamas and Hezbollah will send out suicide missions against Israel.

While not so minor to the Israelis, on a global scale their problem is comparatively small, could be controlled, if need be, by sending some 20,000 troops to Israel to help out - instead of trying to send some 500,000 troops needed to invade and control Iran.

As long as Iranian military infrastructure is close to intact or only partially destroyed, the populace will remain fearful of lashing out in deserved revenge and thus negate the desired result of their rising up.

There might be a spate of suicide bombers in Europe or inside the USA but none of this will be more than a drop in the ocean compared to what will happen in the next decade if we do not conduct such a bombing "sandblast".

And might well happen anyway even if we "defuse" Iran. We still have other enemies to face who use these tactics.

Though recently denying any such thought or intention, Russia sending in troops to protect their 40,000 consultants in Iran might be the only serious problem to resolve in advance.

By the time that could effectively happen, the bombing would be "over" and the situation no longer to their advantage for inserting troops. Withdrawing their consultants to the safety of nearby countries would prove easier.

The total destruction of the 400,000 military elite units' personnel – as opposed to the regular Iranian forces, who have much less devotion to the Mullahs – is the essential and key ingredient to success.

There will be chaos within Iran as the pieces have to be picked up. There will be opposing factions fighting for power but it will no longer be crazy religious leaders dictating matters with impunity to an enslaved and cowering nation and a naïve, hapless world.

And the world as a whole will be a safer place for everyone, even for the remaining Jihadists in many countries or timorous French politicians or dithering British Foreign Ministers like Jack Straw.

And oil? Oil will be what oil will be. With or without Ahmadi-Nejad we will face oil problems, only harsher ones if he and his ilk remain in charge with oil as a weapon. This, too is the subject of another long article at another time.


Jack Straw has been accused (rightly so) of playing both sides against the middle, yet he is simply treading water till we and the UK can figure out what the heck we are doing, can do or will do in the face of the MSM in both countries, our weak-kneed politicians and the Russian and Chinese attitudes.

Meanwhile the only one with the guts to really do anything - our own USA President - has to deal with the dilemma the Islamic regime finds delightful and flaunts as reasons why the USA will never attack Iran militarily.

Bush's choice is really quite simple.

Does he sacrifice the world's long term best interests for the Republican party's November re-election considerations or does he ignore national politics and do what has to be done while he still can.

Losing either or both houses will hobble him with legislative and budget opposition, so now may be the only clear time he has to do something forceful.

While some may disagree with this article as being too drastic, I have twisted, turned and cogitated to find anything else that will work - both inside Iran and for the world - that has fewer deaths or casualties as a result.

Estimated collateral damage might go as high as 30,000 non-combatant Iranians from the bombing but how many will die around the world and continue to die inside Iran if we do not do something drastic?

The neo-regime of Ahmadi-Nejad has already started to execute prisoners by the dozens in the last couple of weeks. The Ayatollahs killed some 30,000 back in 1988/89 so why think Ahmadi-Nejad and the Revolutionary Guard will have qualms now to not duplicate that number?

They are "cleaning up" the streets by gathering up and exporting homeless street girls and deserted women, selling them to the Gulf sheikhdoms as sex toys or "indentured servants" (slaves) with the Morals Police, in charge of the clean up, pocketing the proceeds.

Selected ones are kept to populate secret brothels owned and run by prominent and second level Mullahs.

Meanwhile, as of this Saturday, - as they did in the early days of Khomeini - they are once again roaming the streets and arresting pretty ones for "un-Islamic dress code".

These victims frequently end up being forced to have sex with their captors to be released. Having sex often takes the form of several nights of gang rape by various shifts of the jailers.

Used and dishonored they are freed, with many committing suicide. Just as they did when the non-Iranian Khomeini first invaded Iran. He never had a drop of Iranian blood in his veins from neither his mother nor father.

To round out their imposition of harsh conditions and increase the number of excuses to cow the populace, Iran has ordered the Morals Police to also accost anyone walking a dog in public or seen with a cat in their arms. Or any pets. Any loud noise (specially music) will be met with arrest. Decorating your vehicle will now also make you liable for arrest by the Morals Police. Virtually anything other than total submission to the desires of the fanatical Amadi-Nejad version of Islam will receive immediate retribution.

To implement the new regulations, he has launched 50 men and 50 women in black uniforms (remember Hilter's SS?) in special Mercedes cars to patrol the streets of Tehran and look for and deal with this kind of sinful behavior.

There are an estimated 400,000 homeless, desperate women and pre-teen children living in cardboard boxes in the capital city of Tehran alone, trying to survive by prostituting themselves and selling drugs for the local Mullahs.

Incidentally, most of the younger boys also suffer the fate of their female counterparts in this slave trade.

Add to this the countless students and young men and women who cannot find a job and desperately enter the same fields of illegal endeavour to stay off the streets and live with their families, where breadwinners have often not been paid at their jobs for nearly a year.

Apart from the obvious nuclear and oil threats, does none of this qualify the Islamic regime for brutal reprisal? Would the liberal MSM not be screaming holy murder if a tiny fraction of this was going on in their own respective countries?

Our only hope might actually be Bush's low poll ratings. He has little or nothing to lose if he steps on the side of the best interests of the world - including all of us - and the American population - if doing so. Other than seats in the two houses.

A one fell swoop success in ridding Iran of the Mullahs as described here, might quite to the contrary, become his redeeming action to restore his ratings and provide him with an honored place in history.

Saturday, July 18, 2009


Comment by BP2

"Not much more will be heard for at least 60-days which he gave the Obama camp to respond".

A lot more scrubbing can take place in the next 60 days!

There is an obvious and active campaign to scrub Obama birth information off the Internet -- REAL TIME, RIGHT NOW.

Please archive these changes, and any others -- then re-post -- these references may be vitally important in the near future as legal filings regarding Obama's eligibility continue, with Judge Carter, or with other pending cases.Here are six examples of deletion or modification that have taken place since approximately July 1, 2009 (please post if you know of more):

1) the entire “Fight the Smears” website has been removed from the internet, and the archive of the website has been removed at the request of the owners from

Current website: (removed OFF the internet) cache:*/ (removed per owner request -- verified by staff)Archive (from Google Cache):

2) the Department of Hawaiian Homelands has removed from their website the “Loaa Ka Aina Hoopulapula - Applying for Hawaiian Home Lands” pamphlet AND changed their website to reflect that they NOW accept the Certification of Live Birth (the ONLY document Mr. Obama has come forward with to show his birthplace). See more on that story here: Hawaii upgrades ‘certification of live birth’ (requirement):

Current website: (changed)*/ (removed per owner request)The “Loaa Ka Aina Hoopulapula” pamphlet: (removed)The “Loaa Ka Aina Hoopulapula” pamphlet “View as HTML” archive (Google):

3) the Kapi’olani Medical Center website has removed the letter where Mr. Obama clearly says he was born at the Kapi’olani Medical Center:
Current website: (Obama letter removed)on*/ (removed per owner request)Archived screenshot:

4) the Nov. 5, 2008, Kenya Parliament Official Report, when Kenyan legislators and Assembly witnesses say things such as "having a Kenyan ruling the USA", "President-elect, Mr. Obama, is a son of the soil of this country", and "we have a leader of a great country in this world whose blood is Kenyan" has been removed:
Current website: (removed)*/ (removed per owner request)Archived on Scribed:

5) the July 9, 2009 Modern Ghana story, that says, "For Ghana, Obama's visit will be a celebration of another milestone in African history as it hosts the first-ever African-American President on this presidential visit to the continent of his birth" -- has been changed. The last part of the sentence NOW reads, "presidential visit to the continent of his father's birth."
Current website: (changed -- and "the continent of his father's birth" is in BLUE), changed on July 16, 2009.Archived screenshot:

6) the famed Nov. 4, 2008, API story that says, "Obama described his birth at Queen's Medical Center" was changed to reflect that the hospital of birth is Kapi’olani Medical Center.

Current website: (changed). Note at bottom: "This item was corrected July 8, 2009, to fix the name of the hospital where Obama was born. The original item incorrectly identified the facility as Queen's Hospital, an error made by the writer.")Archived screenshot: