Tuesday, May 05, 2009

Indiana Democrats Embrace Obama For Money

President Barack Obama will come to Indianapolis on May 17 en route to his controversial commencement address at Notre Dame to participate in two, not one campaign fundraisers for Indiana Democrats. The first event at the Westin will cost as much as $5,000 per person for the benefit of Indiana's Democratic congressional delegation, including Andre Carson, Joe Donnelly, Brad Ellsworth and Baron Hill. Pete Visclosky, who is under an ethical cloud because of his ties to a corrupt financial supporter, will not participate in the event. A second fundraiser at the Westin will benefit the Indiana Democratic Party and will cost $15,000 per person to attend.

I think Republicans should be delighted that Indiana Democrats are hopping into bed even more with Obama. This man will be anathema to most Hoosiers by the time the 2012 elections roll around and more and more people learn what an imposter the man really is. He is a devout socialist determined to destroy the United States economic engine and replace it with the new one world order in compliance with the orders of his true masters. When you elect someone as your president who is not a natural born citizen as required by the United States Constitution and who is allowed to hide the most basic of facts about his biography, you should expect no less. The real question is how much longer will it be and how much money will he spend on attorneys fighting lawsuits all over the country in an effort to block the release of his college records and original birth certificate. It's amazing what The One can get by hiding about his past when a blind media is behind you one hundred ten percent.

Speaking of his past, Obama's former law firm boss, Allison Davis, resigned from the Illinois Pension Board amid a growing federal investigation. Obama played a key role in getting persons appointed to the pension board as a state senator, and demanded the awarding of minority contracts to his campaign contributors in true Illinois pay-to-play fashion. "The Sun-Times reported in October 2006 that Davis' name was on a list of 19 people that convicted Blagojevich adviser and campaign fund-raiser Tony Rezko (another one with closer ties to Obama) submitted to the then-governor for placement on state boards." Not surprisingly, a Chicago Sun-Times' headline refers to Davis as a "Daley ally." While emphasizing the Daley ties, the Sun-Times downplays his even stronger ties to Obama. "He also was once the future President Obama's boss at the Chicago law firm Davis Miner Barnhill," the newspaper writes.

19 comments:

Concerned Taxpayer said...

Where's the outrage? "The One" is costing taxpayers thousands and thousands of dollars to travel around the state raising money for democrats. This involves airplanes, helicopters, motorcades (with big SUV's), local police overtime, streets closed, etc.
When a republican is accused of that (George Bush, Mitch Daniels, etc.) there is a hue and cry for weeks, including investigations, calls for impeachment, returning the money, etc.
Why is it so different now?

Shorebreak said...

Watch the Obama Deception Video. It's a must see.

Vox Populi said...

You are cracking me up! You haven't posted about President Obama in a while and all your old attacks come out in this single post: Rezko, "The One", devout socialist, foreign-born, fake birth certificate....

He's the President of the United States. And in Indiana, he has a 61% approval rating. And, with or without Indiana, he will be reelected in 2012.

Indy Student said...

Being born in Hawii sounds pretty naturally born to me.

Advance Indiana said...

Vox, If the shoe fits . . . If Obama is re-elected, it means the United States of America died with his election in 2008.

Advance Indiana said...

Sorry, it doesn't matter where he was born. His father was Kenyan and he was born a Kenyan citizen by his own admission. You cannot be a natural born citizen unless you are born to U.S. citizens and you are a person over whom the government exercises complete jurisdiction. Obama was, at best, a dual citizen at birth. His "natural born" status cannot later spring into existence because he does not act on his Kenyan citizenship before he reached the age of 21. Further, he became an Indonesian citizen when his step-father adopted him at age 6 and left this country. He won't release his college records, presumbably, because he registered as an Indonesian citizen and not as a U.S. citizen. He is believed to have travelled to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport while he was a college student to visit his Pakistani Muslim roommates's family. Yes, Obama was still a practicing Muslim during his college years despite his big fat lies on that subject. He did not join a "Christian" church until many years later when he married Michelle and I use the term "Christian" loosely when describing the church he attended as a Christian church.

Shorebreak said...

Gary,

Obama focused on Russian studies at Columbia. At that time, the Dean of Russian Studies was former Carter NSA Zbigniew Brzezinski - the guy who devised the plan to radicalize Afghan Muslims in order to plant generational seeds so that they could be used as a tool to carry out long-term foreign policy objectives.

Included among those objectives were an immediate goal of preventing further Soviet expansion, and a long-term goal of providing a basis for financial elites to project power into the region. The ultimate goal that Obama will contribute towards will be military dominance of Pakistan and other uncooperative central asian leaderships to enable integration of former sovereignties into a broader regional economy.

It makes perfect sense that when Brzezinski identified Obama as a malleable instrument who displayed the outward appearance of leadership qualities, that Obama was taken under wing and groomed for his possible future in global politics. Obama will carry on where Bush left off. The elites will use Obama's advertised persona (he's advertised as a leftist but in reality, he's a "I do what they tell me-ist") to implement broader socialist policies in Obama's name.

And more nations will fall, and millions more will be killed so that the single global system promised by Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, Kissinger, Rockefeller, Warburg, and many, many others can be implemented for the benefit of the few, in their misguided march to serve humanity for the better. Much like other tyrants who have come and gone, leaving millions of dead in their wake. Possibly starting soon as the result of illegal nuclear and biohazard dumping off the Horn of Africa, resulting in local fisherman putting their lives at risk by boarding offending ships in order to protect their livelihoods. Our corporate media and corporate government calls them pirates. The people in their villages call them heroes. I guess it's all a matter of perspective.

As a final though on Obama, I used to think Bush was awful when he had to come up with his own words. He couldn't put a coherent thought together when he had to perform in front of a group without a script. In the case of Obama, when he doesn't have a script he can't put a coherent WORD together. I didn't think it could get worse than Bush, but it did. The fact that these two received any support at all from the American public clearly demontrates that we're in a whole lot of deep doo-doo as a nation.

Indy Student said...

He wasn't born with Kenyan citizenship, since no such thing existed at the time of Obama's birth. He was born with UK citizenship since what is now Kenya was part of the UK's colonies. He then gained Kenyan citizenship due to it's independence, but then lost it since Kenya doesn't allow dual citizenship for adults.

I must've missed the part of the Constitution where it defines "naturally born citizen" as birth by two US citizens.

artfuggins said...

According to your definiton, a baby born by Caesaean Section would not be an American Citizen. AI, that phony claim of non citizenship has sailed into the sunset......

Advance Indiana said...

Yes, the liberals look on the "natural born" citizenship requirement with disdain as they do much of our Constitution. They don't want to be bothered with such matters when na'er do well liberal judges can do a better judge making up laws to govern all of us than the silly provisions our white male founders put down on paper to ensure that the rule of law would rule supreme. It's no coincidence that Obama legal supporters were calling for its removal from the Constitution before he ran for president. It doesn't need to be amended out of the constitution when the job of interpreting it is left to contemporary liberal judges who could care less what those words mean; only how it can be interpreted to ensure The One rules this country, free of anyone second-guessing him or expressing their free speech rights. People will be locked up in jail before this guy's term is over for exercising their sacred right to freedom of speech--mark my word. And all of the liberals will stand up and applaud him for silencing the opposition. It's already happening in countries like Great Britain, Denmark, Germany and France.

Indy Student said...

So you can't point to where the Constitution defines naturally born citizen? You previously said "it doesn't matter where he was born" but isn't that an interpretation? Why is your interpretation of "natural born citizen" valid, but those who claim it requires being born in the US states (not a colony, military base, etc...) not valid?

They both sound like interpretations to me.

And considering you're basis for disqualifying Obama due to Kenyan citizenship at birth being wrong, then why bring it up? It certainly doesn't make others want to believe you.

Advance Indiana said...

I have explored the meaning of that term multiple times on this blog based on original intent. Yes, those horrid words, "original intent." There are legal treatis and court opinions from the period soon after the Constitution's adoption that gives meaning. You don't give a damn what the original intent behind those words are because they were written by slave-owning white guys. Ergo, you prefer a made-up interpretation based upon contemporary thinking. I challenge you to research the meaning of those words to ascertain their original intent as I have. I'm betting you won't do it because you won't like the answer you find and really don't care what about original intent anyway.

Indy Student said...

Of course, you don't mention the basis for it until I question you then you blame me for not already knowing, and then make vast assumptions. I am perfectly able to accept the validity of an argument regardless of if I do/don't agree with it. And if someone tries to get me to justify my thoughts further, I don't dodge the questions and make assumptions. Maybe you should do the same.

artfuggins said...

Actually the change was brought up first by Republicans who were hoping that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger could run for president.......

Indy Student said...

To be fair, it's been attempted to ammend it a dozen or so times throughout US history. The only specific challenges I remember off the top of my head was if being born in a territory counted or not. I remember hearing about Arnold, but I don't know if even a draft was put forward, or if it was just PR hype.

IndyPaul said...

I've previously questioned AI on the basis of the original intent claim. The sources he cited, in fact, showed that there was no clear meaning of the term at the time it was incorporated into the Constitution. Subsequebt law and the 14th amendment make clear, however, that one born in the United States is indeed natural born. Obama needs no funds to defend bogus lawsuits which have been dismissed outright by judges of all persuasions.

The claims that 'liberals' or the Obama administration ignore the Constitution are laughable after the past 8 years we have endured - illegal wiretapping, the erosion of rights to assembly and free speech through the use and mis-use of the patriot act, the manipulation of intelligence and outright lies that led us to debacle in Iraq, the ridiculous claims of a 'unitary' president and vice-president independant of either the executive or the legislative branches, the list could go on ad infinitum. We have seen a reversal of much of this in the Obama administration, most notably through its refuting torture and declassification of the memoranda authorizing torture inder the Bush administration.

Taxpayer, Bush was a prolific fundraiser for the GOP. I don't recall any controvery surrounding the fundraising itself.
Shorebreak, I find it interesting that while you cite Brezinski for coming up with an idea to radicalize Afghans, it was the Reagan administrations which actually did so. Interesting theory on the Somalis - I had not heard this one before. Indy Student, I appreciate your contributions.

Advance Indiana said...

Paul, Haven't you beaten that dead horse argument on the 14th Amendment to death now. The one thing I've never been able to get you to concede is that there are provisions of the Constitution that speak of citizens but there is only one provision that speaks of a natural born citizen. In fact, the analysis I discussed that Leo Denofrio put forward on his blog on the debates during the adoption of the 14th Amendment say the complete opposite of what you are saying. "Natural born" citizen is found in only one place in the constitution and that is as a qualification for president. It is not a qualification for a member of the House, the Senate or even a Supreme Court justice. You try to mix discussions of what qualifies as a citizen with what qualifies as a natural born citizen. You simply can't do that.

Shorebreak said...

IndyPaul,

"Shorebreak, I find it interesting that while you cite Brezinski for coming up with an idea to radicalize Afghans, it was the Reagan administrations which actually did so. Interesting theory on the Somalis - I had not heard this one before."

Regarding the Reagan Admin - when you analyze foreign policy, you begin to understand that the lines drawn between our political parties are not a reflection of actual policies. The lines are based upon media rhetoric. In reality, there is one party and one policy. The Carter/Reagan Afghanistan policy is one small example. The Bush/Obama Pakistan policy is another. The interesting thing between these two instances is that Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Obama are all conducting policy that was formulated by Brzezinski. Coincidene? Or more reinforcement of the fact that there is one party with two faces? You decide.

The next logical question is "if all of this policy is formulated by Brzezinski, and if it's implemented by both parties over a span of 30+ years..... then WHO does Brzezinski work for???? If you believe in the two party system, seek answers at your own peril.

With regard to Somalia, the mainstream media has sat in their armchairs and based their descriptions of the Somali's off of reports coming from government sources. Here's an interesting perspective that you won't hear on FOX News or CNN:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-you-are-being-lied-to-about-pirates-1225817.html

There is MUCH more to this story than just pirates, fishing, and dumping. If you look at recent policy implementations in the African region and in the Horn of Africa, local piracy is actually a benefit to carrying out intended operations that would otherwise face strong objections. It makes one wonder whether or not a "problem-reaction-solution" dynamic is in play.

FYI - if you look at 2009 policy recommendations by Rand Corporation (who was commissioned by the Sec Def to create the policy recommendations), Somalia is one of the nations slated as an example for future stabilization and restructuring - similar to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Just as 9/11 was justification for war in Afganistan, and WMD's were used to justify Iraq, pirates will be primary to build psychological justification to support action in Somalia. Reading the RAND report you see once again that policies implemented by the previous Administration from "the other side of the aisle" will be implemented by the current Administration. There is no dividing line between the two, with the exception of socially divisive items that have no adverse impact upon shared foreign and domestic policies. Here's the Rand report:

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG852.pdf

Advance Indiana said...

From Leo Denofrio's blog:

Despite popular belief, the 14th Amendment does not convey the status of “natural born Citizen” in its text. It just conveys the status of “Citizen”. And it’s very clear that in the pre-amendment Constitution, the Framers made a distinction between a “Citizen” and a “natural born Citizen”. The requirement to be a Senator or Representative is “Citizen”, but the requirement to be President is “natural born Citizen”.

From the 14th Amendment:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”

But even as to this conveyance of citizenship, those who were responsible for drafting the 14th Amendment made it clear that - to them - the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant subject only to the jurisdiction thereof.

Dr. John Fonte, Senior Fellow of The Hudson Institute had this to say about the issue at a Congressional hearing on dual citizenship from September 29, 2005:

The authors in the legislative history, the authors of that language, Senator Lyman Trumbull said, ”When we talk about ’subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,’ it means complete jurisdiction, not owing allegiance to anybody else.” Senator Jacob Howard said that it’s ”a full and complete jurisdiction.”

This illustrates that Congress recently discussed the issue, and they can’t claim they were unaware. But we don’t have to take Dr. Fonte’s word for it. The following discussion by the various 14th Amendment Framers took place on the Senate floor. I took it from P.A. Madison’s research at http://www.14thamendment.us (use his link for footnotes):


It is clear the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had no intention of freely giving away American citizenship to just anyone simply because they may have been born on American soil. Again, we are fortunate enough to have on the record the highest authority tell us, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee… and the one who inserted the phrase:


[T]he provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ’subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

Then Madison quotes Sen. Howard, another Framer, concurring with Trumbull:

Sen. Howard concurs with Trumbull’s construction:

Mr. HOWARD: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.[3]


Mr. Madison continues with even more proof of what the 14th Amendment Framers meant:

Sen. Johnson, speaking on the Senate floor, offers his comments and understanding of the proposed new amendment to the constitution:

[Now], all this amendment [citizenship clause] provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power–for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us–shall be considered as citizens of the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born to parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.[4]

No doubt in the Senate as to what the citizenship clause means as further evidenced by Sen. W. Williams:

In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States…All persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court. I understand the words here, ’subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,’ to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.[5]

Madison saves for last the greatest authority on the issue:

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:

[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…[6]

It’s important to note this statement was issued by Bingham only months before the 14th Amendment was proposed.

In conclusion, I would like to thank reader “John Boy” for pointing to Justice Scalia’s opinion in District of Columbia Et Al. v. Heller. In that case, Justice Scalia took into consideration a certain historical legal reference:

The common references to those “fit to bear arms” in congressional discussions about the militia are matched by use of the same phrase in the few nonmilitary federal contexts where the concept would be relevant… Other legal sources frequently used “bear arms” in nonmilitary contexts.10

Now look at “footnote 10″:

E. de Vattel, The Law of Nations, or, Principles of the Law of Nature 144 (1792) (“Since custom has allowed persons of rank and gentlemen of the army to bear arms in time of peace, strict care should be taken that none but these should be allowed to wear swords”);

Since Justice Scalia cited to this legal textbook in March of 2008, it’s not outrageous to think he might also refer to “The Laws of Nations” on the natural born Citizen issue?

I’ll leave you now with the relevant textbook definition of natural born citizen. The following was published in 1758. This definition, added to all of the above, certainly establishes a rational legal basis to hold that Barack Obama is not a natural born Citizen. And more than that, it puts the burden on those who deny it to don the tin foil hat of despair and bring forthwith to the table of honest debate their own bed of authority to lie in:

§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.