Also, great song and video from Sean Lennon. It was released in 2006, so I missed it. But it belongs in the Shadowlands:
Apparently the man who was arrested at the the Pentagon for shooting two police officers, has been indentified as J. Patrick Bedell. CPN has found his blog which he called Rothbardix and is available here.
Upon reading the blog, CPN has determined that Bedell is clearly a libertarian. It appears that he was arrested for marijuana posssession in 2006 and that he served a term of community service for that crime, which he was very upset about.
It also appears that Bedell was concerned about the state of freedom that existed in the criminal justice system in the U.S. and was attempting to create an operating system-the Rothbardix OS- that would introduce market calculation into the procedures of the criminal justice system.
The name of his proposed system-Rothbardix-is a direct reference to anarcho-libertarian philosopher Murray Rothbard, who is part of the Austrian school of economics and whose work is prominently featured at the Von Mises Institute.
We have included one of the more interesting posts on his blog in this post in order to exhibit to those interested what he felt about the U.S. government. We do this out of concerns for historical accuracy because just as we predicted about the “Falling Down Kamikaze” incident of a few weeks ago, political actors will seize upon Bedell’s act in order to promote their own cause. The Left will undoubtedly utilize Bedell’s libertarian ideas in order to bludgeon conservatives and the Right, while mainstream conservatives will also use Bedell to attack Ron Paul and libertarianism in general, in an attempt to neutralize that movement.
Reports are coming out that Bedell’s main concern was with the 9/11 conspiracy. After looking at his website, and in particular the post below, it is clear that his concerns about liberty had led Bedell to believe in a deep conspiracy theory that extends far beyond 9/11. He believed that the United States was effectively taken over by a “coup regime” after the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963.
At CPN we do not regard this as accurate history, but we include Bedell’s opinion here in the name of documenting his actual political opinions and where on the spectrum of political ideas they fell, as history is generally distorted by the media and pundits and gets lost in the cacophony of the political blame game.
The following was posted by Bedell in November of 2006 and is called Directions to Freedom, Part Two.
Text as prepared for delivery follows:
Hello, and thank you for listening.
Justice is a universal desire of conscious individuals. In modern society, critically important organizations work to ensure that justice is established and preserved. Those individuals who work to uphold justice deserve our thanks, our gratitude, and our support. My purpose in this message is to support those who work for justice by addressing matters that any individual within our existing institutions of justice would find difficult or impossible to address.
The most basic principle of economic justice is the protection of private property and the protection of the right to freely exchange that property. Modern governments, however, consistently and routinely violate the rights of property owners, with the assumption – the incorrect assumption – that government can utilize property more efficiently than its lawful owners can. As institutionalized theft by property violation becomes increasingly routine and accepted, it has far-reaching consequences for the character and morality of society as a whole. The injustice of theft permeates society and creates disrespect for the law. On the part of ruling elites, the perception is created that society is to be exploited for the benefit of the rulers. Incentives are created to generate and promote ignorance throughout society to conceal the injustice of theft. As the institutionalized violence of government is used to violate the rights of individuals to keep and trade their own property, the violation of economic justice inevitably results in the undermining of justice in every other part of society.
Although the establishment of justice and order is a key responsibility of the United States government, the sheer size of the United States economy, and the enormous wealth that is devoted to government, makes the United States government a tempting prize for any organization or collection of bandits ruthless and clever enough to seize it. A criminal organization able to conduct its activities from within the center of power of the United States government would have powerful advantages over other criminal groups. Such an organization, having seized control of the United States government, would derive enormous power from the taxes extracted from the wealthiest society in the history of the world. Such an organization would be able to manage present objections to its corruption with lavish promises of future benefits, in a form of generalized bribery. Such an organization, which would necessarily have great financial sophistication, would be able to use the credit of the United States government to issue trillions of dollars of debt, to fund its corrupt activities and neutralize objections to its illegitimacy, and in so doing, burden the responsible citizens among its victims with crushing financial obligations. Very importantly, this criminal group could use its control of the United States monetary system to print money to advance its own purposes of theft, control, and enslavement.
Such an organization would be able to protect its shipments of illicit drugs into the United States, while using the power of law enforcement organizations to imprison their would-be competitors, and would subsequently be able to distribute those illicit drugs and launder the enormous profits in the huge and minutely regulated financial markets of the United States. This criminal organization would use its powers to convert military, intelligence, and law enforcement bureacracies into instruments for political control and the domination and subjection of society, while discrediting, destroying, and murdering honest individuals within those services that work to root out corruption and faithfully serve their fellow citizens.
This organization, like so many murderous governments throughout history, would see the sacrifice of thousands of its citizens, in an event such as the September 11 attacks, as a small cost in order to perpetuate its barbaric control. This collection of gangsters would find it in their interest to foment conflict and initiate wars throughout the world, in order to divert attention from their misconduct and criminality. The true nature of such a regime would find its clearest expression in the satanic violence currently ongoing in Iraq.
Perhaps worst of all, such an organization would usurp and destroy the historical leadership of the United States toward human freedom, and would, while constantly and loudly preaching the glory of liberty, work to lead the world into a new dark age of slavery and terror.
This seizure of the United States government by an international criminal conspiracy is a long-established reality. The murder of the United States President in 1963, the associated murders and institutional subversion, and the manipulation of official inquiries and public opinion, was effected by individuals within organizational structures that play a central role in the United States government up to the present day. The coup regime founded with the murder of President John Kennedy utilizes a number of mechanisms to perpetuate its criminal rule.
The most important of these mechanisms is government control of the economy. The government’s enormous tax revenues, and the even larger government spending, give to the coup regime the means and motivation to sustain its rule. The constantly expanding regulation of business makes it possible for the coup regime to further impose its will on private economic activity and conditions the people under its rule to accept whatever totalitarian measures the regime deems necessary. The policies and actions of the coup regime are constantly masked by official deception, as well as the subversion of the free press through infiltration and secret manipulations.
On a deeper level, however, the deceit that the coup regime utilizes to justify its policies is intimately linked with the deceit that is inherent in policies that seize the property of individuals for the benefit of the politically powerful. The most subtle and dangerous of these policies, and therefore most similar to the rule of the coup regime itself, is the imposition of a paper money system throughout the United States. This far-reaching violation of property rights undermines the security of property in a way that works to the benefit of the politically powerful individuals that control the monetary system. The political and military disasters, such as the wars in Vietnam and Iraq, that an illegitimate coup regime uses against the people who pay its bills, are closely tied to the effects of inflationary paper monetary systems, which are themselves intimately linked with financial and political disasters throughout history.
The blatant violations of the Constitution’s limitations on the economic role of the government, accomplished through many subtle usurpations over many decades, are perhaps even more pernicious than, and are certainly a key motivation for, the violent seizure of the United States government. In order to establish a firm basis for justice and sound government, the economic role of the government must be reexamined in every detail. It must be recognized that arguments for government control of the economy, and government redistribution of economic resources, are generally misguided or even shameless lies to advance enslavement and conceal theft and murder. Furthermore, it must, once again, be recognized that the most successful means to ensure justice, secure domestic tranquility, and promote prosperity is to ensure the security of private property.
Thank you for listening.
As of writing this it has not been officially confirmed, but reports have come out that the person who flew his plane into the Austin IRS, did it intentionally.
Here at CPN, we have discovered his suicide note. We publish it only to make it public for people to read. We do this because given the present state of the political debate in the United States today, blame will be readily cast by both the Left and the Right towards their enemies.
Upon reading the note, it is clear to us here at CPN that the alleged writer of the suicide note and the perpetrator of this horrendous crime, was a frustrated engineer, who, himself, casts blame for his state in life and the state of the country on all political actors and the entire system as a whole. In his letter, the Falling Down terrorist blames politicians like Democrat Daniel Moynihan and Republican George W. Bush for his lot in the life and the state of society, as much as he blames government agencies, the legal system, the Roman Catholic Church, the tax code, the GM bailouts, various corporations, and the state of the (unreformed) health care system.
Here at CPN we are declaring him the “Falling Down Kamikaze” terrorist, after the movie in the 1990s starring Michael Douglas of the same name. After reading the suicide note by one calling himself Joe Stack, it is clear that the defense shut-downs that happened in California in the 90s affected him personally and thus has similarities to the “D-fense” character in that movie.
Again, we reprint the suicide note in total here because we know that the Left will dishonestly jump on this story and blame “anti-government conservatism” for this terrorist attack if it is confirmed that this is the same person involved in this attack. And we repeat, it has not been confirmed that the writer of this suicide note is indeed the same person who attacked the IRS in Austin. We only publish it here in case it gets lost somewhere on the internet and dishonest blame is spread by political actors.
We are calling it a terrorist attack (if confirmed) because inciting Americans to revolt en masse, was clearly the intention of Joe Stack’s attack on the IRS. Although his motivation was clearly borne of personal frustration, it is also clear that he intended his act to have a political intention.
Full Text of Falling Down Terrorist’s Suicide Note (click here for link)
If you’re reading this, you’re no doubt asking yourself, “Why did this have to happen?” The simple truth is that it is complicated and has been coming for a long time. The writing process, started many months ago, was intended to be therapy in the face of the looming realization that there isn’t enough therapy in the world that can fix what is really broken. Needless to say, this rant could fill volumes with example after example if I would let it. I find the process of writing it frustrating, tedious, and probably pointless… especially given my gross inability to gracefully articulate my thoughts in light of the storm raging in my head. Exactly what is therapeutic about that I’m not sure, but desperate times call for desperate measures.
We are all taught as children that without laws there would be no society, only anarchy. Sadly, starting at early ages we in this country have been brainwashed to believe that, in return for our dedication and service, our government stands for justice for all. We are further brainwashed to believe that there is freedom in this place, and that we should be ready to lay our lives down for the noble principals represented by its founding fathers. Remember? One of these was “no taxation without representation”. I have spent the total years of my adulthood unlearning that crap from only a few years of my childhood. These days anyone who really stands up for that principal is promptly labeled a “crackpot”, traitor and worse.
While very few working people would say they haven’t had their fair share of taxes (as can I), in my lifetime I can say with a great degree of certainty that there has never been a politician cast a vote on any matter with the likes of me or my interests in mind. Nor, for that matter, are they the least bit interested in me or anything I have to say.
Why is it that a handful of thugs and plunderers can commit unthinkable atrocities (and in the case of the GM executives, for scores of years) and when it’s time for their gravy train to crash under the weight of their gluttony and overwhelming stupidity, the force of the full federal government has no difficulty coming to their aid within days if not hours? Yet at the same time, the joke we call the American medical system, including the drug and insurance companies, are murdering tens of thousands of people a year and stealing from the corpses and victims they cripple, and this country’s leaders don’t see this as important as bailing out a few of their vile, rich cronies. Yet, the political “representatives” (thieves, liars, and self-serving scumbags is far more accurate) have endless time to sit around for year after year and debate the state of the “terrible health care problem”. It’s clear they see no crisis as long as the dead people don’t get in the way of their corporate profits rolling in.
And justice? You’ve got to be kidding!
How can any rational individual explain that white elephant conundrum in the middle of our tax system and, indeed, our entire legal system? Here we have a system that is, by far, too complicated for the brightest of the master scholars to understand. Yet, it mercilessly “holds accountable” its victims, claiming that they’re responsible for fully complying with laws not even the experts understand. The law “requires” a signature on the bottom of a tax filing; yet no one can say truthfully that they understand what they are signing; if that’s not “duress” than what is. If this is not the measure of a totalitarian regime, nothing is.
How did I get here?
My introduction to the real American nightmare starts back in the early ‘80s. Unfortunately after more than 16 years of school, somewhere along the line I picked up the absurd, pompous notion that I could read and understand plain English. Some friends introduced me to a group of people who were having ‘tax code’ readings and discussions. In particular, zeroed in on a section relating to the wonderful “exemptions” that make institutions like the vulgar, corrupt Catholic Church so incredibly wealthy. We carefully studied the law (with the help of some of the “best”, high-paid, experienced tax lawyers in the business), and then began to do exactly what the “big boys” were doing (except that we weren’t steeling from our congregation or lying to the government about our massive profits in the name of God). We took a great deal of care to make it all visible, following all of the rules, exactly the way the law said it was to be done.
The intent of this exercise and our efforts was to bring about a much-needed re-evaluation of the laws that allow the monsters of organized religion to make such a mockery of people who earn an honest living. However, this is where I learned that there are two “interpretations” for every law; one for the very rich, and one for the rest of us… Oh, and the monsters are the very ones making and enforcing the laws; the inquisition is still alive and well today in this country.
That little lesson in patriotism cost me $40,000+, 10 years of my life, and set my retirement plans back to 0. It made me realize for the first time that I live in a country with an ideology that is based on a total and complete lie. It also made me realize, not only how naive I had been, but also the incredible stupidity of the American public; that they buy, hook, line, and sinker, the crap about their “freedom”… and that they continue to do so with eyes closed in the face of overwhelming evidence and all that keeps happening in front of them.
Before even having to make a shaky recovery from the sting of the first lesson on what justice really means in this country (around 1984 after making my way through engineering school and still another five years of “paying my dues”), I felt I finally had to take a chance of launching my dream of becoming an independent engineer.
On the subjects of engineers and dreams of independence, I should digress somewhat to say that I’m sure that I inherited the fascination for creative problem solving from my father. I realized this at a very young age.
The significance of independence, however, came much later during my early years of college; at the age of 18 or 19 when I was living on my own as student in an apartment in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. My neighbor was an elderly retired woman (80+ seemed ancient to me at that age) who was the widowed wife of a retired steel worker. Her husband had worked all his life in the steel mills of central Pennsylvania with promises from big business and the union that, for his 30 years of service, he would have a pension and medical care to look forward to in his retirement. Instead he was one of the thousands who got nothing because the incompetent mill management and corrupt union (not to mention the government) raided their pension funds and stole their retirement. All she had was social security to live on.
In retrospect, the situation was laughable because here I was living on peanut butter and bread (or Ritz crackers when I could afford to splurge) for months at a time. When I got to know this poor figure and heard her story I felt worse for her plight than for my own (I, after all, I thought I had everything to in front of me). I was genuinely appalled at one point, as we exchanged stories and commiserated with each other over our situations, when she in her grandmotherly fashion tried to convince me that I would be “healthier” eating cat food (like her) rather than trying to get all my substance from peanut butter and bread. I couldn’t quite go there, but the impression was made. I decided that I didn’t trust big business to take care of me, and that I would take responsibility for my own future and myself.
Return to the early ‘80s, and here I was off to a terrifying start as a ‘wet-behind-the-ears’ contract software engineer… and two years later, thanks to the fine backroom, midnight effort by the sleazy executives of Arthur Andersen (the very same folks who later brought us Enron and other such calamities) and an equally sleazy New York Senator (Patrick Moynihan), we saw the passage of 1986 tax reform act with its section 1706.
For you who are unfamiliar, here is the core text of the IRS Section 1706, defining the treatment of workers (such as contract engineers) for tax purposes. Visit this link for a conference committee report (http://www.synergistech.com/1706.shtml#ConferenceCommitteeReport) regarding the intended interpretation of Section 1706 and the relevant parts of Section 530, as amended. For information on how these laws affect technical services workers and their clients, read our discussion here (http://www.synergistech.com/ic-taxlaw.shtml).
SEC. 1706. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN TECHNICAL PERSONNEL.
(a) IN GENERAL – Section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:
(d) EXCEPTION. – This section shall not apply in the case of an individual who pursuant to an arrangement between the taxpayer and another person, provides services for such other person as an engineer, designer, drafter, computer programmer, systems analyst, or other similarly skilled worker engaged in a similar line of work.
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE. – The amendment made by this section shall apply to remuneration paid and services rendered after December 31, 1986.
- “another person” is the client in the traditional job-shop relationship.
- “taxpayer” is the recruiter, broker, agency, or job shop.
- “individual”, “employee”, or “worker” is you.
Admittedly, you need to read the treatment to understand what it is saying but it’s not very complicated. The bottom line is that they may as well have put my name right in the text of section (d). Moreover, they could only have been more blunt if they would have came out and directly declared me a criminal and non-citizen slave. Twenty years later, I still can’t believe my eyes.
During 1987, I spent close to $5000 of my ‘pocket change’, and at least 1000 hours of my time writing, printing, and mailing to any senator, congressman, governor, or slug that might listen; none did, and they universally treated me as if I was wasting their time. I spent countless hours on the L.A. freeways driving to meetings and any and all of the disorganized professional groups who were attempting to mount a campaign against this atrocity. This, only to discover that our efforts were being easily derailed by a few moles from the brokers who were just beginning to enjoy the windfall from the new declaration of their “freedom”. Oh, and don’t forget, for all of the time I was spending on this, I was loosing income that I couldn’t bill clients.
After months of struggling it had clearly gotten to be a futile exercise. The best we could get for all of our trouble is a pronouncement from an IRS mouthpiece that they weren’t going to enforce that provision (read harass engineers and scientists). This immediately proved to be a lie, and the mere existence of the regulation began to have its impact on my bottom line; this, of course, was the intended effect.
Again, rewind my retirement plans back to 0 and shift them into idle. If I had any sense, I clearly should have left abandoned engineering and never looked back.
Instead I got busy working 100-hour workweeks. Then came the L.A. depression of the early 1990s. Our leaders decided that they didn’t need the all of those extra Air Force bases they had in Southern California, so they were closed; just like that. The result was economic devastation in the region that rivaled the widely publicized Texas S&L fiasco. However, because the government caused it, no one gave a shit about all of the young families who lost their homes or street after street of boarded up houses abandoned to the wealthy loan companies who received government funds to “shore up” their windfall. Again, I lost my retirement.
Years later, after weathering a divorce and the constant struggle trying to build some momentum with my business, I find myself once again beginning to finally pick up some speed. Then came the .COM bust and the 911 nightmare. Our leaders decided that all aircraft were grounded for what seemed like an eternity; and long after that, ‘special’ facilities like San Francisco were on security alert for months. This made access to my customers prohibitively expensive. Ironically, after what they had done the Government came to the aid of the airlines with billions of our tax dollars … as usual they left me to rot and die while they bailed out their rich, incompetent cronies WITH MY MONEY! After these events, there went my business but not quite yet all of my retirement and savings.
By this time, I’m thinking that it might be good for a change. Bye to California, I’ll try Austin for a while. So I moved, only to find out that this is a place with a highly inflated sense of self-importance and where damn little real engineering work is done. I’ve never experienced such a hard time finding work. The rates are 1/3 of what I was earning before the crash, because pay rates here are fixed by the three or four large companies in the area who are in collusion to drive down prices and wages… and this happens because the justice department is all on the take and doesn’t give a fuck about serving anyone or anything but themselves and their rich buddies.
To survive, I was forced to cannibalize my savings and retirement, the last of which was a small IRA. This came in a year with mammoth expenses and not a single dollar of income. I filed no return that year thinking that because I didn’t have any income there was no need. The sleazy government decided that they disagreed. But they didn’t notify me in time for me to launch a legal objection so when I attempted to get a protest filed with the court I was told I was no longer entitled to due process because the time to file ran out. Bend over for another $10,000 helping of justice.
So now we come to the present. After my experience with the CPA world, following the business crash I swore that I’d never enter another accountant’s office again. But here I am with a new marriage and a boatload of undocumented income, not to mention an expensive new business asset, a piano, which I had no idea how to handle. After considerable thought I decided that it would be irresponsible NOT to get professional help; a very big mistake.
When we received the forms back I was very optimistic that they were in order. I had taken all of the years information to Bill Ross, and he came back with results very similar to what I was expecting. Except that he had neglected to include the contents of Sheryl’s unreported income; $12,700 worth of it. To make matters worse, Ross knew all along this was missing and I didn’t have a clue until he pointed it out in the middle of the audit. By that time it had become brutally evident that he was representing himself and not me.
This left me stuck in the middle of this disaster trying to defend transactions that have no relationship to anything tax-related (at least the tax-related transactions were poorly documented). Things I never knew anything about and things my wife had no clue would ever matter to anyone. The end result is… well, just look around.
I remember reading about the stock market crash before the “great” depression and how there were wealthy bankers and businessmen jumping out of windows when they realized they screwed up and lost everything. Isn’t it ironic how far we’ve come in 60 years in this country that they now know how to fix that little economic problem; they just steal from the middle class (who doesn’t have any say in it, elections are a joke) to cover their asses and it’s “business-as-usual”. Now when the wealthy fuck up, the poor get to die for the mistakes… isn’t that a clever, tidy solution.
As government agencies go, the FAA is often justifiably referred to as a tombstone agency, though they are hardly alone. The recent presidential puppet GW Bush and his cronies in their eight years certainly reinforced for all of us that this criticism rings equally true for all of the government. Nothing changes unless there is a body count (unless it is in the interest of the wealthy sows at the government trough). In a government full of hypocrites from top to bottom, life is as cheap as their lies and their self-serving laws.
I know I’m hardly the first one to decide I have had all I can stand. It has always been a myth that people have stopped dying for their freedom in this country, and it isn’t limited to the blacks, and poor immigrants. I know there have been countless before me and there are sure to be as many after. But I also know that by not adding my body to the count, I insure nothing will change. I choose to not keep looking over my shoulder at “big brother” while he strips my carcass, I choose not to ignore what is going on all around me, I choose not to pretend that business as usual won’t continue; I have just had enough.
I can only hope that the numbers quickly get too big to be white washed and ignored that the American zombies wake up and revolt; it will take nothing less. I would only hope that by striking a nerve that stimulates the inevitable double standard, knee-jerk government reaction that results in more stupid draconian restrictions people wake up and begin to see the pompous political thugs and their mindless minions for what they are. Sadly, though I spent my entire life trying to believe it wasn’t so, but violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer. The cruel joke is that the really big chunks of shit at the top have known this all along and have been laughing, at and using this awareness against, fools like me all along.
I saw it written once that the definition of insanity is repeating the same process over and over and expecting the outcome to suddenly be different. I am finally ready to stop this insanity. Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let’s try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well.
The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.
Joe Stack (1956-2010)
This is a Big Deal Folks! Scientist from IPCC Admits Faulty Glacier Data was Used “Purely to put Pressure on Political Leaders.”
As CPN reported in this article way back in early December, the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2007 Fourth Assessment report (the report), which won the Nobel Prize along with Al Gore, contained a glaring mistake about the “catastrophic melting” of Himalayan glaciers. The report declared that there was a high probability that all Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035, and would drastically decrease the water supply for hundreds of millions of people.
Last week, the IPCC was finally forced to withdraw this assessment as it has been admitted it was based solely on two 1999 magazine interviews with glaciologist Syed Hasnain, which were then recycled without any further investigation in a 2005 report by the environmental campaign group WWF.
Dr. Murari Lal, the coordinating lead author for the report’s Asia section, said that they depended on these recycled interviews and did not conduct any peer-review of the science before it was put into final report.
In an interview with the UK Daily Mail today, Dr. Lal has also admitted that the information was put into the report for purely political reasons. The faulty and alarmist prediction about the melting glaciers was put in, he said, because “it related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action. It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.”
The reason is clear. Far from being just a simple scientific mistake in a large report, the Himalayan glaciers have long been a central icon in global warming campaigners’ propoganda. Everything that polar bears have been to western environmental campaigners, the Himalayas has been to eastern and Asian advocates of limits of greenhouse gases. The loss of water resources for millions of people in Central Asia has been a central alarmist narrative. Thus, it is obvious that it became very important for the true believers to concoct an extremist narrative about the Himalayan glaciers and put it inside the IPCC Fourth Assessment, despite evidence to the contrary.
Because of these revelations, which are a violation of the IPCC’s supposedly stringent scientific procedural rules, there have been increasing calls for the head of the IPCC, Dr. Rajenda Pachauri, to resign. Pachauri has acknowledged that the section on glaciers is faulty and has admitted that there are probably more errors in that section of the IPCC’s 2007 report.
This is a drastic and embarrassing reversal for Dr. Pachauri, who was drawn into a personal row with the Indian government when their leading climate scientists released a report questioning the IPCC’s Himalayan glacier results last November. At the time, Pachouri dismissed India’s report and referred to it as “voodoo science” and “school-boy science.” Pachauri and the IPCC subsequently slammed the report by geologist V.K. Raina that concluded glaciers were not retreating abnormally. Raina has asked for an apology and has said that the IPCC should dump their report.
(An interesting side note: CPN reported on this story over one month ago, as there was an article in the BBC about it. Dr. Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, has claimed he first heard about the errors 10 days ago. See what enlightening reading CPN can be!)
Besides that, the scientist who was the original source of the glacier data, Syed Hasnain, was also mute about the error, even though he recognized the error in 2008 after he read the entire Nobel Prize-winning report. Hasnain was employed at the The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) in Delhi at the time, a company also headed by Dr. Pachauri of the IPCC. Some have speculated that Hasnain’s silence was attributable to his employment with TERI:
Hasnain has denied this and claims he was working on his own projects at TERI. He said:
I was keeping quiet as I was working here. My job is not to point out mistakes. And you know the might of the IPCC. What about all the other glaciologists around the world who did not speak out?
Yea, how about those scientists? Maybe the acknowledged “might” of the IPCC had something to do with their silence-they wouldn’t want to be smeared as “deniers” now, would they? They could have lost their grants and could have had their professional integrity brought into question, eh?
Pursuing this further, Christopher Booker of the London Telegraph has been documenting the rapidly expanding global business ties that Dr. Pachauri, “the world’s leading climate official,” has been establishing since becoming the head of the IPCC in 2002. Booker has revealed not only the windfall in grants and carbon credits that is heading to TERI, but he has also documented the score of positions that Pachauri holds with institutions that are positioned to benefit from the vast worldwide industry based on measures to halt climate change. Booker says that given Pachauri’s initially virulent renunciations of India’s report and his later apology:
Even more damaging now, however, will be the revelation that the source of that offending prediction was the man whom Dr Pachauri himself has been employing for two years as the head of his glaciology unit at TERI – and that TERI has won a share in two major research contracts based on a scare over the melting of Himalayan glaciers prominently promoted by the IPCC, using words drawn directly from Dr Hasnain.
As critics of global warming have been saying for years now, the advocates of climate change and strict restrictions on carbon production are politicians more than they are scientists. With these new revelations and those of the released e-mails from the CRU last year, this is, at last, pretty clear. But, have no doubt, the climate politicians will go on arguing for their cause, and outside of the blogosphere you can rest assured that the LAME will keep it under raps as long as they can.
“Listen, Little Man! The Only Thing Standing Between You and Republican Fascist Hell: The Democratic Party and Martha Coakley!”-Boston Globe / K. Olbermann
Now, shouldn’t some of the stuff coming from the liberal advocacy media (LAME) because they fear a potential victory by Republican Scott Brown in today’s Massachusett’s U.S. Senate race, disqualify them from ever claiming they are objective reporters again? I mean, really… It is so blatant and obvious that I am only one of probably thousands of blogs pointing it out.
The best comes from Keith Olbermann, admittedly a partisan, but if anyone takes this seriously, well, I would be in favor of taking away the right to vote for people with IQs of 60 or lower. His keen analysis:
In Scott Brown we have an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against women.
Who falls for that stuff anymore? Who are the fear-mongers now? When they’re desperate, Democratic hacks show what world-class demagogues they can be. The emperor is bare nekkid today.
And here at CPN in this post 10 days ago we noticed something about the campaign reporting coming from the Boston Globe. We noticed that while some polls had Brown closing on Coakley, the Globe still had him down by 15 points. The Globe also refused to notice the race was competitive until Saturday, when they could only bring themselves to admit that the race was a “dead heat”, despite most polls showing otherwise.
This was the same line they used yesterday as well, despite the polling data. In a blog post at Real Clear Politics, Boston Globe Puts Thumb on Scale- Again, Tom Bevan makes the point:
Let me see if I have this right: there have been six polls of the Massachusetts Senate race released in the last 24 hours, five of which show Scott Brown with leads of 5 points, 7 points, 9 points, 10 points and 10 points, respectively. Only one poll shows the race tied. None of the polls show Martha Coakley with a lead.
How then, you might ask, can the Boston Globe justify characterizing the race as a “dead heat?”
I suppose if you were disingenuous enough to downplay and/or ignore the five polls showing Scott Brown with fairly sizable leads, then that headline wouldn’t be false. Massively biased and misleading, yes, but technically accurate. And wouldn’t you know, that’s exactly what the author of the story does…
But today, the nekkid emperor has started throwing all the bombs in his arsenal. Yep, our good friends at the Boston Globe have put up numerous reports about how Brown supporters have been “intimidating” those nice, little Democrats and “suppressing” their vote.
The Sweetness and Light blog has a good breakdown of one of these articles:
By Joan Vennochi, Globe Columnist | January 18, 2010
But wait, apparently the Boston Globe planted an “interactive map” in their paper today that showed Coakley winning the election at about 1:00 in the afternoon. They claim it was a mistake!
You old nekkid thing you.
I have a friend who is more informed about politics and current events than perhaps anyone else I know. I would like to claim that he is a conservative, but recently he has declared himself a “centrist” and even put up the results of a test he took on Facebook that confirms he inhabits the “center” of the political spectrum.
I think I know why my friend likes to inhabit that space.
First, it gives him more credibility and more room to operate politically. Declaring that you stand firm on one side of the political spectrum or the other taints what you have to say. People who identify with the opposite side of the political spectrum will tune you out automatically, and instead of listening to you, will try to defeat your argument without giving it a second thought. Life can suck when half the people (or more) in the office hate your guts.
Further, if you come out of the closet and declare that you are a “liberal” or a “conservative,” you are generally then forced to defend all liberals and all liberal policies, or all conservatives and all conservative policy, even though you may have good empirical ground to stand on for one or a host of issues that have made you a partisan. So, while you may be well-versed in the ideas of fiscal conservatism and voted Republican because of that, you may have to eventually defend the “conservative” position on gay marriage, immigration, et. al., and those may be issues you either don’t care much about, haven’t thought about, or have carved out your own position on. It sucks to be called a “racist” and a “homophobe” when your main concern was really the alternative minimum tax and the burgeoning cost of pensions for public employees.
For liberals a good example of this may be having to defend a belief in sound regulations against the idea that they are really a socialist scheme designed to eventually disable, then eradicate, the free market system altogether. It is perfectly reasonable to believe that there are some things that the government needs to do if there is going to be a modicum of protection for citizens. But, the radicals that liberals are aligned with make it difficult to propose these things without the necessity of reassuring opponents that it is about making the free-market system better. That can be a frustrating business.
The second reason I believe my friend is a “centrist” is because he disdains ideology (at times quite vigorously) and believes that the “truth” in politics is almost always found outside of the cacophony created by the clash between parties on the political battlefield. To some extent, he and other “centrists” are absolutely correct. There are plenty of examples we all could cite where one party accused the other of something, and it was only to be found out later that the accusatory party did the same exact thing itself.
I think a good example of this would be on the issue of corruption. It is senseless, the “centrists” would most likely maintain, for one party or ideology to claim any moral superiority over the other because, if you look close enough, no ideological commitment prevents the powerful from violating the public trust. In fact, there are times when ideology and the loyalty it promotes is the primary veil a scoundrel will hide behind. To a “centrist”, official corruption which uses ideology as a shield is probably one of the worst forms of hypocrisy there is.
I also believe that the “centrists” disdain ideology because it is dangerous. Let’s face it, ideology is the prime mover of fanaticism. Of course, it is very hard to imagine the politics of the 20th century and even of today without acknowledging the central role of ideological commitment. Ideology is the only way that political leaders can create a mass movement and impose upon a mob to act in their attempts to gain political power.
Ideology has been a great tool in the hands of politicians and will continue to be. Whenever there is a threat or an outflowing of political violence, one can be sure that there was someone who stood to gain from stoking the popular passions with an idea that instilled in aggressive and insistent mobs the seeds of action and intense loyalty by its claims to the absolute, unfettered truth.
I am pretty positive then, that my “centrist” friend, if asked about the case of Obama, his original place of birth, and his birth certificate, would most likely join the “anti-Birther” crowd; or those who believe that the people who continue to have questions about these things, have pending cases in court, and continue to research them are, at the very least, blinded by conservative ideology or are at worse, true-believing fanatics who have something pathologically wrong with them and are potentially dangerous.
Admittedly, to throw in with the “Birthers” is akin to social suicide. If half of the people in the office hate you because you have come out as a conservative, to admit you have questions about Obama’s origins publicly would probably earn you a multi-year banishment from all the office birthday parties, including your own. The only way you would ever get a piece of cake again is by convincing that nice administrative assistant in the other department to bring you one.
Yes, to ask questions about Obama’s birth place and thus, his constitutional eligibility for office, has become a dangerous thing to do; just talk to Lou Dobbs about it.
So, one would suspect, that given the amount of ridicule heaped on the so-called “Birthers,” the “idiocy”, the “fanatical frenzy” and utter stupidity of the claim that Obama has never proven his natural born citizenship in the U.S. should be readily obvious upon just a cursory review of the facts.
Well, I must admit, I don’t believe it is.
Thus, this would probably confirm both to my friend and other “centrists” that I am just another ideologue, uninterested in the truth and worthy of all the name-calling from the Left that is bound to come my way. They would probably question my motives and like conservative David Horowitz (a personal hero and a mentor of mine) has repeatedly insisted, “this tempest over whether Obama…was born on American soil is tantamount to the Democrats’ seditious claim that Bush “stole” the election in Florida and hence was not the legitimate president…is embarrassing and destructive.”
But I wonder: Despite all the verbal abuse heaped on the idea of questioning Obama’s natural born citizenship, has anyone offered a good explanation for the questions raised by the supposedly wing-nut, and wacko “Birthers?” I personally went through quite a number of websites that disdain the “Birthers”, and most of them just report the latest in “Birther” news while snarking and laughing at them.
Others do try to refute the arguments of the “Birthers” by pointing out that Obama released a certificate of live birth (COLB) from Hawaii and two officials from the state confirmed they had seen his original birth certificate. They also point out that Obama released a copy of the COLB to both Factcheck.org and fightthesmears.com and they verified the authenticity of the document. However, upon investigating the matter further, that is just not good enough.
For one reason, at the time of Obama’s birth in Hawaii there were four different ways for parents of a newly born child to obtain a legal birth certificate from the State. Out of those four methods, three did not require any proof at all that the newborn was born on American soil. Rather, all that was required for a parent to obtain a vault birth certificate was their own testimony either by letter or in front of a minor bureaucrat, that the child was born in Hawaii. And according to the Western Journalism Center:
if the original certificate is of [these]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.
Along with these things becoming far more important, so does the question of whether the originally COLB that was released on the internet in 2008 was a fraud or not. Ron Polarik has done extensive research on the internet version of the COLB and believes it is a fraud. As you can imagine, he has been met with much of the same vitriol and hysterical denunciations as have the “Birthers.” The story he tells about the attacks against him and the attempts at destroying his reputation is fascinating. It is available here.
I wonder, if the “centrists” are so concerned with dangerous fanaticism, why they fail to point out the unjustifiable language and scorn that is used to veil the fact that the concerns of a growing number of American citizens about the President’s place of birth, are legitimate. Until the question is answered and the truth is revealed, I see nothing wrong with keeping the question alive.
We are told time and again that the price of liberty is constant vigilance. We are being constantly cajoled to “get involved” and not to be apathetic. However, why are the intentions of some deemed honest and non-ideological, while the efforts of others are met with intimidation and mockery in order to keep them silent? Surely, by working through the courts the “Birthers” have been less disruptive and have proven to be less “fanatical,” ideological, confrontational, obnoxious, and self-righteous than have been Cindy Sheehan, Code Pink, the anti-globalization movement, the anarcho-communists at Copenhagen, or any other of a number of leftist protest groups who no one can deny have industrial-sized conspiracy theories of their own.
Finally, I want to reproduce an important and interesting battle between two versions of the law that have been applied in the controversy over Obama’s birth origins. It includes an original analysis written by a law student which was later critiqued by a practicing attorney who has been litigating cases based on Obama’s birth certificate and eligibility. I think the attorney, Philip Berg, says it all. However, pay particular attention to the rhetoric the law student uses in order to introduce her very flawed analysis.
Again, she assumes without knowing all the facts that anyone who believes that an issue remains about Obama’s birth are “incompetent idiots.” (What is it with leftists and the “I” word anyway?.) She snips at the “Birthers” and misrepresents their perspective even as Berg (who is gentler than he can be) goes on to prove how utterly incompetent and misleading her original analysis was. It should be obvious, as Berg subtly points out, that there are pending cases in various courts on the matter and that the law student hasn’t even bothered to argue based on the points of law contained in those bonafide cases. By itself, this is highly incompetent and would not have gotten her through a first year legal writing class.
Where does such audacity and intellectual dishonesty come from? Why do liberals believe that just because they hold a certain perspective, that anyone that does not agree with them must be insane…er, idiots?
Perhaps it’s a function of their ideology. Or their fanaticism. Maybe they are the ones who are idiotic.
Whatever it is, I believe they are dangerous and must be watched! You will agree with me if you read Berg’s response below.
Emeritus posted a link to an article and asked me to address why the articles version of the laws are flawed. I am happy to do so.
Jamie Freeze, a law student, has called any of us who question Soetoro/Obama’s Citizenship status and Constitutional Eligibility to serve as U.S. President, a Constitutional Right of ours of course, incompetent idiots. However, Ms. Freeze may want to continue her education, part of being a lawyer, which is a very important part, is being able to comprehend what you read and to cite the correct law to collaborate it. Something Ms. Freeze has clearly failed to do. I will respond below to Ms. Freeze’s allegations, however, my responses are in bold. I also want to make very clear to all readers, none of the eligibility cases have been heard, litigated or dismissed based on the law pertaining to any of the issues raised. Instead, the eligibility cases have been dismissed on the basis of “STANDING” only.
This type of thing, by Ms. Freeze, is what gives folks the WRONG information and confuses them, it is a deception by Ms. Freeze (as a law student, I hope her professors teach her how to properly, honestly and with integrity, investigate, research the laws, properly cite the laws and argue issues before her). Otherwise, she will be unable to do her clients, when that time comes assuming she passes the bar, justice.
December 22, 2009
Facts are stubborn things: Obama is a natural-born citizen
By Jamie Freeze
I never will forget meeting former North Carolina State Senator Hugh Webster my senior year of high school. He came to my school and had lunch with the seniors. As he sat down beside me, I asked him to tell me what he most loved and hated about being in Raleigh. I don’t remember what he most loved, but I’ll never forget what he most hated. In the words of Mr. Webster, “I don’t deal well with incompetent people.”
Ms. Freeze, unfortunately, is showing her “INCOMPETENCE”, as Ms. Freeze would call it, but I feel “IGNORANCE” is the more appropriate word, as outlined below.
At that point, I knew Mr. Webster and I were kindred spirits. I too don’t deal well with incompetent people. As a matter of fact, I go out of my way to avoid them, but when dealing with them is inevitable, I can’t help but point out their incompetencies. As a law student, I am being trained to be meticulous, well-reasoned, and intelligent. After my final exam grades come back, we’ll see how well I’m doing. But that aside, I feel that I have been too longsuffering in letting the Birther Movement receive simply a few caustic remarks and jabs from me. It’s time for me to call a spade a spade. Here goes: If you believe that President Obama is NOT a natural-born citizen, then you are an incompetent idiot who is probably watching Glenn Beck while wearing a tin-foil hat. You probably think Obama’s a Muslim too.
Our lawsuits have nothing to do with Soetoro/Obama’s religion, they never have. Ms. Freeze seems to have lost a very important part of her education, we as people are entitle to redress, we as people are entitled to ask questions, especially of our elected officials. Incompetent Idiot? It appears that Ms. Freeze’s law school has taught her when you cannot counter something to call the opposing party names. That is not what I was taught in school. I do not see one shred of evidence that supports Ms. Freeze’s position. Ms. Freeze obviously forgot about Barry Soetoro’s name; Did she locate where he legally changed his name to Barack H. Obama? It is fraud to run for and serve as President under an “alias” name. What about Soetoro/Obama’s Indonesian citizenship? We have the School Record which Soetoro/Obama has admitted to.
If you are still reading (and not firing off angry emails), then allow me to offer you factual proof that Obama is a natural-born citizen who satisfies the constitutional requirements for Commander-in-Chief. My argument is two-fold: 1. Obama was born in Hawaii (a U.S. state for my incompetent readers). 2. Obama satisfies the requirements found in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which defines natural-born citizens.\\
Where is the factual proof? Ms. Freeze apparently forgot to attach it. What does Ms. Freeze have to back up that Soetoro/Obama was born in Hawaii? We have been unable to obtain verification of that, no long form birth certificate, only an image that has been deemed a forgery. Despite this, what about his Indonesian Citizenship? Had Ms. Freeze read our briefs, and retained the information, she would have seen that all we do is talk about the Nationality Act of 1940 revised in 1952.
1. Obama was born in Hawaii. Hawaii joined the Union in 1959. Barack Obama was born in 1961. Do the math. It works. Ok, so perhaps that argument is a bit over-simplified, but that is because I find the birth certificate question so ridiculous. The President released his birth certificate (which was verified by the Hawaii Health Department) yet conspiracy theorists refuse to see logic. “Big bad Obama must be hiding something. That certificate isn’t the long form. What’s he hiding?” What the naysayers fail to realize is that in 1961 the standard Hawaiian birth certificate was…wait for it…exactly the same length as Obama’s! The Hawaiian Health Department has said this, but as conspiracy theorists point out, they must be covering for Obama. Despite the facts, folks say that even if he was born in Hawaii, he is not a natural born citizen because his father was Kenyan. However, even if Obama was born on the moon, he would still be a natural born citizen under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
First, the “long version” birth certificate we are asking for has nothing do to with the size of the document itself, instead it has to do with the information on the document. We have never claimed Hawaii was not a State or Union, so this has nothing to do with the questions we are seeking answers too. Soetoro/Obama released two (2) images of a Certification of Live Birth, claiming it to be his birth certificate, which have been deemed to be forged and altered documents. Hawaii Health Department has NEVER verified the images placed on the internet. Law 101, no agency or person can look at an online image and state the document came from their agency or location, unless, the person making such statement was the one who personally printed the document in question (Soetoro/Obama’s Certification of Live Birth in this case) and handed it to Soetoro/Obama and can prove it is in fact the same document. In Soetoro/Obama’s case, his campaign office stated they mailed the application for his Certification of Live Birth to Hawaii and recieved this supposed document back from Hawaii. However, the date that Soetoro/Obama would have signed it, Soetoro/Obama was traveling and campaigning for the U.S. Presidency position. We are not disputing the length of Soetoro/Obama’s Certification of Live Birth, we have copies of other individuals actual Certificate of Live births from Hawaii within the same time period, these are two (2) completely different documents. Soetoro/Obama has never released a hard copy of any type of Certification of Live Birth or Certificate of Live Birth to anyone other than Factcheck.org which is part of Annenberg and yes who Soetoro/Obama has close ties with. I am wondering what Ms. Freeze is basing her unsubstantiated statements on. Maybe she will enlighten us. We are not questioning the British Father, as we are well aware of the fact if Soetoro/Obama was born on U.S. soil, which we do not believe, he would in fact be a U.S. “natural born” citizen. However, in fairness to Ms. Freeze, others have questioned the British citizenship of the father and claimed that even if Soetoro/Obama was born on U.S. soil he would not be a “natural born” U.S. citizen due to his father’s foreign citizenship status. I’m going to ask again, what about Soetoro/Obama’s legal name and his Indonesian Citizenship status? Ms. Freeze fails to address these very important issues. We have been unable to locate any legal documentation legally changing Soetoro’s name back to Barack H. Obama; where Soetoro/Obama relinquished his Indonesian Citizenship; and/or where Soetoro/Obama reclaimed any U.S. Citizenship status he may have once held. Again, hopefully Ms. Freeze will enlighten us.
2. Obama is a natural born citizen. In Scales v. INS, 232 F.3d 1159 (2000), we have a clear definition of what natural born citizenship is. Scales’ father was an American serviceman stationed in the Philippines where he met Scales’ mother. They married despite the fact that Scales’ mother was pregnant with him at the time. In all probability, the court said, Scales was a product of his mother’s previous relationship. However, he was born after Mr. Scales married his mother, and he was treated as Scales’ son. Later, Scales was facing deportation because of an aggravated felony involving drugs. He challenged his deportation saying he was a natural born citizen. The court determined that natural born citizenship depends on the statute in effect at the time of the child’s birth. Since Scales was born in 1977, he was a natural born citizen because a “person shall be a national and citizen of the United States at birth who is 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.” Id. at 1169; see 8 U.S.C. §1401(a)(7) (1976). Therefore, Scales was a natural born citizen despite the following: having been born in a foreign country, having been born to a non-citizen, having his American father later deny paternity (and prove non-paternity), and having claimed to be a citizen of the Philippines. Sounds like it is difficult to get rid of natural born citizenship. Let’s examine Barack Obama’s citizenship.
I would first like to note that Scales v. INS, 232 F.3d 1159 (2000) is not exactly on point as neither of Soetoro/Obama’s parents were in the U.S. Military, however, it does outline some of the issues we present. Some more appropriate cases are United States of America v. Cervantes-Nava, 281 F.3d 501 (2002), Drozd v. I.N.S., 155 F.3d 81, 85-88 (2d Cir.1998), Solis-Espinoza v. Gonzales, 401 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2005). And, if Ms. Freeze would have read and retained what is in our briefs, she would have seen the laws we used. We believe Soetoro/Obama was born in Kenya, contrary to Ms. Freeze’s beliefs, Soetoro/Obama’s mother was not old enough to confer U.S. “natural born” citizenship status to Soetoro/Obama. Moreover, neither of Soetoro/Obama’s parents were in the U.S. Military at the time of Soetoro/Obama’s birth, her whole argument above, which was meant to mislead people and which is very ignorant for a law student, does not pertain. Ms. Freeze also forgets to mention the Nationality Act was revised in 1986 with a proviso regarding active Military, the only part of the code that was retroactive was the Proviso regarding the Military Status, nothing else. But again, neither of Seotoro/Obama’s parents were in the U.S. Military. Moreover, contrary to Scales, Soetoro/Obama’s father admitted paternity, the parents were married in Hawaii prior to Soetoro/Obama’s birth. Ms. Freeze has done nothing more than attempt to misapply the laws. And, once again Ms. Freeze also fails to address the legal name of Soetoro/Obama and Soetoro/Obama’s Indonesian citizenship.
Obama’s citizenship will be determined under the 1952 version of the Immigration and Nationality Act since he was born in 1961 and the Act wasn’t updated again until 1966. According to § 301(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (66 Stat. 235), “a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person [is a natural born citizen].” According to § 305 of the same statute, any person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900 was to be considered a natural born citizen. Obama’s mother was a citizen of the United States, and his father was a citizen of Kenya. They were married six months before Obama was born. There is no doubt that Obama’s mother resided in the United States or its possessions for at least one year prior to Obama’s birth. Therefore, Obama can’t be anything other than a natural born citizen. Combine this detail with his birth in an American State, you have a certified natural born citizen.
Ms. Freeze’s 1966 law fails and she completely contradicts herself. The law that is applied is the law in effect at the time of the birth, in Soetoro/Obama’s case, the Nationality Act of 1940 revised 1952. See Marquez-Marquez a/k/a Moreno v. Gonzales, 455 F. 3d 548 (5th Cir. 2006), Runnett v. Shultz, 901 F.2d 782, 783 (9th Cir.1990). Law in 1966 does not apply, unless Ms. Freeze can show me where it states it is retroactive, which she CANNOT. We are not disputing that Hawaii was a state, we are not disputing if in fact Soetoro/Obama was born in Hawaii he would be a U.S. “natural born” citizen. Further, Kenya is not an outlying possession of the U.S. The law used by Ms. Freeze once again does not pertain to the issues outlined in our cases; does not apply to Soetoro/Obama’s birth in Kenya; fails to address Soetoro/Obama’s legal name; and fails to address Soetoro/Obama’s Indonesian citizenship. Moreover, even if the 1966 version applied, which is does NOT, Soetoro/Obama’s mother was not present residing in the U.S. for a continuous year prior to Soetoro/Obama’s birth. We believe Soetoro/Obama’s mother was residing in Kenya and in fact gave birth to Soetoro/Obama in Kenya.
Important issues left out by Ms. Freeze in attempt to confuse the reader is the fact Soetoro/Obama became Barry Soetoro an Indonesian Citizenship. No records have been located legally changing Barry Soetoro’s name back to Barack H. Obama. No records have been located showing Soetoro/Obama relinquished his Indonesain citizenship, which was a requirement of Indonesia and outlined in their laws (Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship status) and reclaiming any U.S. citizenship status he may have once held. Thus, Soetoro/Obama is still Barry Soetoro an Indonesian Citizen.
One last question I have for Ms. Freeze, if in fact Soetoro/Obama was a U.S. “natural born” citizen and eligibile to serve as our United States President, why in the world would he spend in excess of a Million Dollars litigating these cases instead of just providing proof of his citizenship status? I’m curious to see how Ms. Freeze would respond. We know the answer, because Soetoro/Obama can’t.