Congress Fails to Act Against Gore’s Terror TV Deal

- Cliff Kincaid
It is fun to watch Big Oil critic Al Gore squirm as he is questioned about selling out to the oil-rich dictatorship in Qatar. But his sale of Current TV to Al Jazeera is not a laughing matter. This transaction is a homeland security threat that violates numerous U.S. laws.

To his credit, funnyman David Letterman got close to the truth when he asked the former Democratic vice-president, “Now why do we think of Al Jazeera as something not right going on there in terms of, in terms of the good for Americans? Why do we think that they may be propaganda for Muslim violence and terrorism?”

“Well, it’s certainly not,” Gore replied. “And many years ago it put some videos on in the Arabic version that I think were misinterpreted, but the Al Jazeera English and now Al Jazeera America [are] really high quality stuff. They’re very widely respected, and people see for themselves. And, by the way, their climate coverage is higher quality and more extensive than any network on TV now in the U.S.”

Gore’s answer to Letterman shows that he is not being honest with those concerned about the deal. If Gore will lie to protect his $100 million payoff from the Arab dictatorship in Qatar, a major oil and gas producer, what else will he lie about? Global warming?

First, the “misinterpreted” videos were from Osama bin Laden—and al Qaeda, which is still trying to kill us. There is nothing to misinterpret. Paul L. Williams, author of the new book, Crescent Moon Rising points out that, during Operation Enduring Freedom, the official name for the war in Afghanistan, “All the tapes from al Qaeda were aired on Al Jazeera to inflame the Arab world. They added all that fuel so that our troops would be killed.” Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Afghanistan, who interviewed bin Laden, was sent to prison for being an agent of al Qaeda.

In Iraq, after the American invasion, the same thing occurred. Al Jazeera’s first managing director was exposed as an agent of the Saddam Hussein regime and the channel promoted the anti-American insurgency. The coverage inspired foreign Jihadists to come to Iraq to kill American soldiers, as captured terrorists acknowledged in interviews.

The new film, “Zero Dark Thirty,” mentions that the courier who eventually led the CIA to bin Laden was located in Pakistan near an Al Jazeera office in order to get the terrorist leader’s videotapes to the channel for worldwide distribution. This was no accident. The collaboration between Al Jazeera and al Qaeda continues to the present day. The channel has interviewed almost every major al Qaeda leader, including Anwar Al-Awlaki, who inspired the Ft. Hood massacre through his contacts with Muslim Army soldier Nidal Hasan. Al-Awlaki was also linked to the attempted bombing in the U.S. on Christmas Day by radical Muslim Umar Farouk.

Second, despite what Al Gore implies, the Arabic and English versions of Al Jazeera are paid for by the same dictatorship. Even Hillary Clinton’s State Department admits that, adding that Qatar controls the news policies and personnel of the channel.

Gore was on Letterman promoting his new book, The Future, which was obviously written before his deal with Al Jazeera was finalized. This is why his mentions of Al Jazeera in the book are so important. He refers to Al Jazeera in the book as the “relatively independent” network that played a role in the so-called “Arab spring.”

It is interesting that this “relatively independent” network has now become “very highly-respected,” as he claimed on Letterman.

It’s apparent that Gore is talking about the channel in glowing terms in order to justify his receipt of $100 million from the $500 million deal. Gore doesn’t want to admit the truth because then he would be exposed for selling Current TV to Al Jazeera not only for “dirty” oil money, but also for blood money. The American blood on the hands of Al Jazeera is real.

Every time that you see a wounded member of the American military, or attend a service for those who died defending America, there is the distinct possibility that the death and destruction was carried out by Jihadists egged on by Al Jazeera.

For more of the article go to: http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/52825

Is martial law the ultimate goal?

- Daniel Detwiler

With everything happening to this country of ours it is getting harder and harder to maintain a cool head and not jump to conclusions but if we sit back and view the last four years as well as what’s happening now an image is starting to appear of what might possibly be our future.

During President Obama’s first term he laid the ground work. President Obama issued over 144 executive orders, many dealing with martial law. As the Supreme Court already opinioned when looking at President Lincolns use of martial law, “Martial law … destroys every guarantee of the Constitution.”. This means when martial law is declared we as Americans have no rights at all.

During President Obama’s first term he wrote Executive Orders granting the government the power to take over all communications media, electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals. He also wrote an Executive Order where the government can take over all modes of transportation and control of the highways and sea ports. That means Obama can confiscate your horse, your donkeys, your bicycle or even your riding lawn mower. All forms of transportation. Executive orders signed by Obama also include railroads, inland water ways, public storage facilities, airports and airplanes including commercial planes can all be taken over by the government.

Think that’s bad, well it gets worse, much worse.

Executive Orders have also been signed allowing the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision. To take over all health education and welfare functions. To allow the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate and establish new locations for populations, AND grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute Industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.

If that doesn’t scare you then look at this. An Executive order has also been signed which allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit, and the flow of money in U.S. financial institutions in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when the president declares a state of emergency, Congress cannot review the action for six months.

Now why that last part that congress cannot review the action for six months? To understand why President Obama wanted that executive order lets look at what martial law is. Martial law is the suspension of civil authority and the imposition of military authority. When we say a region or country is “under martial law,” we mean to say that the military is in control of the area, that it acts as the police, as the courts, as the legislature. The president is the commander in chief of the military and as such in full control of the martial law. Seeing how the constitution is suspended during martial law and the President is in control the only ones able to stop martial law is the congress. In effect that Executive order that says Congress cannot review the action for six months in effect give the President full unchallenged control for six months.

For more of the article go to: http://teapartyorg.ning.com/profiles/blogs/is-martial-law-the-ultimate-goal

Gun control supporters urge Obama to bypass Congress on new measures

- Shannon Bream, Fox News

As Congress debates various gun control measures, President Obama is publicly putting the heat on Capitol Hill.

"The only way that we're going to be able to do everything that needs to be done is with the cooperation of Congress," he said Monday while hosting law enforcement officials from around the country.

But Supporters of tougher gun controls are growing increasingly worried lawmakers won't pass any substantial measures and have begun to focus their efforts elsewhere. A number of Obama allies across the country have called on public employee pension funds to divest of any holdings linked to the gun industry.

"City of Los Angeles pension funds should not go to profit companies that produce weapons designed to maximize carnage and death," Mayor Antonia Villaraigosa vowed.

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, a former Obama White House chief of staff, has made the same commitment and gone a step further. Emanuel has authored letters to Bank of America and TD Bank because they maintain multimillion-dollar lines of credit for major gun manufacturers. In the letters, Emanuel urges the banks to use their influence to "push" the manufacturers to go along with the president's tough new gun controls.

For more of the article and video go to: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/29/gun-control-supporters-urge-obama-to-bypass-congress-on-new-measures/

DESPOTISM IN AMERICA

Exclusive: Rick Santorum lists President Obama's constitutional violations  
- Rick Santorum

President Obama’s announcement last week on his plans to make sweeping changes to our nation’s gun laws by presidential executive order is yet another example of his continual disregard for the United States Constitution and the separation of powers it set forth to protect the American people from government by fiat.

Putting aside for a moment the misdirected emphasis on gun ownership, as opposed to mental illness and cultural glorification of violence to curb gun crime, President Obama’s actions represent another attempt to circumvent Congress – a Congress elected by the people but controlled by Republicans – to establish public policy that supports his liberal agenda.

As we all learn early on in grade-school civics class, one of the most important and distinguishing aspects of our government is the system of checks and balances. Our Founding Fathers created a system of divided government, where the power at the federal government is separated among three distinct branches: the legislative (Congress), the executive (the president) and the judiciary (the Supreme Court).

Yet time and time again, when President Obama has met resistance from Congress, the check on his powers in the executive branch, he has found ways to circumvent our system and impose his views and vision.

For more of the article go to: http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/despotism-in-america/#gDpJLjRUPgjxkHgs.99

GRAB YOUR FLAG: GUN APPRECIATION DAY COMING

Goal: Loud, clear message to Obama, Congress – Back off
- Joe Garofoli

Mark your calendar. On Jan. 19, two days before President Obama is inaugurated and a day before Sen. Dianne Feinstein is expected to introduce an assault weapons ban, a Gun Appreciation Day has been called in the U.S.

Organizers are asking folks to go into their local gun shop and wave a flag or a “Hands Off Our Guns” sign or just brandish a copy of the Constitution. With 300 million guns in the U.S., there should be more than enough people ready to participate.

The goal is send a loud, clear message to Obama and the Congress: Back off. Their role model are the pro-Chick-Fil-A protests of last year.

“We want the president and his allies on Capitol Hill to understand their new push will result in a shove back from the people,” said Alan Gottlieb, chair of the 650,000-supporter Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms “Millions of law-abiding firearms owners are not about to be penalized for the unconscionable act of a madman. We will not all be judged by the conduct of a single crazy person.”

Original article here: http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election/2013/01/07/grab-your-flag-gun-appreciation-day-is-coming/

http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/grab-your-flag-gun-appreciation-day-coming/#Ep08Qt58ioiWtE5i.99

Gun Owners Mad As Hell And Will Not Take It!

- J.D. Longstreet

There is a purge of Congress in the offing.  It will be historic in its magnitude.

Allow me to be as clear as I possibly can about this because the disconnect between the people of America and their government has become so complete, the distance between the citizen and the government has become so broad, that Washington is hearing only a faint whisper (If they hear anything at all!) coming from those of us outside the beltway.

So let me say this clearly, loudly, and in a declarative manner:  Attention Senators and US Representatives: If you vote for the new Assault Weapons Ban your political career in the US Congress is OVER.  That is O V E R!  Complete, finished, ended, kaput!

For the past few days I have been going over and over Senator Diane Feinstein’s proposal for a new Assault Weapons Ban and it reads like some sort of “edict” handed down from the politburo in old Soviet Socialist Russia.  (The politburo is the chief executive and political committee of the Communist Party.)

It IS as bad as I had suspected— but it is much, much, worse!

If you have not read the proposed bill, there is a “Summary” of the bill in PDF format you must read.  You will find it here:

The full text of the proposed bill has been taken down from the Senator’s website and, instead, we find the summary.

I am including a copy of the text of that summary below which was taken from the Senator’s website:

Summary of 2013 legislation

Following is a summary of the 2013 legislation:

  Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:

• 120 specifically-named firearms;
• Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics; and
• Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.

  Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:

• Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test;
• Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test; and
• Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans.

  Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
  Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:

• Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment;
• Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes; and
• Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons.

  Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:

• Background check of owner and any transferee;
• Type and serial number of the firearm;
• Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
• Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
• Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration.

A pdf of the bill summary is available here:

What we have here is a full-out, frontal assault on gun owners of America—not to mention a complete infringement of the rights of gun owners as spelled out, clearly, in the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.  It is as if the 2nd Amendment does not exist. 

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” ... 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution

I keep wondering what part of “shall not be infringed” do they not understand???  The definition of “infringe” is:“to go against.”  That, then, would mean, it seems to me, the entire proposed 2013 Assault Weapons Ban is unconstitutional from the git-go!  It is clearly an “infringement” on the rights of US citizens as spelled out in the 2nd Amendment.

As we learn, by dribs and drabs, what’s in Feinstein’s bill it becomes even more disturbing.

In my family we have a long standing tradition of “handing-down” our guns to the next generation.  I have been looking forward to the day I will hand-down my weapons to my grandson.  Now I learn that should Feinstein’s bill pass into law, I will not be able to do that.  Nor will you.

“According to the outline of Feinstein’s bill, it will grandfather in all legally owned weapons, but it will require they be registered and the owner fingerprinted. It will require a $200 per weapon tax be paid. The guns will not be transferable, meaning that upon the death of the owner the guns will become the property of the Federal government. It will allow the sale of 900 specifically named weapons, but none that can accept a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds.”  SOURCE: 

All this is bad enough, but consider this:  If the Congress refuses to pass Feinstein’s bill into law, isn’t it reasonable to expect that Obama will issue the necessary Executive Orders to do much the same thing by way of rules and regulations, which have the force of law, and those rules and regs will be executed by the alphabet agencies under his control such as BATFE and the DHS, and even the agency, or agencies, charged with the supervision of Obamacare.

ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES!  Losing our freedom, our liberty, and our COUNTRY is a consequence of the November 6th election.  But to be honest, we have to admit the problem began when the American people turned to socialism and a strong central government.  THIS is the price we pay. 

But what the heck!  It’s only freedom.  It’s just our liberty.  It’s just our birthright!  And finally—it is just the soul of our country.

There's more of the article go to: http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/52104

How Not to Run a Nation

- Alan Caruba

The political farce that ended 2012 and began 2013 has surely made the United States a laughingstock among the nations of the world.

The sharp divisions between liberals and conservatives in Congress led to desperate last minute negotiations to avoid a “fiscal cliff” that faced the nation’s taxpayers and that still threatens default on our debts. The same battles will be fought again when it comes time to raise the nation’s debt ceiling limit in two months.

This is a Congress that has not passed a budget for three years.

This is no way to run a nation!

By a vote of 89-8 in the early hours of Tuesday, the Democrat-controlled Senate approved a plan to raise taxes on families earning more than $250,000 and to postpone sequester cuts for two months. By mid-afternoon, however, Politico.com reported that “House Republicans are overwhelmingly opposed to the Senate’s bill to avert the fiscal cliff, making it nearly certain that Speaker John Boehner’s chamber will amend the legislation and send it back to the Senate - a potentially serious blow to a package that appeared well on its way to becoming law.”

“House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), the No. 2 House Republican, told GOP lawmakers that he was opposed to the legislation in its current form. Republicans are chiefly concerned with the lack of spending cuts in the tax bill.” And that has been the problem since Obama took office, too much spending and too much borrowing to continue spending.

For the year or more the “fiscal cliff” existed Congress chose to do nothing. The frantic negotiations resulted in an agreement to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, something Democrats and the President campaigned against for years.

Having to fight these fiscal battles all over again in two months will only reaffirm that Congress is incapable to arriving at common sense solutions. For the 47% of Americans who pay no taxes, the discussion is a distraction from watching the bowl games and other diversions.

It is useful to review the Heritage Foundation analysis issued prior to the late night vote. Amy Payne spelled it out in a recent commentary, saying “Tax hikes are the centerpiece of the problem” warning that the largest tax increase in American history was scheduled to kick in on January 1.

While the Bush tax cuts remain, solutions are needed to resolve what to do with the payroll tax, the alternative minimum tax patch, and a host of other tax policies that were scheduled to expire at year’s end.

However, twenty tax increases built into Obamacare are scheduled to go into effect. They will generate a trillion dollar increase for the years 2013-2022. Curiously, a tax on medical instruments that covers everything from tongue depressors to MRI machines will make healthcare more expensive for everyone despite the claim that Obamacare would make healthcare more affordable.

As the Heritage Foundation and others have been shouting from the housetops, Obamacare raises the hospital insurance (HI) portion of the payroll tax on wage income over $250,000 from 2.9 percent to 3.8 percent. It then applies that 3.8 percent rate to investment income-capital gains and dividends—for anyone earning above $250,000.

Tax experts like Curtis Dubay, a senior policy analyst for the Heritage Foundation, points out that “this is a massive policy change, since it represents the first time the payroll tax will apply to investment income.” He calls the investment income HI tax “a dangerous step down a slippery, tax-hiking slope”, predicting that “the economy will suffer, because incentives to work and invest will fall. Less work and investment will mean that businesses create fewer jobs and pay their existing workers less than they otherwise would have.”

Dubay refutes President Obama’s claim that his plan for taxing the rich would just be a return to the rates that existed under President Clinton. “That is flat out incorrect,” noting that Obama is ignoring the tax hikes hidden in Obamacare.

Stephen Moore, a member of The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board and a senior economics writer, a regular commentator on CNBC-TV and Fox News, has a new book out, “Who’s the Fairest of the Them All? The Truth About Opportunity, Taxes, and Wealth in America.” ($21.50, Encounter Books). It blessedly brief, but it covers a lot of ground, especially as regards the lies coming out of the White House about the “rich.”

A lot of Americans are oblivious to the fact that the President is operating from an ideology that is the opposite of everything that built the greatest economy the world has ever seen. His views are those of a Socialist or to put it more bluntly, a Communist. He stops short of initiating programs by which the government would nationalize all industries, but Obamacare in effect does that for the health care industry; twenty percent of the nation’s economy.

In his book, Moore defends the free enterprise system as “the on-ramp to economic progress and rising incomes.” Under President Obama, “the ranks of the poor have risen and the progress of the middle class has stalled in the United States in recent years because we have moved so aggressively away from free markets and toward ham-handed government solutions.”

The lies the President told all through his 2008 campaign and the last four years of his first term have all been intended to create class warfare. Moore points out that “Mr. Obama says that in recent decades the middle class has suffered and shrunk. He is dead wrong on this count. In fact, the last thirty years (up until the 2008 recession) have been a boom period for the middle class.”

The proof of that, Moore notes, “By 2011, after Mr. Obama’s first three full years in office, and after nearly two years of radical spending and taxing policies, the median American family incomes declined by almost $4,500 for every household. The poverty rate increased, and so did the number of Americans losing their homes. Yes, Mr. Obama inherited an economic mess, but his policies have done little to stop the decline.”

Throughout 2012, according to Obama, if you earn more than $250,000 you are among the “rich” in America. This is surely a redefining of what we used to consider rich; usually those earning a million or more. As things stand now “Our government,” says Moore, “relies for more than 50 percent of its revenue on the richest three percent.”

The tax rate increase on “the rich” that Obama has been demanding would raise enough revenue to run the nation for about a week. Meanwhile, the U.S. must borrow $4.8 billion every day just to meet its expenses.

Obama’s goals since becoming President can be found in the “Cloward-Piven Strategy” and I recommend you get familiar with it as the nation hurtles toward financial collapse because that is exactly what the strategy is intended to bring about in order to impose a total socialist/communist system on the world’s greatest capitalistic economy.

For more of the article go to: http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/52110

Official Notice To Congress To Halt Election Certification Process Due To Obama Fraud

OFFICIAL NOTICE TO CONGRESS TO STOP ELECTION FRAUD OF 2012

NOTICE delivered to members of the US Congress demanding a STOP to the fraudulent election of 2012

By U.S. Patriots Union and The North American Law Center

CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE AND DEMAND TO HALT THE CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION 

CERTIFICATION PROCESS DUE TO EVIDENCE OF SUBSTANTIVE FRAUD

BE ADVISED, your Oath of office requires you to act in a manner which upholds the United States Constitution, our State Constitutions, and the Rule of Law. This shall serve as Notice to you of the massive fraud which has occurred in the 2012 election. As a public servant, your highest duty is to the people of the United States. Failing to do your duty, after having been so noticed, will be a direct violation of your Oath, with malice aforethought.

The evidence is overwhelming that the 2012 President elect Barack Hussein Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States, as defined by The Law of Nations - Book 1 - Chapter 19 - Sections 212, 213, 214 and 215 – or the United States Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649(1898). Since the Supreme Court in Minor directly construed in the Article 2, Section 1,natural-born citizen clause to determine the citizenship status of the petitioner, the Court’s definition of the natural-born citizen class is binding precedent.

Since Obama does not qualify as a member of the class of persons identified as natural-born citizens by the U.S. Supreme Court, he is not eligible to be President of the United States. Therefore, the Secretaries of the various states are constitutionally prohibited from certifying the election of a candidate for the office of the Presidency who is ineligible as a matter of law. Further, under their oath, Electors are likewise constitutionally prohibited from certifying a ballot or casting a ballot in favor of a known ineligible candidate.

In addition, there is significant evidence of election fraud throughout the 2012 election process, rendering the alleged outcome of the election null and void until such time that a full investigation can be carried out. [See items concerning election fraud below.]

Secretaries of the numerous states were duly NOTICED prior to placing the name Barack Hussein Obama on the 2012 ballot. Due to the disconcerting fact that the various Secretaries of these several States have been remiss and negligent in their duty to properly vet and certify all candidates before placing their names upon any ballot, the duty and responsibility falls to Congress to halt any certification of the President elect, before there is an extensive and comprehensive investigation of the substantive fraud referenced herein. Please see the following examples:

Prima facie evidence exists as to violations of Federal Election Commission law regulating campaign finance concerning overseas donations from foreign entities, into national money laundering and online credit and debit card fraud, using foreign contributions from stolen card numbers to finance a presidential campaign. Hundreds of millions of dollars pouring into the Obama campaign from overseas donors and all of it in untraceable small denominations.

NOTICE CONTINUED BELOW OR HERE: http://www.scribd.com/doc/118589643

http://northamericanlawcenter.org   ---   http://www.patriotsunion.org

Official Notice To Congress To Stop Obama Election Fraud Of 2012 - U.S. Patriots Union

Original article here: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2013/01/official-notice-to-congress-obama-election-fraud.html

Congress Should Not Confirm Barack Obama As President

For He Is Not an Article II "Natural Born Citizen"
- Mario Apuzzo, Esq. 

       The joint session of Congress meets to
count the 2008 Electoral College vote 





  



The issue of Obama’s eligibility to be President has always been whether he is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” And that issue has always been about answering two questions: (1) whether he was born in the United States and (2) whether at the time of his birth in the United States he was born to United States citizen parents, for a “natural born Citizen” is defined as a child born in a country to parents who were citizens of that country. See Mario Apuzzo, The Two Constitutional Obstacles Obama Has to Overcome to be President, at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2008/12/two-constitutional-obstacles-obama-has.html(published on December 20, 2008). 

Obama eligibility supporters like to focus on the first question, place of birth, for it lends to so much controversy, speculation, and confusion. The place of birth question raises concerns about whether Obama’s birth certificate, social security number, and draft registration card are false. Of course, for any of that to be true would necessitate conspiracy among many individuals employed by various state and federal government agencies. The charges of conspiracy gives Obama's supporters great opportunity to ridicule and mock concerned American citizens who--given that Obama has never released his original birth certificate to any controlling government authority, Obama still refuses to give his consent to release to the public his birth, education, travel, and work records, and some have uncovered unconfirmed information suggesting that Obama was born in Kenya--are still searching for a conclusive answer to the question of whether Obama was born in the United States. These Obama supporters bask in the ease by which they are able to attack those who, without any government or law enforcement assistance, are still investigating Obama’s place of birth with little resources available to them. These Obama eligibility supporters also like to make everyone think that the place of birth issue seals a victory for Obama and them. But such a statement is false. 

These Obama eligibility supporters have not been able to adequately cast off either by way of any current well-researched and reasoned court decision or otherwise the other requirement for being a “natural born Citizen,” i.e., that the child must be born to parents who were citizens of the country when the child was born. As we can see below, there is a great amount of historical, U.S. Supreme Court, and Congressional sources that confirms this additional requirement which neither a handful of lower law and administrative courts--which have ruled that they have no jurisdiction or plaintiffs have no standing, but yet have still decided the merits of the question of whether Obama is a “natural born Citizen”--nor these Obama eligibility supporters have been able to adequately address. 

What does all this mean for Congress which on January 4, 2013 will be counting the Electoral College votes and deciding whether President Elect Barack Obama is constitutionally qualified to be President? Under Article I, II, and III, the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government are each given specific and exclusive powers. This is our separation of powers feature of our tripartite form of government. Under this doctrine, powers given to one branch are not to be exercised by any other. Under this scheme and specifically under Article III, the power to interpret the constitution is given solely to the judiciary. The Constitution does not textually commit the resolution of the question of what is a “natural born Citizen” to any specific branch of government other than the judicial branch. The question is no different from the question faced countless times by our nation’s federal and state courts when deciding what the applicable eligibility requirements for any given elected office are. Hence, the constitutional question of the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” is left to the judicial branch to resolve. 

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 provides: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.” Hence, “natural born Citizen” is one of the three exclusive constitutional eligibility requirements to be President found in this article, with the other two being a minimum of 35 years of age and 14 years of U.S. residency. As Powell v. McCormack, 395 U. S. 486, 519 (1969) explained, to determine the nature and extent of constitutionally specified eligibility qualifications is within the court’s power to do. Id. at 522. Determining what a “natural born Citizen” is involves determining the meaning of a constitutional provision which is strictly within the power of the courts to decide. It is a constitutional birth status. The Constitution gives to the courts the authority and the specific task of interpreting the Constitution, which necessarily includes the words and clauses it uses. “Natural born Citizen” is a clause that exists in the Constitution. As Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 163 (1803) long ago established, our judicial branch of government is duty bound to interpret the Constitution to provide meaning to its clauses and is well equipped to do so. In fact, the courts have been doing just that since the Founding. In fact, our judicial branch of government has for centuries engaged in judicial review of matters involving citizenship. The courts are therefore well equipped to interpret the Constitution which includes interpreting and applying the “natural born Citizen” clause, whose decision on the matter Congress must then respect. 

In matter of citizenship, Congress has under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, power only to make uniform the laws of naturalization. This power does not include the power to define an Article II “natural born Citizen.” To grant Congress the sole or any authority to decide what a “natural born Citizen” is would also defeat the U.S. Supreme Court’s constitutional mandate that it is the “ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.” Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224, 237 (1993). Indeed, Congress is constitutionally bound to follow the lead of the U.S. Supreme Court on the meaning and application of the Constitution. Apart from the First Congress in the Naturalization Act of 1790 considering as a "natural born citizen" a person born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents which the Third Congress changed to considered as a "citizen of the United States" in the Naturalization Act of 1795, and later Congresses just applying the already existing definition of the clause and providing a different definition of a “citizen of the United States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment, neither the Constitution nor historical practice show that Congress has ever taken it upon itself to define a “natural born Citizen.” Finally, for the Congress to take it upon itself to define a “natural born Citizen” in a manner that is not consistent with U.S. Supreme Court precedent would be an unconstitutional usurpation of judicial power which belongs only to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

The Twentieth Amendment and 3 U.S.C. Sec. 1 et seq. provide a mechanism for Congress to follow when meeting in joint session for the purpose of counting the Electoral College votes and confirming the constitutional eligibility of a President Elect to actually hold that office. But while Congress surely has the power to count Electoral College votes and if necessary fully investigate the question of a President Elect’s constitutional eligibility to be President and make a decision based on its own investigation, the extent of its investigation can only go as far as its legislative and regulatory powers allow it to go. Again, Congress has no direct power to define a “natural born Citizen.” Defining a “natural born Citizen” also does not fall under any investigation in aid of any legislative function. Also, the Twentieth Amendment does not commit to Congress the task of determining what a “natural born Citizen” is, i.e., what is the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” See Nixon, 506 U.S. at 237 (“Our conclusion in Powell was based on the fixed meaning of ‘[q]ualifications’ set forth in Art. I, § 2. The claim by the House that its power to ‘be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members’ was a textual commitment of unreviewable authority was defeated by the existence of this separate provision specifying the only qualifications which might be imposed for House membership. The decision as to whether a Member satisfied these qualifications was placed with the House, but the decision as to what these qualifications consisted of was not” (citing and discussing Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 539 (1969)). See also Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 550 (1969) (in invalidating the House's decision not to seat a Member accused of misuse of funds, the Court held that “in judging the qualifications of its members Congress is limited to the standing qualifications prescribed in the Constitution"). Surely, if Congress cannot add to those constitutionally prescribed qualifications for its own members, it also cannot take away from them. Giving Congress the power to define a “natural born Citizen” with respect to presidential qualifications would do just that, either add to the definition or take away from it and thereby impact on the qualifications to be President. Hence, it is clear under Powell that it is the U.S. Supreme Court which must determine the meaning of a “natural born Citizen,” and not Congress. 

For more of the article go to: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/12/congress-should-not-confirm-barack.html

Obama Orders Pay Raise for Biden, Members of Congress, Federal Workers

President Barack Obama issued an executive order to end the pay freeze on federal employees, in effect giving some federal workers a raise. One federal worker now to receive a pay increase is Vice President Joe Biden.

According to disclosure forms, Biden made a cool $225,521 last year. After the pay increase, he'll now make $231,900 per year.

Members of Congress, from the House and Senate, also will receive a little bump, as their annual salary will go from $174,000 to 174,900. Leadership in Congress, including the speaker of the House, will likewise get an increase.

Here's the list of new wages, as attached to President Obama's executive order:

"A new executive order has been issued providing for a new pay schedule beginning 'on the first day of the first applicable pay period beginning after March 27, 2013,'" reports FedSmith.com. "The pay raise will generally be about 1/2 of 1%."

Jeryl Bier points to an example of the pay increase for average government executives

"Not much of an increase, but an increase all the same," Bier notes.

And the timing isn't great either: Just as President Obama and Congress try to avert going over the "fiscal cliff," he doles out pay increases to federal workers.

UPDATE: According to a senior Republican congressional aide who has reviewed the executive order and consulted with the Congressional Budget Office, Obama's pay raise will cost $11 billion. "The CBO told us that the President’s pay raise for federal workers will cost $11 billion over ten years," says the aide.

The aide explains, "On the cost-estimate, CBO says the (discretionary) cost of the .5% pay-hike the President is calling for in the Exec Order – relative to a freeze – is about $500m in FY 2013 and $11 billion over the ten years from FY 13 - FY 22.  The reason why the FY ’13 savings is only $500 million is because the pay hike as proposed by the President’s Exec Order would not go into effect until April 1^st, 2013 - when the current CR expires. So it only covers half the fiscal year. The annualized cost of the pay hike is about $1 billion/year."

Original article here: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-orders-raise-biden-members-congress-federal-workers_692223.html