Archive

Archive for March, 2010

The 234 Project

March 26, 2010 5 comments

Dear Friends:

I am pleased to launch an effort which I have titled the 234 Project.  The reason for this term is that if you subtract the year our country was born, 1776, from the current year, 2010, you have 234 years. And what we want to do is assign one lawmaker for each of those years.  We want 234 lawmakers to (1) agree to rescind Obamacare and (2) to be put on the record as to whether they will support the impeachment and removal of Barack Obama from the White House and/or whether they will agree to simply remove Obama on account of being constitutionally disqualified from holding the office of the president of the United States.

The proposed means of getting 234 men and women to stand in the gap from 1776 to 2010 is as follows. There are currently 177 Republican Congressmen and women in the U.S. House and 41 Republican men and women in the U.S. Senate.  That number totals 218.  Since no Republican supported Obamacare in the final version (acknowledging Rep. Ahn Cao’s original November vote for it), we will assign each Republican one year in history and this will add up to 218 years.  That leaves us 16 years, thus 16 public officials to take it 234.

We aren’t sure where to make up the gap.  Possibilities include Republican governors, attorney generals or leaders of legislative chambers at the state level.  Legislators would be preferable since they are the ones who make law.  Conservative Congressional Democrat lawmakers like Gene Taylor of Mississippi, Bobby Bright of Alabama and Dan Boren of Oklahoma are also options. Mr. Taylor served in the House during Bill Clinton’s Administration and voted to impeach him in 1998 when Mr. Clinton was charged with committing high crimes and misdemeanors.  There are about 5 other moderate to conservative Democrats from back in the 90s who, along with Mr. Taylor, are still in Congress today and who voted against Obamacare.  Their fairly conservative voting records indicate that they could vote with the GOP to remove Obama.

However, unlike the 90s, there are drawbacks to using Democrats in the current political climate.  It would also be difficult finding 16 Democrats who would join Republicans in this effort.

We could also consider 16 Republican candidates to the U.S. Senate who are currently not Congressmen.

I am entertaining suggestions as to other ideas you may wish to include for the remaining 16 patriots.  You can give me either specifics (such as names of individuals) or generalities (like a name of a group).  Other suggestions are welcomed as well.  The one non-negotiable point is the 234.  Doing away with the number makes the name of the group and project null and void.

I am well aware that a few liberal Republicans are part of the 234 (or 218 thus far).  Ideally, I would just choose to exclude the likes of them (e.g. Kirk, Castle and the 6 others who voted for cap and trade).  However, given that we don’t have 234 Republicans in Washington and given that they all were united in opposing a government takeover of medicine, we are for the time being including them on the patriots’ list.

I am also soliciting input as to all the questions that should be asked.  We want to make them brief but to the point.  There are four that will definitely be asked, though we will entertain changes to the wording.  We will consider (but not guarantee) adding one or two more.  But as it is, here are the current questions we want to pose to each of the 218 Republicans.

1. Given that no Republican in either the House or Senate voted for Obamacare, it is assumed that all Republicans would vote to repeal it, should legislation be introduced in a future Congress. A Republican controlled House could override a presidential veto of such a bill with a 2/3rd vote. However, since there are no mathematical possibilities for Republicans to have 2/3rd control in the U.S. Senate in the 112th Congress (though a sizable GOP majority is possible) to repeal the bill in that chamber, would you vote to defund Obamacare in its entirety in budget appropriations? YES _____ NO _____

2. Reports state that anywhere from 12-20,000 IRS agents will be hired to enforce the mandates and penalties in Obamacare, which would include fines and even jail time for non-compliance.  Given how the IRS has historically been one of the most oppressive agencies in the United States, notwithstanding your views of what form of taxation should replace the IRS (flat tax, fair tax, sales tax, tariffs, etc), would you introduce and/or support legislation to abolish the IRS in its entirety? YES _____ NO _____

3. Multitudes of Americans have called for the impeachment and removal of Barack Obama from the Oval Office.  Mr. Obama’s public support of Islam, both domestically and in foreign policy, his handling of the Fort Hood massacre, the release of a number of terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay to foreign countries, plans to place terrorists in U.S. prisons and hold trials in U.S. courts instead of military brigs, among other items, lead some people to believe he is committing treason, a constitutionally impeachable offense.  Others believe the numerous monetary deals that led to the exchange of votes for the passage of Obamacare, along with alleged offers of political favors in exchange for not challenging the seats of certain Congressional Democrats, constitutes bribery, another constitutionally impeachable offense.

In your perspective, has Barack Obama committed offenses constitutionally worthy of impeachment and removal from office?  YES _____ NO _____.

If your answer to the above question is YES, how would you publicly support his impeachment and removal?  A. In the current Congress or the next one _____ B. In the next Congress only since the current political atmosphere would make it difficult, if not impossible, to proceed _____ C. Neither as this is my personal opinion _____

4. In the same way that thousands, if not millions, of Americans believe Barack Obama has committed flagrant acts against the U.S. Constitution, growing numbers of Americans have questions, doubts and even outright disbelief that Mr. Obama has met the constitutional eligibility requirements for being president, according to Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5, of the U.S. Constitution.  While few Americans, if any, dispute that Mr. Obama is over 35 years of age and has resided in the U.S. for at least 14 years, due to numerous conflicting articles of his alleged birth in Kenya and childhood schooling in Indonesia and multitudes of lawsuits filed in U.S. courts, a vast many of them are uncertain as to whether he is a natural born citizen.

Responses of Congressmen and senators in both parties to querying constituents have widely varied since the issue first surfaced in 2008, from willful silence to mocking and ridicule to outright denial to concessions of possibility and even merit.  A few members of Congress have signed on to legislation from Rep. Bill Posey of Florida to require future presidents provide documentation of natural born citizenship.  However, other than Congressman Nathan Deal, who recently resigned his seat to run for governor of Georgia, no one on Capitol Hill has directly posed the eligibility question to Mr. Obama.

The passage of Obamacare into law has plunged more Americans into the eligibility debate since there are growing doubts as to Mr. Obama’s place in the White House. Many folks are coming to believe that he is not a natural born citizen but a foreigner and thus with no authority to sign any legislation.  If such a view is ever proven, either via Congressional hearings and/or court rulings, then we have an unprecedented constitutional crisis on our hands (which many folks already believe we currently have). Evidence of ineligibility essentially would mean an undoing of every law signed, every executive order given, every judicial and cabinet appointment made and every policy decision Obama has put in place. This should not be treated lightly as many members of Congress are doing.  Congress (both parties) continues to ignore this to their political and the nation’s peril.

Many polls show a heightened interest in the eligibility issue.  Though numbers vary, the interest is bipartisan.  Polls have shown anywhere from 50-60% of Republicans who are skeptical of Mr. Obama’s eligibility and as many as a third of all Californians, regardless of political party, are as well.  Plus the original lawsuit against Obama in this regard came from a lifelong Democrat.

With these details in place and from what you personally know, what would describe your best opinion on this issue?

A. I never had or have any doubt that Barack Obama was a natural born citizen _____
B. I once had concerns about Obama’s eligibility but believe they are now settled ____
C. This issue was initially unimportant to me but as I began to see the direction Obama and Congress were taking this country, I felt that foreign policies and foreign interests were superseding ours and now I must ask whether he is constitutionally legitimate _____
D. Regardless of my personal views, the interests of my constituents must be represented first and foremost and since a good many of them have expressed their concerns to me in this regard, I must ascertain and report to them the truth _____
E. I have always been skeptical as to Barack Obama being a natural born citizen and believe Congress has an obligation to hold hearings to come to a determination ____

It is important that we start this project as soon as possible.  One of the reasons for the request of expedited timing is because Congress is home on Easter recess for this week and next.  If we wait until Congress returns in a week and a half, it will be much harder to gauge their views, partly due to the vast partisanship there currently is in Washington.  I feel that doing this while members of the House & Senate are in their home districts and getting their responses from their homes or local offices will be far more fruitful.

What I propose to do is draft a document in the form of a letter with the above questions (wording of which is not yet final and may yet be modified), along with the additional one or two that we may consider including, and fax it to every Republican Congressman’s and senator’s home office in the states. To this end, I have obtained at least one district fax number for all but 10 of the 218 Republicans in Congress.  Remember, we want to send the original document to home districts, not DC, for maximized response.

Here are the nuts and bolts of what we need.  First of all, we need to get up the website of the 234 Project.  I am taking care of the domain aspect of it and will set up the site, though I am happy to have any web-minded individual to help put it together.  The drafted letter will be up for all to see, however, it will not be needed to send out.  That is something we are taking care of.

The website will not be a long one like some others.  It may only be like 3 pages, probably 5 tops.  However, the content will speak for itself and drive the traffic.

Once the site is up, we will need to spread the word like wildfire.  It may be tough to do, given that there are so many superb patriotic websites out there, so many of which get lost in the shuffle.  However, we hope that World Net Daily, which arguably covers the eligibility issue more than any one else, will pick up on our efforts since this is part of our issue as well.  If they do, as they did with my old StoptheACLU.org address, the hits and visitors will come.  We want to light a fire under Republicans to do what needs to be done and begin the process of removing Obama.  And we hope the 4000+ contacts in the old StoptheACLU database will help facilitate more responses.

Here is where we will need your help, if you are interested.  It’s not a whole lot, though in this economy it might be for some.  What we are looking for is as follows:

  • A one year web hosting package with a reliable host company. Estimated cost on the low end for a 3-5 page website: $50.
  • Two ink cartridges for my fax.  I will be faxing to all Republican lawmakers.  Estimated costs on the two cartridges for my Panasonic fax: $75
  • If possible, someone who can design a logo for The 234 Project on short notice.  Estimated cost to the design preparer varies but on the very low end, can do for $50.
  • Money permitting, we would like to mail this letter as well as faxing it.  We will need paper and envelopes.  We have plenty of printer ink cartridges so that is no problem. We would like to reinforce the faxes with letters.  Estimated cost of stamps and envelopes: $100
  • Money permitting, we may use a search engine optimization package to drive traffic. Estimated cost of this can be as low as $25.
  • Money permitting, we’d like to get a post office box for the site alone. Estimated cost: $50

In summary, we could get started for as little as $125 or perhaps just $100.  To do everything we would like to do would run about $350.  Would anyone be interested in contributing any amount?

Additionally, if funds exceed $350, say to $500, we have a sophisticated multi line, all in one Brother printer/fax/phone that we can use for this purpose; that is, once it is repaired.  A few months ago, via my membership in FreeCycle.com, I obtained this elaborate machine for free from someone who simply wanted to get rid of it.  It is in good shape for the most part but the fax is in need of repair as it does not connect, plus there are some discoloring issues that I cannot seem to fix. I estimate the cost for repair to be about $100 but depending on what is needed, it could go up to $150.  Retail cost of the item when originally purchased, with tax, was over $400.

So we could get started for maybe as low as $100, in medium gear with $300 or in high gear at $500.  I do not want anyone to give if they absolutely cannot do so.  I don’t like asking for money but I have none of my own to start this at this juncture.  We’re barely scraping by, yet we feel the urgent need to light a fire under Republicans in Washington and pray this will help do it.

The good thing is that I have no phone or fax costs (other than the cartridges) to absorb.  Our monthly unlimited phone and Internet package costs under $100 so I can make all the faxes necessary at no charge.  And given how often I fax members of Congress, it pays handsomely.

In addition to anyone interested in building the website or creating a logo, I’d like to have one or two volunteers who would be willing to make follow up calls to offices of “wayward” lawmakers who haven’t completed or returned their surveys.

The best way for anyone who would like to contribute to this effort would be to go to your Pay Pal account and send your donation to my old Stop the ACLU mailbox – nedd@stoptheaclu.org. If you wish to do so another way or if you simply want to volunteer in some capacity, please contact me at the234project@rocketmail.com, however, do not use that address for Pay Pal purposes – there is no account there.

Please note – the Rocketmail mailbox is strictly for 234 Project purposes.  Any non-related e-mail sent there, regardless of content, will promptly be deleted and not responded to.  Use theobamacrisis@ymail.com for all non-234 Project related messages.  Thank you for your understanding.

I would be happy to answer any questions you might have or assist you in volunteering in other ways to promote this effort.  I await any suggestions you have for questions for our lawmakers to answer.  Again, we will consider taking one or two more in addition to the ones above.  And as also noted earlier, I am happy to consider any suggested modifications to the questions as outlined there.

God save our country.

For Liberty,

Nedd Kareiva
Founder, The 234 Project

Advertisements
Categories: Uncategorized

Whether Obamacare Passes, How to Prepare Yourself

March 15, 2010 2 comments

Most of you who are reading this post have read many of the stories about what is going on behind the curtains with the Democrats effort to force Obamacare on the American people.  Whether in an e-mail or whether a visit to a certain website, fears are gripping the American people as to what lies ahead.  Many of us see a government takeover of medicine as the liberals’ crown jewel for socialism on America.

There’s little reason for me to recap the talking points on reconciliation, cost, abortion, the “Slaughterhouse Solution”, etc.  You’ve read them in the e-mails you get and the websites you visit.  I prefer not repeat what everyone else is saying, regardless of their position on Obamacare.

What I want to do here is share some common sense points that may be overlooked as patriotic Americans do everything they can to thwart this fascism that the bulk of us steadfastly reject.  However, should Obamacare clear Congress (legitimately or illegitimately) and go for the White House’s signature, there are still many things to consider and act upon.

Since the House is considering approving the Senate bill as is (there are debates as to whether the so called “Louisiana Purchase” and “Cornhusker Kickback”, among other acts of Congressional bribery, will be left in the bill), the consideration here is to hopefully keep the bill from passage, or better yet, from even going to a vote.  With that in mind, here is what I suggest we all do prior to the passage of Obamacare.

First of all, TRUST GOD!  Without faith in God and His Son Jesus Christ, every other point is moot.  I don’t know how anyone can make it in life without Jesus Christ, much less so during these extremely perilous days.  If you don’t have the Lord as Savior of your life and if you’re not 100% sure you would go to Heaven when your time is up on earth, please contact me at theobamacrisis@ymail.com.  The problem with Obamacare is a spiritual problem more than anything else.  It is putting government as Lord of your life instead of Jesus Christ.

Secondly, remain calm (though resolute), no matter what happens with this legislation.  Yeah, I know, far easier said than done.  But if we’re going to defeat this monster and return America to God and its patriotic roots, we must do so.  It will be that much harder to mobilize and win if we are demoralized because that means our emotions will get the best of us.  Emotion drives liberalism because liberalism is based on feelings.  Conservatism and constitutionalism are based on objective and analytical thinking.  We must not lose sight of that if the worst occurs.

Keep in mind that should Obamacare be signed into law by the Resident (P intentionally omitted), there will be plenty of legal challenges in the courts. Many states will be leading the way.  Voters in Arizona will consider in November ratifying its legislature’s decision to ban government run health care on the ballot.  Both of  Virginia’s legislative chambers have passed a measure blocking forced health insurance coverage (and with heavy Democrat input).  Idaho, Utah and Oklahoma have also passed measures restricting federal intervention into health care issues. Other states have bills in the works.  The 10th Amendment Center has documented much of these details and much more on its website.

Thirdly, know that by and large, polls strongly oppose a government takeover of medicine.  See here for details.

Of course, polls, no matter how damning, don’t matter to the liberals in Congress who want to foist socialized medicine upon the American people, neither do states who want to take up such measures to block enforcement. But it does give small comfort to know that we are in the right and by a fairly solid margin.  It’s worse when we’re in the minority on any issue.  We know we are in the right.  That is the bottom line.

But if you need more encouragement in this regard, just plug “health care Obama” in Google’s search engine and hit “return”.  Read the articles, whether they be from a slanted “mainstream” source or one without spin or bias.  Look for the ones with forums for comment.  Read the comments.  They tell the story.  With perhaps a few exceptions (New York Times, PMSNBC, CBS, ABC), the opposition is quite strong and in some cases massive, whether the sites lean conservative or progressive/liberal.  However, you will even find some  fairly sizable opposition on sites like ABC, depending on the article.  People are angry and it shows.  You don’t have to look far at all to see it in the comments.  It may be depressing to think that Congress wants to go ahead and thumb its nose at the American people but the people are in solid opposition and many of the posters on these sites make no bones about how they feel about Obama and Congress.

It isn’t terribly difficult (in this writer’s view, based on what he has seen) to read of posters claiming they voted for Obama and now are living to regret it.  Again, it may be depressing to see how Congress wants to stick it to us but the educated American voter is anything but for Obamacare.

Fourthly, if you have a Democrat Congressman and he or she is listed as undecided whether to vote for Obamacare, make the call or send the fax.  There is no need to contact any Republicans since all of them are united against a government takeover of medicine.  But it is important to contact any hesitant Democrat.  A list of Democrats who are alleged to be undecided and which way they may be going can be found here (regularly updated).

If your Democrat Congressman or woman is not on the above list, since they are considered to be solid votes for Obamacare, it probably would do little good to contact them, though I hasten to add that I would never discourage any diehard patriots from doing so.  After all, this is America and we have an absolute 1st Amendment right to express our opinions and views to those we elect for public service, even if they ignore us.

Fifthly, if possible, get together with other like-minded individuals, whether they be tea party folks or other compadres.  Go to any rallies that may be in your area.  Check with Meet up and other sources for get-togethers.

Sixthly
, do something that probably no one is thinking of doing.  Write a letter to your insurance company and even to insurance companies you aren’t doing business with.  Tell them to stand up against the Obaminations thrust upon them by Barack and his bogus administration.  You may or may not be crazy about doing so but if ever the insurance companies need to hear from the American people, it is now.   Obama is working overtime to institute class warfare between us and them.  It is understandable if you have differences with your insurers.  But there is one big difference between them and your government.  Insurance companies cannot run your life and dictate you to do this and that and the other.  Your federal government can.  Work out your differences with the insurance companies.  If you can’t do so now, make a commitment to do so at some point.  We need massive opposition against Washington and we need to join hands with the insurance industry.  The time is now to do so.  Please take action.

Here is a partial list of companies to write:  Blue Cross, United Healthcare, State Farm, All-State, Farmers, Zurich, Hartford, Aetna.  If you can think of others, make a note of them.  Google them for their addresses.  Make sure you write headquarters and not your local offices.  Look for the presidents and/or CEO’s on their websites.  Write them a short letter, telling them to stand up against the Obama Administration and let them know you understand that Washington is working overtime to divide and conquer.  Believe me, if the insurers get multitudes of letters of public support, it will make it easier for them to say NO to the threats and coercions being forced upon them.


This post may be updated during the week.  For now, this should give you, my readers, some encouragement as we all work to drive a stake permanently thru this monster, hopefully never to return.

Categories: Uncategorized

The Case for Impeaching Barack Obama

March 9, 2010 4 comments

Since August of 2008, numerous lawsuits have been filed against Barack Obama by various attorneys, including: Phil Berg, Orly Taitz, Leo Donofrio, Mario Apuzzo and Gary Kreep of the U.S. Justice Foundation. The bulk of these suits were filed to mandate Obama to produce proof that he is a natural born U.S. citizen, according to Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5 of the U.S. Constitution which states that:

“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 35 years and been 14 years a resident within the United States.”

Anyone following these suits with any regularity or casual review knows three things:

1.      Every case thus far heard before the courts has been dismissed, usually for lack of standing or jurisdiction

2.      No case has yet to be adjudicated on the basis of its merits

3.      The birth certificate provided by Obama’s campaign team and Obama friendly websites has been refuted as bogus by experts and non-experts alike as it is deemed to not be an original copy.

One of the few sources meticulously covering all angles of the Obama eligibility issue is World Net Daily with over 300 articles since this issue first surfaced.  WND has been mocked, ridiculed and treated with contempt on this matter from both the left and the right.  However, its critics have thus far been evidentially unable to refute its findings.

WND has extensively documented the communications coming from both Congress and state legislatures towards constituents with questions pertaining to Obama’s eligibility as well as general comments when presented with this issue.  The comments from elected officials range from ridicule to indifference to the belief that the issue is settled to at least one brave Congressman who has put the question to America ’s putative president.

This writer has posed this issue numerous times to his elected officials in Washington , namely Congressman Peter Visclosky and Senators Evan Bayh and Dick Lugar.  At no time has any of the three responded to the concerns addressed to them.

It should be noted that Rep. Visclosky and Sen. Lugar have been faithful to respond to virtually every concern presented before them.  Whether the issue was cap and trade, Obamacare, hate crimes, spending, sovereignty, etc., both of them always wrote back, even when they admitted they did not agree with my positions and voted accordingly.

But when it came to Obama’s eligibility, this writer has yet to receive any correspondence one way or another.  It is quite telling that perhaps there is a huge cover-up that Congress doesn’t want to let the public in on.

For the record, out of roughly 30 letters sent to Sen. Bayh’s office over the last 2½ years on a myriad of issues, he has responded but twice and one of those was in response to a critical letter of his lack of representation this writer wrote to the local paper.

In this writer’s view, the refusal of Congress to hold hearings on Obama’s eligibility is a monumental miscarriage of justice to the constituents these elected officials serve.  The deafening silence points to a complicit Congress.  The thought that America may have a sitting president who is foreign born and arguably represents foreign interests should shudder Obama opponents and supporters alike.  Americans can disagree with the Obama agenda and fight tooth and nail to prevent its implementation. And Americans can accept him as legitimately elected, even it there were compelling questions relative to his victory.

But no American should have nagging thoughts in his or her mind as to whether their president is a natural born citizen.  It’s clear to any rational thinking individual that, when contrasted side to side, a natural born citizen is more likely to fairly represent America ’s best interests than a naturalized one.  Obama’s fondness for foreign policy and to put America on par with other foreign nations sends clear signals of questionable birth status.

However, while we must continue to force Mr. Obama to set the record straight as to his citizenship, it is time, even if reluctantly so, to turn our attention to impeachment.  Unlike impeachment, a failure or unwillingness on the part of Obama to provide proof of natural born citizenship warrants, according to experts and non-experts alike, simple removal from office.  Two examples of removal without impeachment can be found here.

But since simple removal is not immediately forthcoming, it is imperative that other avenues be pursued to oust America ’s putative president.

The U.S. Constitution states in Article II, Section 4:

“The president, vice-president and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

An extremely lengthy laundry list of cases could be made for impeachment.  In the minds of many folks, Obama’s actions to close Guantanamo Bay and for Islamic terrorists to be transferred to U.S. prisons, the pending trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a New York court instead of a military brig (though that may be changing), among many other items, including giving federal money to the family of the terrorist dictator of Libya, Muammar Gadhafi, likely constitute treason.  High crimes and misdemeanors arguably includes Social Security fraud and Selective Service fraud.

So many other compelling items for the removal of Barack Obama from office, which would take near endless time to document, can be viewed here.

However, I chose to cover the crime of bribery at this juncture because of recent events taking place in Washington.  The Obama Administration faces damning charges if the two events (one which surfaced last month) highlighted here (you need to read this link in order to grasp the full spectre of this matter) are indeed fact. Bribery, as its historically and traditional definition goes, is not in question here, if such jobs were indeed offered.  They should be investigated by Congress.

Of course, I don’t expect Obama & Eric Holder’s “see no evil, hear no evil, know no evil” approach to policy to change.

But an even more recent sinister charge of possible bribery in exchange for buying a vote may signal that the worst is yet to come.  A reason for this is because this one is better known in the public spotlight since it involves a judicial appointment and not just an administration job as in the above cases.  Another is because the vote could conceivably change the course of American history since landmark legislation is literally at stake.

The nomination of an arguably well qualified jurist by Barack Obama (a rare sense of brain power) to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has raised eyebrows since this individual is the brother of an existing Congressman.

In short, Obama had a meeting last week with roughly a dozen recalcitrant Democrats to prop up support for his ailing and failing Obamacare legislation.  One of those Dems was conservative (somewhat) Congressman Jim Matheson of Utah.  Rep. Matheson had voted against the first House version of Obamacare back in November.  Now sibling Scott faces confirmation as a result of his nomination with GOP Sen. Orrin Hatch leading the way.

The initial appearance and credentials of Scott Matheson reports that he may not tilt to the left, unlike a hard core leftist Obama appointee last year to the 7th Circuit who was deemed not qualified by even the American Bar Association.  Obama has not been shy about picking people ideologically to his liking on every issue.  For him to chart a different course here should not be seen as an obvious move to the so-called center by Obama but a more likely to buy the vote of the gentleman in Utah ’s second district.

What other logic makes sense here?  Well, when you go from a NO vote to “undecided”, what would you think?  If in the end Matheson votes NO the second time around, should Obamacare get a second vote (which is far from a foregone conclusion), then perhaps it was all a coincidence, which would on the surface seem strange.

But if a YES is forthcoming, then YES, it’s all but certain that Obama bought this vote.  It would be virtually certain that this is an impeachable offense.

And in this writer’s opinion, if Republicans (and some Democrats) don’t support the impeachment of America ’s putative president for bribery (among numerous other items), then nothing will.  They can ans should then all be viewed as either sellouts to the Constitution, indifferent or both, worthy of removal.

To further illustrate why impeachment is absolutely warranted (don’t forget we also had the Louisiana Purchase & the Cornhusker Kickback) and why now is the right time to do so, it’s important to note that there are at this moment two impeachment cases currently in place in the House Judiciary Committee. One is for Judge Sam Kent of Texas who was guilty of sexual misconduct, abuse of power and obstruction of justice. The impeachment hearings against Judge Kent are good reading but not specifically relevant here since bribery was not an issue.  If anything, it may be more along the lines with what former President Clinton was charged in his impeachment trial.  This judge is rightfully serving time in the big house for his bad conduct.

But the other case, the impeachment proceedings against Judge Thomas Porteous of Louisiana , is much more apropos since similar charges of bribery are in place and it is as recent as January.  It is also notable in that, as reported by one of the judiciary committee members, that up until then, there were no judicial impeachment cases for over 20 years (see page 38 of the link at the start of this paragraph).

Article I in the Porteous impeachment case states:

G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., while a Federal judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, engaged in a pattern of conduct that is incompatible with the trust and confidence placed in him as a Federal judge as follows:  Judge Porteous, while presiding as a United States district judge in Lifemark Hospitals of Louisiana, Inc. v. Liljeberg Enterprises, denied a motion to recuse himself from the case, despite the fact that he had a corrupt financial relationship with the law firm of Amato & Creely, P.C. which had entered the case to represent Liljeberg. In denying the motion to recuse, and in contravention of clear canons of judicial ethics,

Judge Porteous failed to disclose that beginning in or about the late 1980s while he was a State court judge in the 24th Judicial District Court in the State of Louisiana, he engaged in a corrupt scheme with attorneys, Jacob Amato, Jr., and Robert Creely, whereby Judge Porteous appointed Amato’s law partner as a ‘‘curator’’ in hundreds of cases and thereafter requested and accepted from Amato & Creely a portion of the curatorship fees which had been paid to the firm.

During the period of this scheme, the fees received by Amato & Creely amounted to approximately $40,000, and the amounts paid by Amato & Creely to Judge Porteous amounted to approximately $20,000.

Judge Porteous also made intentionally misleading statements at the recusal hearing intended to minimize the extent of his personal relationship with the two attorneys. In so doing, and in failing to disclose to Lifemark and its counsel the true circumstances of his relationship with the Amato & Creely law firm, Judge Porteous deprived the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals of critical information

for its review of a petition for a writ of mandamus, which sought to overrule Judge Porteous’s denial of the recusal motion. His conduct deprived the parties and the public of the right to the honest services of his office.

Judge Porteous also engaged in corrupt conduct after the Lifemark v. Liljeberg bench trial, and while he had the case under advisement, in that he solicited and accepted things of value from both Amato and his law partner Creely, including a payment of thousands of dollars in cash.

Thereafter and without disclosing his corrupt relationship with the attorneys of Amato & Creely PLC or his receipt from them of cash and other things of value, Judge Porteous ruled in favor of their client, Liljeberg. By virtue of this corrupt relationship and his conduct as a Federal judge, Judge Porteous brought his court into scandal and disrepute, prejudiced public respect for andconfidence in the Federal judiciary and demonstrated that he is unfit for the office of Federal judge.

Wherefore, Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr. is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and should be removed from office.

I don’t know about you but a payout to a judge from a legal firm once in close relationship with him in order to influence a particular outcome of a case he presided with them bears scant difference from the Matheson controversy.  Add to that the likelihood (the two cases mentioned and alluded to here earlier) and you have a very good possibility that bribery, which is, constitutionally speaking, an impeachable offense and a federal crime, was committed by the Obama Administration.

It should and must not be ignored.

I had planned to draft a petition for articles of impeachment to be filed against putative president Obama but since there are other websites doing that, we will refrain from doing so for the time being.

However, as things stand, I believe it is quite appropriate to ask the House Judiciary Committee to conduct an investigation into the Sestak and Romanoff cases (the aforementioned ones) as well as the Matheson one and file impeachment charges against Barack Obama as warranted.

As stated much earlier, I believe it is far preferable to have Mr. Obama simply removed for being constitutionally ineligible.  But if Congress will not do it, then we must urge them to begin impeachment proceedings pertaining to the alleged bribery committed.  In this case, we must request the U.S. House to do so since constitutionally speaking, impeachment cases start in the House.

If your Congressman is on the Judiciary Committee, you need to contact him or her and ask them to launch hearings and if appropriate, impeachment charged against Barack Obama for counts of bribery.

But regardless of whether your Congressman serves on the above committee, I urge you to contact Democrat Chairman John Conyers and Ranking Republican Lamar Smith to urge them to file the appropriate documents in preparation for such charges.

Please note – although Congressmen Conyers and Smith may not be your own elected representatives, because they wield a ton of clout for all America as their party’s heads of this committee, you need to let them know of your concerns.

I have outlined below the letter I faxed yesterday to their Washington offices.



Congressman John Conyers
Chairman, House Judiciary
U.S. House, Rm. 2138
Washington, DC  20515
Fax: (202) 225-7680


Congressman Lamar Smith
Ranking Republican, House Judiciary Committee
U.S. House, Rm. 2142
Washington, DC  20515
Fax: (202) 225-7082

3/8/10

Dear Chairman Conyers & Congressman Smith:

I write you today with great heaviness in my heart for this country as well as our rule of law.  It is my fervent hope and prayer that you will read everything I have to say and act accordingly.

By way of introduction, my name is Nedd Kareiva.  I am the former director of the Stop the ACLU Coalition (www.stoptheaclu.org – currently inactive) and the current director of a new organization known as Public School Exodus. Our website (currently offline) is www.publicschoolexodus.com.  Between our databases and my personal contacts, I represent roughly 5000 patriots across the fruited plain.

I believe I speak for nearly all of my contacts when I say that I am gravely concerned about the direction our nation is headed. Between high unemployment and a declining economy social infrastructure, I am convinced an about face is vitally needed before America is permanently lost.

It is probably not lost on both of you that America’s putative president, Barack Obama, is rapidly sinking into the political gutter.  Between the current scandals in Washington and on Capitol Hill, massive spending, unprecedented job losses and a relentless push for his highly unpopular health care legislation, public confidence in Washington and this man is nearly at an all time low. The reliable Rasmussen poll today shows a mere 22% in strong support of him with 41% strongly disapproving of his actions.  It’s fairly safe to say that Mr. Obama is political toast.  However, he shows little, if any, sign of caring about any of these matters.  This is quite troubling.

I checked out the House Judiciary’s website over the weekend and observed that this committee has considered impeachment charges against U.S. District Judge Sam Kent of Southern Texas and more recently filed such charges against U.S. District Judge Thomas Porteous of Eastern Louisiana.  It appears the charges levied against Judge Kent currently lie dormant, perhaps because he was sentenced to nearly 3 years in the penitentiary for charges of sexual assault and abuse of power.  As horrific as that was, it’s irrelevant for the time being since justice has apparently been served with Judge Kent being locked up.

The charges against Judge Porteous, however, though rather different, are just as serious because abuses of power were committed during his tenure on the bench.  The first charge, the kickback scheme, is one that is most notable and which I want to address.

From what I have read, it appears the Louisiana jurist engaged in wrongful activity as pertaining to a long term financial relationship with a law firm and adjudicating a case in favor of his friend’s legal counsel without disclosure to the opposing legal team.  The Judiciary Committee reported the law firm proceeded to collect $40K from their client and sent half of it to Judge Porteous.

As noted in one of the documents posted on the Judiciary website, such actions on the part of this judge arguably constitute high crimes and misdemeanors   While I believe such a description is thoroughly accurate, I believe it would have been even more fitting had the term “bribery” been used and added, along with the constitutional reference to impeachment in Article II, Section 4.

I fully agree that the actions of Judge Porteous warrant his removal from office.  And I am pleased that the members of the committee were unanimous or nearly unanimous in every count filed against both Judge Porteous and now ex-Judge Kent.  It was notable that, per Congressman Goodlatte and other members of the committee, the desire for swift justice was mutually bipartisan and cordial.

It is along those same lines I respectfully request that members of the committee consider investigating possible bribery charges against the Obama Administration.

As you may know, there is said to be three cases where by Mr. Obama and/or a member of his staff used coercion or other actions in exchange for political favors, charges which could easily be translated to bribery under the proper circumstances.

The first case was reported last summer by the Denver Post over the Senate seat currently occupied by Mike Bennett of Colorado.  Mr. Bennett was appointed by Gov. Bill Ritter to replace Sen. Ken Salazar who went to work as Secretary of the Interior.  It was claimed that a state lawmaker who sought this appointment was offered a position at U.S. AID if he would consider abandoning his run.

The second case involved a possible appointment to Secretary of the Navy for Rep. Jim Sestak in exchange for not challenging incumbent Sen. Arlen Specter in the Democrat primaries. While the Pennsylvania Congressman refused to answer a question as to what position he was offered, he readily admitted that he was offered a job in the federal government.

And most recently concerns the rumors flying that Mr. Obama nominated the brother of Congressman Jim Matheson for a seat at the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in exchange for the Utah legislator’s YES vote for the legislation now commonly termed Obamacare.

Congressmen, these are serious indictments that must not be glossed over.  To charge a corrupt judge with abuse of power for bribing a group of lawyers to achieve a favorable outcome but not to charge Barack Obama and/or his administration with abuse of power and bribery to gain certain leverage is a serious offense.  It violates the spirit and law in the 14th Amendment which forbids the denial of equal protection of the law.  In other words, putative president Obama and Judge Porteous must placed equally under the scrutiny of the law and judged the same way by it.

President JFK once said that it was a federal offense “to offer any man a federal job in return for a favor.”  If the words of JFK mean anything today, Obama and his administration must be fully investigated for bribery, an impeachable offense.  I urge you both to use the full weight of your positions to do the right thing and launch a criminal probe into the White House on these matters.

I am well aware that there are risks, politically and perhaps well beyond, for challenging Mr. Obama. It appears, based on his relationships with foreign power sources, such as George Soros and Middle East Muslims, not to mention his relationship with the ultra wealthy Goldman Sachs, that he is untouchable.  While human nature might dictate a form of reticence, based on Obama’s connections, such must not persuade either of you nor any member of the Judiciary from doing what is right. The public would insist on a thorough investigation of the charges. I cannot strongly urge you enough to do the same. This could well be the Watergate of the Obama Administration.

The possibility that one of these accusations could be true might give little pause if there were no other scandals or controversies.  Two such actions of offering favors for federal employment, while possibly alarming, could be viewed as coincidental.  But three such possibilities, well, I think most betting men wouldn’t bet a full deck on this being nothing.

That aside, sizable majorities of Americans view Obama’s actions to assign Gitmo detainees to American prisons and his desire to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other Islamic terrorists to U.S. courts as treasonous and thus impeachable.  His appeasements with foreign Muslim nations also raise questions as to whether his loyalty is to the United States or some foreign powers.  These matters should be thoroughly looked into as well.

And on top of it all, you have a continually growing uneasiness relevant to Mr. Obama’s questionable constitutional eligibility to be president.  Congress has ignored this elephant on Capitol Hill since the commencement of the 111th Congress.  The issue is not going way anytime soon.  Congressmen and senators have heard from constituents from all across America who have serious doubts as to whether Mr. Obama is a U.S. citizen and most have given short shrift to their constituents’ concerns.  Congress has neglected to investigate this crisis and it shows, be it thru correspondence to members’ constituents or on the House or Senate floor.  The courts have consistently refused to address it as well, most frequently citing lack of standing or jurisdiction.  Not one case has been decided on the facts and the merits of the case.  No court has dismissed a case based on evidence.

In this writer’s opinion, Congress has done a grave disservice to the roughly half the country who have nagging doubts on Mr. Obama’s eligibility to be president.  It is incumbent upon our elected officials in Washington to ignore this critical issue no more.

For all these reasons and so many more which are not even laid out here, I cannot strongly urge you enough, Rep. Conyers as chairman and Rep. Smith as ranking Republican, to thoroughly investigate the issues above of bribery, treason and eligibility and report to the public an honest dispersal of the facts. The same way the committee has been above reproach and in bipartisanship towards Judge Porteous I expect the Judiciary Committee to do no less in approaching the issues concerning putative president Obama.

A timely response to my letter to you would most certainly be appreciated.  Thank you for taking the time to hear my concerns.

Respectfully,

Nedd Kareiva
(Address removed for this post)


Please note the following as you address this with your elected officials.

  • Since the House is where impeachment proceedings begin, it is important that at this juncture you only contact your Congressman or woman and not your senators.  Express your concerns similarly as outlined in the above letter and in the full post.  Everyone should contact their representatives, even more so if they are Republicans or if they serve on the Judiciary.  And everyone needs to contact both Congressman Conyers and Congressman Smith.
  • While phone calls help tabulate the amount of interest constituents have for the removal of Barack Obama, it is important to have your communications in writing.  In the same way verbal contacts have little, if any, power and meaning behind them, it is the same thing in contacting your elected officials.  A well written (preferably typed) letter (preferably no more than two pages) will get the attention of your elected official and/or his or her staff.  That is not to say a phone call is useless.  It certainly is not.  But calls can be ignored or forgotten. Letters cannot so easily be dismissed as such are considered more thoughtful than communications via the telephone.
  • Avoid the e-mail route, if at all possible, since e-mails are frequently deleted without reading or ignored.  Most lawmakers cannot be directly reached today via direct e-mail from your personal account. They now (almost all of them) provide a web form on their websites for you to submit your requests.  However, unlike a sent e-mail from your mailbox which gives you a note of confirmation after sending, outside of calling your lawmakers’ offices, there is little way of knowing for sure whether he or she received your message unless you call them to verify but even then they may not be telling you the truth, particularly if the representative is a liberal Democrat.
  • If at all possible, use a fax to get your message to your lawmakers as quickly as possible.  If you don’t have one and can’t afford one, many supply stores, real estate offices and currency exchanges do and you can often get your message over for just $2 or $3 dollars.  Efax.com is also another tool you may use, though there is a limit of how many you can send for free.  Going over their quota will either force you to buy into one of their packages or if you can’t afford to, will result in you being blocked from sending your message.
  • If you have the means of doing so, FedEx your letter to your lawmaker’s Washington offices.  That will demonstrate how serious you are about this matter.  Avoid snail mail as that can take up to two weeks for delivery with all the anthrax and other security measures in place.
  • If you don’t want to fax or mail your letter and it’s not too far away, take it over to your Congressman or woman’s local district office and ask an aide there to fax it to his or her DC offices.  Obviously that will not work in the case of the Chairman’s or ranking Republican’s offices unless  Reps. Conyers and Smith are your actual representatives in DC.
  • While petitions have a modest effect on lawmakers, it is best by far if you can use your own words to draft your letters and thus skip the many online petitions that you can find.  It’s OK to go to those sites to understand the content of what is at stake, sites like here.  But you do best when you put your own words in your letters instead of using a petition to send what is considered by some a canned message.
  • And while it is perfectly permissible to use my above letter as your own personal correspondence, it is much better to use the letter as a guideline for what you have to say.  I have laid out many good links in this post for you, my readers, as references.  Please take a little time to do your due diligence to gain a decent grasp of what is at stake and why impeachment is imperative and by far the best way (absent the preferred outright removal) to get the usurper out of office.
  • Please close your letters with a request for a reply.
  • Please note that in the above letter, it is possible that you might get a ring, no answer or busy signal at the Judiciary Committee’s fax number.  If this persists, then send your faxes to Rep.  Conyers’ & Rep. Smith’s Congressional offices.  Mr. Conyers office fax is (202) 225-0072 and Mr. Smith’s fax is (202) 225-8628.
  • And should you decide you would like to fax the entire Judiciary Committee, their office fax numbers are here.
  • Keep copies of your letters.  At some point, we might request copies (if you’re willing to share them) so we can get an idea of what was said and to whom it was sent to.
  • Of course, be sure to spread the word to everyone who agrees with the absolute need to remove the pseudo-American Marxist from power.

If you have faxed or sent via FedEx letters to your Congressmen and women and/or the Judiciary Committee, please let me know by sending me an e-mail at TheObamaCrisis@ymail.com.

And though we are not yet looking to compile letters, if you would like to now share with me what you wrote, include that in your e-mail.  You may either copy and paste it into the e-mail body or you can send as an attachment in Word or PDF (no other programs, please).

Again, please spread the word and let’s force the Judiciary Committee to do its job again America’s bogus “president”.  Thank you and God bless.

Categories: Uncategorized