‘Social Justice’ as Problem … and Solution?

Apparently, President Obama’s economic handlers seem to believe that a so called stimulus package dripping in the trappings of “social justice” will foster economic growth and bring us out of the down economy created in large part because of . . . well . . . social justice.

Please remember that it was the relaxed lending standards forced onto lending institutions as part of the same homeownership-as-a-right culture championed by former President Bill Clinton–and widely considered, at the time, to be a success of his administration–which snowballed into credit difficulties and much of the general malaise we see today. Yet, with regard to the money earmarked for this new stimulus” package, we’re right back to where we started.

Let’s assume, for a second, that printing more money at the expense of the taxpayers and the taxpayers’ children actually will work to stimulate our economy (it won’t, we know that, but bear with me). If we are going to write an enormous blank check, shouldn’t the money go to those who can best and most efficiently turn that money into economic growth? Shouldn’t that distinction be made based upon capability, not color? And, for that matter, shouldn’t the infrastructure projects be completed by those with the requisite experience, rather than those who simply need the work?

Not anymore. If we gave the money to those who knew how to handle it, if we paid for workers qualified to do the work, those who would squander the money would be unfairly treated. From a WorldNetDaily piece:

“It seems to me that infrastructure spending is a very important and good way of stimulating the economy. The challenge will be to do it quickly, to find projects that can be done that will have a high social return, that also can be done with the greatest speed possible,” Reich said.

“I am concerned, as I’m sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high skilled people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers,” he said.

The hearing took place two weeks before Obama was inaugurated.

“I have nothing against white male construction workers,” Reich said. “I’m just saying there are a lot of other people who have needs as well.

“There are ways in which the money can be, criteria can be set so the money does go to others, the long term unemployed, minorities, women,” he said.

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., appeared to agree, suggesting federal money be directed to specific groups of people.

The federal government, he said, must “remove the discretion” about where the funds go, or what projects would be involved, even to the point of eliminating any input from governors or state legislatures.

Reich agreed: “Governors ought to be, should be given a choice of signing on the bottom line or not.”

Then Rangel noted the “middle class” would be unlikely to create any opposition to funds directed to minorities.

“One thing that you can depend on, you don’t have to be worried about what the middle class is going to do. Things are so bad, they have to put food on their tables, get clothes for their kids, get them in school,” he said.

I think I finally get the whole “hope” and “change” thing now. We’ve changed presidents since Bill Clinton disregarded common sense in favor of increased government control and in the name of “social engineering,” and we can only hope that Barack Obama’s plans to disregard common sense in favor of increased government control and in the name of “social engineering” will somehow go better now than it did the first time.

Look at it this way: Obama, through the thick and thin of his first 72 hours as president of the United States, is keeping one of his campaign promises — transparency. When we look at his economic advisers and their plans, after all, spotting the socialism and the penchant for a bloated, overreaching federal government is easy.



  1. Andrew says:

    By Lynn Stuter
    January 13, 2009
    On January 8, 2009, with no objection being raised, Congress — House and Senate — voted unanimously to certify the Electoral College.
    Not one legislator, Republican or Democrat, Senator or Representative, could or did refute even one of the undisputed facts concerning the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to the office of president under Article II, Section 1, United States Constitution. Not one!
    Those undisputed facts are as follows:
    1. Barack Hussein Obama has not been vetted or certified eligible to the office of president of the United States by any agency tasked to do so or authorized to do so.
    2. Not one American citizen, not one Senator, not one Representative has seen, touched or examined Barack Hussein Obama’s vault copy Hawaii birth certificate. While October 31, 2008, Dr Chiyome Fukino, Department of Health, Hawaii, issued a press release in which she stated that she had “seen and verified” that a Hawaii birth certificate for Obama did exist; she did not state what was on it nor did she state that it showed that Obama was born in Hawaii.
    3. The Certification of Live Birth (COLB) that Obama has been waving about is not a “birth certificate” as he claims, as the mainstream media claims, as FactCheck.org and FighttheSmears.com claims. The COLB is a short form, computer printed document deriving the information printed thereon from a database of information supposedly (See #13 and #14 below) taken from the original long form vault copy Hawaiian birth certificate.
    4. Factcheck.org claims to be a non-partisan organization. Factcheck.org is funded by the Annenberg Foundation on whose board Obama sat. Factcheck.org is about as non-partisan as is Obama. The Annenberg Foundation has never passed up a chance to fund a “progressive” (a.k.a., Marxist) cause.
    5. Hawaii has a law, HRS 338-17.8, which allows for the birth registration of a child born in a foreign country so long as one parent is a U.S. citizen and so long as that parent claimed Hawaii as his or her permanent residence for one year prior to the birth. Stanley Ann (Dunham) Obama met both of these requirements.
    6. If Obama was born in Hawaii, he is, at best, a dual citizen. At his birth, his father was a British subject as Kenya was a British colony. Dual citizenship precludes Obama from eligibility under Article II, Section 1, United States Constitution. Prior cases decided by the United States Supreme Court, involving the determination of “natural born” have used Vattel’s “The Law of Nations” definition which states, “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” (Part I, Chapter 19, Section 212). Factcheck.org states that Obama was a dual citizen at birth.
    7. If Obama was born in Kenya, he was, at birth, a British subject as Kenya was a British colony. American law, at that time, required that Stanley Ann (Dunham) Obama be a minimum of 19 years of age at his birth to confer to him her American citizenship if he was born outside the United States; she was only 18 years old when Obama was born.
    8. Barack Hussein Obama’s paternal step-grandmother has stated before witnesses, said witnesses signing affidavits, that she was witness to the birth of Obama in Kenya. See here, here, and here.
    9. Michelle Obama has stated that Barack Hussein Obama was adopted by his step-father, Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian citizen.
    10. When Barack Hussein Obama was registered at the Fransiskus Assissi Primary School in Jakarta, Indonesia, his father was listed as Lolo Seotoro; his citizenship as Indonesian; his name as Barry Soetoro.
    11. When Stanley Ann (Dunham) Soetoro divorced Lolo Soetoro in 1980, the divorce papers show they had two children: one minor child (Maya), one over 18 (Barack).
    12. When Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, became an Indonesian citizen, his British citizenship would have been terminated; if he was born in Hawaii, also his American dual citizenship. Indonesia does not allow for dual citizenship.
    13. Returning to the COLB. This document, as waved about by Obama, may be authentic on its face (See #14), but it is not accurate. Were it accurate, it would show Lolo Soetoro as his father; his name as Barry Soetoro.
    14. The COLB Obama waves about lists the race of his biological father as “African.” African is not a race any more than American is. This brings into question the authenticity of the COLB Obama is waving about as his “birth certificate.”
    15. If Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, did become an American citizen, he became a naturalized American citizen which precludes him from eligibility under Article II, Section 1, United States Constitution. There has been no proof presented that he is even a naturalized American citizen.
    16. Barack Hussein Obama has multiple aliases: Barry Soetoro, Barry Dunham, Barry Obama, Barack Soetoro, Barack Dunham. When he registered with the American Bar Association, he listed none of these as is required by law. Unless he had his name legally changed to Barack Hussein Obama after his adoption, of which there has been no proof presented, Barry Soetoro is his real name and Barack Hussein Obama is an alias.
    17. All his passport records, education records, medical records, birth records have become “not available” to the public. Those records show where he was born, if he applied for or received aid as a foreign student, the country or countries from which he has received passports.
    18. His selective service registration appears to be fraudulent. If he was a naturalized American citizen when he turned 18, and he failed to register with the selective service, he is barred from holding any position in government, elected or otherwise.
    19. If he is not even a naturalized citizen, he is barred from holding any elected office.
    20. If he is not even a naturalized citizen, he is an illegal alien.

    When Senators and Representatives are elected to service their fellow Americans in Washington, DC, they take an oath of office to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” That oath ends with “So help me God.”
    Following are some of the responses American citizens received from their elected representative to Washington, DC.
    Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA):
    Without a doubt, Congress has the responsibility to uphold the Constitution, including assuring that our elected officials meet the requirements of the job. As you point out in your letter, one must be a natural-born citizen of the United States in order to serve as the president. There have been a few cases brought before the courts in various states that address concerns about the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate. None of these cases have been taken up by the courts. It is my understanding that Obama’s birth certificate has been certified as being authentic and as placing his birth in Hawaii. I thank you for bringing this concern to my attention and wish to assure you that I support transparency for the records of all candidates but especially for a job as grave as the President of the United States.
    Senator Isakson (R-GA):
    The United States Constitution requires the President to be a natural born citizen of the United States. Senator Obama’s campaign provided his birth certificate to the media amid allegations that he did not meet this qualification. The certificate, confirmed by the Hawaii Department of Health as authentic, shows that he was born in Hawaii. There are a number of lawsuits pending on this matter, and I will be following the outcomes of the cases closely.
    Representative Wally Herger (R-CA):
    As you know, some questions have been raised about whether President-elect Obama is a natural born citizen. There was a recent lawsuit arguing that he is not eligible for the Presidency for this reason. I understand that the Supreme Court considered hearing this lawsuit, but it ultimately turned down the request to have the case before the full court. I also understand that the director of Hawaii’s Department of Health recently confirmed that President-elect Obama was born in Honolulu and has said that she has personally verified that her agency has his original birth certificate on record. Although I value your concern, and I will continue to monitor this issue, I do not believe that sufficient evidence has been brought to light at this time to conclude that President-elect Obama is ineligible for the office.
    Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL):
    As you may know, a voter recently raised this issue before a federal court in Pennsylvania. On October 24, 2008, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania released an order in the case of Berg v.Obama. In that case, the plaintiff, Phillip Berg, raised the same issue that your letter raises regarding proof of the President-Elect’s birthplace. Through his lawsuit, Mr. Berg sought to compel President-Elect Obama to produce a certified copy of his birth certificate.
    The District Court dismissed Mr. Berg’s suit and held that the question of Obama’s citizenship is not a matter for a court to decide. The court further noted that voters, not courts, should decide whether a particular presidential candidate is qualified to hold office.
    Presidential candidates are vetted by voters at least twice – first in the primary elections and again in the general election. President-Elect Obama won the Democratic Party’s nomination after one of the most fiercely contested presidential primaries in American history. And, he has now been duly elected by the majority of voters in the United States. Throughout both the primary and general election, concerns about Mr. Obama’s birthplace were raised. The voters have made clear their view that Mr. Obama meets the qualifications to hold the office of President.
    After he is sworn into office, Mr. Obama will be our nation’s President and I intend to bestow upon him the honor and respect due any man who holds that Office. Yet, I am certain that there will be times when I will disagree and oppose President Obama’s policies. When that happens, you can be assured that I will pursue vigorously what I believe to be in the best interest of Florida and the nation.
    And these people were elected to serve the American people in the U.S. Senate or U.S. House of Representatives. If they approach something as important as the eligibility of a candidate to the office of president with this level of apathy, how can we ever believe they approach a bill with anything less? Is it any wonder our country is in the mess it is?
    But indifference of the facts is not an excuse for the failure by Senators and Representatives to uphold the U.S. Constitution and their oath of office. It has been proven, beyond reasonable doubt, that Barack Hussein Obama is not an American citizen and is not, therefore, eligible to the office of president under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, United States Constitution. And every lawyer among those serving in Washington DC knows that just because a lawsuit is dismissed does not mean it is without merit. As so adequately displayed in the irresponsible responses above, these representatives try to make the claim, by insinuation, that since cases were dismissed on administrative grounds (procedural), that they are without merit (factual basis). Nothing could be further from the truth. Administrative procedure has nothing to do with the merits of a case. A case can have merit but still be dismissed on administrative grounds. This is often the process used by judges to get out of addressing cases they don’t want to address; especially cases where their loyalty is to the money-changers in the temple. There is not a judge in American that cannot be bought like a whore on a street corner. Those who can’t be bought, like Judge Roy Moore, find themselves removed from the bench.
    If there was any doubt before January 8, 2009 of how the U S Senators and Representatives, and the U.S. Supreme Court view the people of this nation, that doubt is no more; they have made it crystal clear that, in their eyes, the people of this nation are nothing more than chattel to be used, abused and discarded at the pleasure of a centralized, totalitarian global regime.
    If we, the people, subjugate, we deserve the misery we heap on ourselves! The Declaration of Independence makes it clear:
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

    To the traitors that are our U.S. Senators and Representatives; Numbers 30:2 is quite apropos, “If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.” Every Senator, ever Representative takes an oath before God; the closing words of that oath being “So help me God.” While they may scoff at the word of God now except when it suits them to do otherwise, will they scoff when they stand before God in atonement?
    © 2009 Lynn M. Stuter – All Rights Reserved
    E-mail This Page
    Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

    Activist and researcher, Stuter has spent the last fifteen years researching systems theory and systems philosophy with a particular emphasis on education as it pertains to achieving the sustainable global environment. She home schooled two daughters. She has worked with legislators, both state and federal, on issues pertaining to systems governance, the sustainable global environment and education reform. She networks nationwide with other researchers and a growing body of citizens concerned with the transformation of our nation from a Constitutional Republic to a participatory democracy. She has traveled the United States and lived overseas.
    Web site: http://www.learn-usa.com
    E-Mail: lmstuter@learn-usa.com

  2. rrobin says:

    Any word yet from SCOTUS about Dr. Orly’s case today?

  3. Miss W says:

    Reich’s words are especially heart warming when your own father (who has worked himself ragged for your family your whole life) is a “white male construction worker”.

  4. Matt says:

    Reich said that he doesn’t want construction jobs to go to high-skilled construction workers, What the hell???? I guess Reich would like the ice-cream man to build his new home – I bet that would look real nice! Or I guess a guy working at the Gap could run out and build a bridge that would last 100 years huh?

    Also, it’s funny how he mentioned the “white male” construction worker. I guess he hasn’t been to California and any where else I have been lately – It’s hard to find someone who speaks English on the jobsite, and a “white male” construction worker is the minority for sure….so now he is discriminating against a minority in the construction field (at least in California).

  5. Amy says:

    This reminds me of a clever and unfortunately spot on article. Sorry for such a long post but it is taken from one of my favorite sites that will be going away on Feb 1, 2009 so I have to put the whole thing here:

    Protection For The Unabilitied:

    Washington, DC – November 5, 2008 – President Elect Barack Obama and the Democrat controlled Congress is considering sweeping legislation that will provide new benefits for many Americans. The Americans With No Abilities Act. AWNAA is being hailed as a major legislative goal by advocates of the millions of Americans who lack any real skills or ambition.

    ‘Roughly 50 percent of Americans do not possess the competence and drive necessary to carve out a meaningful role for themselves in society,’ said California Senator Barbara Boxer. ‘We can no longer stand by and allow People of Inability to be ridiculed and passed over. With this legislation, employers will no longer be able to grant special favors to a small group of workers, simply because they have some idea of what they are doing.’

    In a Capitol Hill press conference, House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pointed to the success of the U.S. Postal Service, which has a long-standing policy of providing opportunity without regard to performance. Approximately 74 percent of postal employees lack any job skills, making this agency the single largest U.S employer of Persons of Inability.

    Private-sector industries with good records of non-discrimination against the Inept include retail sales (72%), the airline industry (68%), and home improvement ‘warehouse’ stores (65%). At the state government level, the Department of Motor Vehicles also has an excellent record of hiring Persons of Inability (63%).

    Under The Americans With No Abilities Act, more than 25 million ‘middle man’ positions will be created, with important-sounding titles but little real responsibility, thus providing an illusory sense of purpose and performance.

    Mandatory non-performance-based raises and promotions will be given so as to guarantee upward mobility for even the most unremarkable employees. The legislation provides substantial tax breaks to corporations that promote a significant number of Persons of Inability into middle-management positions, and gives a tax credit to small and medium-sized businesses that agree to hire one clueless worker for every two talented hires.

    Finally, the AWNAA contains tough new measures to make it more difficult to discriminate against the non-abled, banning, for example, discriminatory interview questions such as, ‘Do you have any skills or experience that relate to this job?’

    ‘As a Non-abled person, I can’t be expected to keep up with people who have something going for them,’ said Mary Lou Gertz, who lost her position as a lug-nut twister at the GM plant in Flint, Michigan, due to her inability to remember ‘rightey tightey, lefty loosey.’ ‘This new law should be real good for people like me,’ Gertz added. With the passage of this bill, Gertz and millions of other untalented citizens will finally see a light at the end of the tunnel.

    Said Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL): ‘As a Senator with no abilities, I believe the same privileges that elected officials enjoy ought to be extended to every American with no abilities. It is our duty as lawmakers to provide each and every American citizen, regardless of his or her inadequacy, with some sort of space to take up in this great nation and a good salary for doing so.


  6. Anonymous says:

    My brother is a White Male Construction worker. He’s also a high school dropout, a former alcoholic and former drug user. He’s now got his life together, got a GED and started his own Construction company. Guess he’s too privileged to get any contracts or maybe he just has that rare disease known as ambition.

    Mr. Obama needs a lesson in the effects of incentive.


  7. Anonymous says:

    Has Obama condemned the “white males” remark?

  8. gailbullock says:

    Oh, Jesus! Our boat is sinking. Please teach us how to walk on water, as Obama does!

  9. Mad Mom says:

    Holy stupidity, Batman! I’m going to have to write my representatives again. I’m becoming so familiar, I’m sure I’ll get an invitation to their office Christmas party.

    The word verification is ‘greez’. I kind of like it. It’s fitting.

  10. Rix says:

    I do not even question the sanity of people who voted Obama into the office: most of them planned to benefit financially from his rule. I do question, however, the sanity of other Americans who keep swallowing this slop without even a peep. In Israel where I used to live for a decade, such a decision would be likely met with an armed uprisal!

  11. Dolly Bama says:

    My Liberal friends have been asking me to name the 3 Law Firms the Messiah is using to fight the eligibilty suits. We know he is using Sandler, et al (The CAIR attorney).

    Can anyone provide the names of the other 2 law firms?

  12. Anonymous says:

    Guess LawDawg doesn’t know anything today either.

  13. Claudia says:

    Not to keep beating this horse, but Leo posted a very insightful and lengthy synopsis of the 4th Arm of the Courts, the Federal Grand Jury; and it should be read and passed to all who have been denied by the SCOTUS or any other courts for/by Standing or any other indifferent form of negating our concerns. Here following is what Leo Donofrio wrote:

    The Federal Grand Jury is the 4th Branch of Government
    Posted in Uncategorized on January 22, 2009 by naturalborncitizen
    [I originally posted this essay at my Citizenspook blog back in 2005.]All of us may one day serve as grand jurors in federal court, and I hope this article will educate the reader to his/her true power as granted by the Constitution. For that power, despite having been hidden for many years behind the veil of a legislative fraud, still exists in all of its glory in the 5th Amendment to the Constitution. The US Supreme Court has confirmed and reinforced that power.

    So please, copy this report and paste it far and wide. It is not spin. It is not false. It is not for sale, it is not copyrighted by me, so paste and quote it freely. This report is the truth and we need truth, now, more than ever.

    The Constitutional power of “we the people” sitting as grand jurors has been subverted by a deceptive play on words since 1946 when the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were enacted. Regardless, the power I am going to explain to you still exists in the Constitution, and has been upheld by the United States Supreme Court despite the intention of the legislature and other legal scholars to make our power disappear with a cheap magic trick.

    Repeat a lie with force and repetition and the lie becomes known as truth. In the case of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution, the power of the grand jury, to return “presentments” on its own proactive initiation, without reliance upon a US Attorney to concur in such criminal charges, has been usurped by an insidious play on words.

    Most of this article is going to quote other scholars, judges and legislators as I piece together a brief but thorough history of the federal grand jury for your review. But the punch line is my personal contribution to the cause:


    My input into this vital fight is no more than the analysis of a few carefully used words. It only took a small sleight of pen back in 1946 to hide our power, and it won’t take more than a few words to take that power back. But a proper overview is necessary for most of you who are unfamiliar with the issue at hand. So let me provide you with some history and then we’ll see what went wrong and how to correct it.


    I want to draw your attention to a law review article, CREIGHTON LAW REVIEW, Vol. 33, No. 4 1999-2000, 821, IF IT’S NOT A RUNAWAY, IT’S NOT A REAL GRAND JURY by Roger Roots, J.D.

    “In addition to its traditional role of screening criminal cases for prosecution, common law grand juries had the power to exclude prosecutors from their presence at any time and to investigate public officials without governmental influence. These fundamental powers allowed grand juries to serve a vital function of oversight upon the government. The function of a grand jury to ferret out government corruption was the primary purpose of the grand jury system in ages past.”

    The 5th Amendment:

    “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.”

    An article appearing in American Juror, the newsletter of the American Jury Institute and the Fully Informed Jury Association, citing the famed American jurist, Joseph Story, explained :

    “An indictment is a written accusation of an offence preferred to, and presented, upon oath, as true, by a grand jury, at the suit of the government. An indictment is framed by the officers of the government, and laid before the grand jury. Presentments, on the other hand, are the result of a jury’s independent action:

    ‘A presentment, properly speaking, is an accusation, made by a grand jury of its own mere motion, of an offence upon its own observation and knowledge, or upon evidence before it, and without any bill of indictment laid before it at the suit of the government. Upon a presentment, the proper officer of the court must frame an indictment, before the party accused can be put to answer it.’ “

    Back to the Creighton Law Review:

    “A ‘runaway’ grand jury, loosely defined as a grand jury which resists the accusatory choices of a government prosecutor, has been virtually eliminated by modern criminal procedure. Today’s “runaway” grand jury is in fact the common law grand jury of the past. Prior to the emergence of governmental prosecution as the standard model of American criminal justice, all grand juries were in fact “runaways,” according to the definition of modern times; they operated as completely independent, self-directing bodies of inquisitors, with power to pursue unlawful conduct to its very source, including the government itself.”

    So, it’s clear that the Constitution intended to give the grand jury power to instigate criminal charges, and this was especially true when it came to government oversight. But something strange happened on the way to the present. That power was eroded by a lie enacted by the legislative branch. The 5th Amendment to the Constitution still contains the same words quoted above, but if you sit on a grand jury and return a “presentment” today, the prosecutor must sign it or it probably won’t be allowed to stand by the judge and the criminal charges you have brought to the court’s attention will be swept away. And the reason for this can be found in a legislative lie of epic proportions.

    Mr. Roots weighs in again:

    “In 1946, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were adopted, codifying what had previously been a vastly divergent set of common law procedural rules and regional customs.[86] In general, an effort was made to conform the rules to the contemporary state of federal criminal practice.[87] In the area of federal grand jury practice, however, a remarkable exception was allowed. The drafters of Rules 6 and 7, which loosely govern federal grand juries, denied future generations of what had been the well-recognized powers of common law grand juries: powers of unrestrained investigation and of independent declaration of findings. The committee that drafted the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provided no outlet for any document other than a prosecutor-signed indictment. In so doing, the drafters at least tacitly, if not affirmatively, opted to ignore explicit constitutional language.“[88]“

    Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (FRCP):

    “An offense which may be punished by death shall be prosecuted by indictment. An offense which may be punished by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year or at hard labor shall be prosecuted by indictment…”

    No mention of “presentments” can be found in Rule 7. But they are mentioned in Note 4 of the Advisory Committee Notes on the Rules:

    “4. Presentment is not included as an additional type of formal accusation, since presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at least as concerns the Federal courts.”

    The American Juror published the following commentary with regards to Note 4:

    “[W]hile the writers of the federal rules made provisions for indictments, they made none for presentments. This was no oversight. According to Professor Lester B. Orfield, a member of the Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure, the drafters of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 6 decided the term presentment should not be used, even though it appears in the Constitution. Orfield states [22 F.R.D. 343, 346]:

    ‘There was an annotation by the Reporter on the term presentment as used in the Fifth Amendment. It was his conclusion that the term should not be used in the new rules of criminal procedure. Retention might encourage the use of the run-away grand jury as the grand jury could act from their own knowledge or observation and not only from charges made by the United States attorney. It has become the practice for the United States Attorney to attend grand jury hearings, hence the use of presentments have been abandoned.’ “

    That’s a fascinating statement: “Retention might encourage…the grand jury [to] act from their own knowledge or observation.” God forbid, right America? The nerve of these people. They have the nerve to put on the record that they intended to usurp our Constitutional power, power that was intended by the founding fathers, in their incredible wisdom, to provide us with oversight over tyrannical government.

    And so they needed a spin term to cast aspersions on that power. The term they chose was, “runaway grand jury”, which is nothing more than a Constitutionally mandated grand jury, aware of their power, and legally exercising that power to hold the federal beast in check, as in “checks and balances”.

    The lie couldn’t be inserted into the Constitution, so they put it in a statute and then repeated it. And scholars went on to repeat it, and today, as it stands, the grand jury has effectively been lied into the role of submissive puppet of the US Attorney.

    The American Juror publication included a very relevant commentary:

    “Of course, no statute or rule can alter the provisions of the Constitution, since it is the supreme law of the land. But that didn’t prevent the federal courts from publishing a body of case law affirming the fallacy that presentments were abolished. A particularly egregious example:

    ‘A rule that would permit anyone to communicate with a grand jury without the supervision or screening of the prosecutor or the court would compromise, if not utterly subvert, both of the historic functions of the grand jury, for it would facilitate the pursuit of vendettas and the gratification of private malice. A rule that would open the grand jury to the public without judicial or prosecutorial intervention is an invitation to anyone interested in trying to persuade a majority of the grand jury, by hook or by crook, to conduct investigations that a prosecutor has determined to be inappropriate or unavailing.’ [7]

    What is the result? Investigating seditious acts of government officials can be deemed inappropriate or unavailing by the prosecutor, or the judge can dismiss the grand jurors pursuing such investigations. Consequently, corrupt government officials have few natural enemies and go about their seditious business unimpeded.

    By the way, they made a rule to take care of runaways too, in 1946: Rule 6(g):

    ‘At any time for cause shown the court may excuse a juror either temporarily or
    permanently, and in the latter event the court may impanel another person in place of the juror excused.’ Now judges can throw anyone off a grand jury, or even dis-impanel a grand jury entirely, merely for exercising its discretion.”

    Now let me add my two cents to this argument:

    Most of the discussion about Note 4 to Rule 7 of the FRCP takes for granted that the common law use of “presentments” (as codified in the 5th Amendment) was made “illegal” in 1946 by this act. Nothing could be more false. Note 4 does not contain language that makes the use of presentments “illegal”, although it had chosen its words carefully to make it appear as if that is what the legislative branch intended. But let’s look at Note 4 again:

    “4. Presentment is not included as an additional type of formal accusation, since presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at least as concerns the Federal courts.”

    The key word is, “obsolete”. Obsolete means “outmoded”, or “not in use anymore”, but it does not mean “abolished” or “illegal”. And therein lies the big lie. The legislature knew it could not directly overrule the Constitution, especially with something so clearly worded as the 5th Amendment, which grants a power to the people which has a long and noble purpose in criminal jurisprudence. But the federal beast legislative branch sought more power to protect themselves from the oversight of “we the people”, and in its vampire like thirst for more governmental control, it inserted this insidious Note 4 in the hope that scholars and judges would play along with their ruse, or in the alternative, their ruse would appear to be legally viable.

    Let’s look at some authoritative legal resources which discuss Note 4:


    “Finally, federal grand juries’ subservience to prosecutors was exacerbated when the federal system eliminated the use of presentments, which allowed a grand jury to bring charges on its own initiative. (N35) Now, federal grand jurors cannot return charges in the form of an indictment without a prosecutor’s consent. (N36) Elimination of the presentment demonstrates the historical trend towards elimination of proactive features in the grand jury system.”

    Did Brenner fall for the lie or did she cleverly further it when she said, “[T]he federal system eliminated the use of presentments”? The federal system did no such thing. Note 4 said the use of presentments was “obsolete”. First of all, Note 4 is not a law in itself. It is a Note to a law, and the law as written, does not have anything to say about presentments. You see the leap Brenner has made? The Constitution provides for “presentments”, then the FRCP are enacted and the Rules therein do not mention presentments, nor due they ban presentments, and if they did, such a ban would be unconstitutional, since an administrative enactment regarding procedure can not overrule the Constitution.

    Regardless, it’s irrelevant, since the FRCP does not mention “presentments”. Note 4 simply states that “presentments” allowed for in the 5th Amendment of the Constitution have become “obsolete”, or outmoded, which is not to say that they were “eliminated”. Shame on you Susan Brenner. You know damn well that the Constitution can only be changed by an official Amendment to it. Nothing can be “eliminated” from the Constitution by an administrative note.

    The use of presentments had become obsolete because the grand jurors were not aware of their power. So the use of “presentments” became more and more rare, and then in 1946 the legislative branch seized upon the moment to make this power disappear by waving its magic wand over the Constitution.

    Mr. Root got it wrong in the Creighton Law Review as well:

    “Before the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure — which made independently-acting grand juries illegal for all practical purposes — grand juries were understood to have broad powers to operate at direct odds with both judges and prosecutors…”

    The FRCP did not make it “illegal for all practical purposes”. That’s patently false. I don’t know if Mr. Root, and/or Susan Brenner, were acting as the magician’s assistant, but I can’t imagine how these educated scholars could be so incredibly ignorant of basic Constitutional law. Give me a damn break.

    But if enough people repeat the lie, the lie appears to be the truth.

    But we have it on good authority, the Supreme Court, that the lie has no legal effect.

    Justice Powell, in United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974), stated:

    “The institution of the grand jury is deeply rooted in Anglo-American history. [n3] In England, the grand jury [p343] served for centuries both as a body of accusers sworn to discover and present for trial persons suspected of criminal wrongdoing and as a protector of citizens against arbitrary and oppressive governmental action. In this country, the Founders thought the grand jury so essential to basic liberties that they provided in the Fifth Amendment that federal prosecution for serious crimes can only be instituted by “a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.” Cf. Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 361-362 (1956). The grand jury’s historic functions survive to this day. Its responsibilities continue to include both the determination whether there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and the protection of citizens against unfounded criminal prosecutions. Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 686-687 (1972).”

    The Note 4 lie is smashed on the SCOTUS altar, “The grand jury’s historic functions survive to this day.” Take that Note 4!

    Antonin Scalia effectively codified the unique independent power of the Fourth Branch into the hands of all citizens sitting as federal grand jurors. In discussing that power and unique independence granted to the grand jury, the United States Supreme Court, in United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992), Justice Scalia, delivering the opinion of the court, laid down the law of the land:

    “‘[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history,” Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 490 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result), the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It “`is a constitutional fixture in its own right.’” United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312 (CA9 1977) (quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U.S. App. D.C. 58, 70, n. 54, 487 F.2d 700, 712, n. 54 (1973)), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 (1977). ‘ “

    I submit to you that this passage sets the stage for a revolutionary new context necessary and Constitutionally mandated to “we the people”, THE FOURTH BRANCH of the Government of the United States. Besides, the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches, I submit that there is a fourth branch, THE GRAND JURY, and “we the people” when sitting as grand jurors, are, as Scalia quoted in US v. Williams, ” a constitutional fixture in its own right”. Yes, damn it. That is exactly what the grand jury is, and what it was always intended to be.

    Scalia also stated, that “the grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside…” Id.

    And finally, to seal the deal, Scalia hammered the point home:

    “In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people. See Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218 (1960); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 61 (1906); G. Edwards, The Grand Jury 28-32 (1906). Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the Judicial Branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm’s length. Judges’ direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. See United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974); Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(a). [504 U.S. 36, 48] “

    This miraculous quote says it all, “…the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people.” The Constitution of the United States, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, gives rise to a FOURTH BRANCH of Government, THE GRAND JURY. We the people have been charged with oversight of the government in our roles as grand jurors.

    And at this critical time in American history, we must, for the protection of our constitutional republic, take back our power and start acting as powerful as the other branches of government.

    The law is on our side. So please spread this knowledge as far and wide as you can. We the people have the right and power under the 5th Amendment of the Constitution to charge this government with crimes by returning presentments regardless of whether the US Attorneys or the federal judges agree with us. As the Supreme Court has so brilliantly stated, we are the “buffer between the Government and the people.”

    Take the reins America. Pass it on. The Fourth Branch is alive and kickin’.

  14. Anonymous says:

    Wouldn’t just providing a link to someone else’s website be preferable to cutting and pasting their EXTREMELY LONG post? That way if anyone is interested, they can go there, but we who are not, or who have already read it, do not have to scroll through all of that information and can easily go on to the next entry. Thanks, Claudia, but we are capable of going to Leo’s website on our own.
    :-) Apparently Jeff does not have a problem with this system as he continues to allow it to happen.

  15. Lisa says:

    Wow! I wonder what would happen if “we the people” convened a grand jury and sent up an indictment of Barack Hussein Obama on the charges of Treason, forgery and purjury. While we are at it, we could indict him for campaign finance violations as well.

    What a revolution that would be!

  16. Anonymous says:

    So the new job qualification for building our nation’s BRIDGES is that you have to be one of the following:

    1)Long term unemployed
    2)A Minority
    3)A woman

    Highly skilled professionals need not apply. We don’t want SKILLED people building BRIDGES in our country!

    Sounds like a real solid plan. Thats insane.


  17. Lawdawg says:

    Funny – I post here and people attack me, say I’m lying, or guessing, say I’m an “Obot,” whatever that is, or a “troll.”
    So I decided to stop posting – and what do I find? comments on other blogs saying “Lawdawg hasn’t commented on Lightfoot v. Bowen today, that must mean something good.”

    So here it is – after this I’m not wasting my time with this subject anymore.

    Lightfoot v. Bowen, No. 08A524, Suggestion of recusal denied. Application for stay denied. Both without comment or dissent.

    SEE YA!


  18. Anonymous says:

    also, it’s ironic that the construction industry is so heavily unionized, and who did the unions support for president? More evidence that unions are useless and don’t give a damn about the workers they feed off of, just as long as they can squeeze the union dues out of them.

  19. darkleo says:

    But Lawdawg now can’t it be brought up that the Justices unfairly met with Obama behind closed doors without the Plaintiff’s attorneys present? I think there would be a case for that.

  20. suek says:

    Not exactly on topic, but worth reading anyway…


  21. Anonymous says:

    Internet powerhouse sues Barack Obama’s press secretary for defamation, also names Fox News, New York Times
    January 22, 2009 by andymartinny
    Andy Martin appeared on the most important broadcast of the 2008 campaign. For his efforts he was smeared by the New York Times, vilified by Fox News and targeted by Barack Obama’s mud merchants. Martin fights back with a lawsuit that tells the full story of his appearance on Hannity’s America and the aftermath of the program in America’s Hard Left mainstream media.

    Internet powerhouse and Obama author Andy Martin files suit against Barack Obama’s press secretary, the New York Times and Fox News for smears and distortions
    Executive Editor

  22. Anonymous says:

    The Fourth Arm of Government…does this mean the obots charge Bush and Cheney for war crimes?

  23. I Beam says:

    Another EO opportunity? Legalize midget tossing

  24. MIDDLE CLASS GUY says:


    How is that you know what is not made public? These conferences are private. Dissents are rarily published even if verbalised during conference. It is easy for anyone to say there were no dissents when an application is denied or granted because that info is not made puplic except in the rare occasion when a dissenting justice chooses to do so. These applications unfortunately for the American people were most likely denied. The evidence one way or another will be on the SCOTUS website Monday. Please provide evidence of your claim the there were no dissents.

    Thanks, Ken

  25. Sharon2 says:


    You don’t get it, do you? Either you are a troll or acting unethically because you are disclosing information before it has not been made public. Last time around what time of the day was your comment? The only possible explanations (particularly considering the time of that comment)are that either you like to troll or you are misusing a position of authority. Either result doesn’t say much for your character. You also have one of those funky e-mail addresses.

    SEE YA!

  26. Marie says:

    Ok–Barry is going after Rush. I can’t wait to see what Rush is going to make out of this. Somehow, I think there is little doubt that Rush will come out on top….well…if the determining factor is IQ points, anyway.

  27. Anonymous says:

    I listen to this for inspiration. Just wanted to share.

    God bless America!


  28. gailbullock says:

    ANONYMOUS AT 4:58 P.M.–

    I find it a convenience not to go to other links but to simply read the (long or short) quotes as they appear. Jeff understands that links may be overlooked or that something is important enough to be read on the spot. Whatever the commenter chooses is just fine with me.

    Thank you, Claudia. Whenever you find something else of importance, please bring it to us.

  29. Anonymous says:


    The only problem I have with you is that you believe that the Democrats and Republicans are on different sides of the fence.

    They are two sides of the same coin bartering the emotion of the proles between prescribed defined terms which advantage none but the masters of the game.

    Otherwise, Thank You for the information that you provide. I very much enjoy reading your thoughts.

  30. Jean WTPUSA says:

    Claudia, Thanks for posting the Grand Jury article. I thoroughly enjoyed it and it has offered me some hope.

    Lawdawg, When I convene a grand jury, I am going to hunt you down and make you tell me how you are getting your information so I can make a “presentment” regarding you and your accomplices.

    Jeff, Thanks for your great blog.

    Mr. Biden, Thanks for being our President.

  31. Anonymous says:

    Lawdawg….I never attacked you and I know you read my hopeful comment on CW that your silence may have been a sign that no news was good news….as if maybe they were spending more time in consideration…….
    I have defended you and now I wish I hadn’t….if this really IS the real lawdawg…which I doubt because he operates on a MUCH cooler level…..

  32. Anonymous says:

    I’m pretty sure that wasn’t the same Lawdawg, folks, especially with that snooty tone. Please check the IP address, Jeff.

  33. Claudia says:

    Gail and Jean,
    Thanks and I will any time I get something that I think is important. I have posted several things for that very reason. We have to all work together if we want to succeed at this. I already sent the whole post to Devvy and hopefully she will send it on to Edwin Vieira and to Dr. Orly. I had it in memory and figured I would post it here so that any other places I missed might get the same information that Leo has presented.

    To Anon:
    who doesn’t want people to post long items, I posted it because in it’s whole form, it might give people some information that they never thought about and that possibly just a little link might be overlooked or gone over in a hurry. Sorry that you seem to think that everyone always goes to links, but I know that I personally don’t always because of time constraints and loss of train of thought if I have to interrupt what I am doing for some reason, so I figured if I do that and my mind is totally on this problem, then others might also. Sorry if you found it offensive that you had to scroll through my long post, but sometimes, not everything is just to your liking…..

  34. Marie says:

    If you want a glimpse into our future, watch this video of how the British feel about all the liberties they’ve lost and how they feel they have no one to blame but themselves. They were apathetic as the government became increasingly liberal and socialist and now they realize it’s gone too far.

    Be sure to watch all the way through to the end where they talk to us Americans and warn us not to let our country go down the same road as Great Britain. The question is, can they get it back? Wouldn’t it be better not to lose those freedoms in the first place? The liberal lie must not be allowed to take over the US–


  35. tm says:

    To all who want to keep our free speech and liberty, you must make your voices heard.
    Call the RNC and tell them to grow a spine and stand up for us.
    It does no good to complain on a blog. You must do something and let the Republican Party know
    where you stand. They are already trying to go the McLame way and cooperate with Chairman BOBO which means he will take us ever farther and faster that we think is possible. The Republican Party thinks that we (the people) want this and they are afraid to stand up. We must do our part as an American to make them aware of how we feel and let them know that we’d rather be the party in the minority that sticks up for our values than a party in the minority that takes it in the backside from the other side. They must fight and we must FORCE these spineless examples in our party into the ring.

  36. Anonymous says:

    Is this the new Obama Hussein era? Favorising blacks at the expense of the whites and other non-blacks only because of the color of one’s skin? And once again, affirmative action regulations are not enough today to have, de facto, created a racist society against whites, they must add more appalling similar racist measures against whites and other non-blacks!!

    Jeff, what is your take on what will happen next concerning the naturally born citizen issue with Obama and the different legal challenges. As the Supreme Court judges have systematically blocked the cases on this matter, what are the chances of seeing them asking Obama Hussein to give the documents to prove his eligibility? For me, the chances are null!!

    Thanks for your writings on this eligibility issue and keep keeping us informed.

  37. Anonymous says:

    Obama has already made so many political blunders that it’s a wonder he hasn’t asked SCOTUS to get him out of office. But that would be a real man’s out. Obama is not a real man and like Blago, he will go down playing the race card.

    His biggest blunder to date is pulling the CIA detention centers out from under the countries and their allies that have been buying up our debt.

    Obama is naive, inept, and a danger to the world. The product of ideologically driven foundations, he is completely unprepared for the real world.

  38. Anonymous says:

    “Is this the new Obama Hussein era? Favorising blacks at the expense of the whites and other non-blacks only because of the color of one’s skin?”

    Yeah that whole “content of their character” thing kinda fell to the wayside. It seems to have more impact to perpetuate being judged by the color of your skin. What a slap in the face to MLK Jr.


  39. Anonymous says:

    Anonymous at 5:28 p.m. said:
    …So the new qualifications for building our nation’s bridges are that you have to be one of the following 1) long term unemployed 2) a minority 3) a woman. Highly skilled professionals need not apply. We don’t want skilled people building our bridges….

    You may have overlooked one of the most important underlying points of this: if the building projects that are planned held up well for more than a couple of years or so, it might make all the ‘community- organizer’ apartment projects done in the past look even worse than they already do.

  40. Hortense says:

    I guess their going to have to replace that guy from the Village People – the white male construction worker. :-)

  41. Jan says:

    The things spoken of in these articles only goes to highlight the view some have of the lack of respect for the office of President of the US. Personally, my respect for the office has been dwindling for years. Before any of you bash me on this let me explain. I respect first and foremost the United States of America and everything that she stands for. The office of President is one position of power. When the individuals holding that position devalue the position and America as a whole, my respect will be with America. Right now, with everything happening with Obama and his plans my loyalty is with America. If and when we get someone in the office who cares more for the people and the good of this country over their own power and prestigue then my respect and loyalty will revert back to the appropriate place. Jeff, or anyone else who knows, wasn’t there some type of order some time back about the amount of times you could contact your representative. Someone brought it up to me the other day and I wasn’t aware of it. Sadly, I haven’t been that involved before now. With the election everything has changed and I am contacting my representatives constantly voicing my opinions.

  42. Anonymous says:

    Obama has hidden all his records so that the real truth won’t come out that he is the most ignorant person known to man. He probably never attended any of the named schools and is illiterate. Sure looks that way.
    The only thing he knows how to do is the same thing Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton knew how to do, have sex with their wives on top, because all they knew what to do was screw up.

  43. Claudia says:

    That video is exactly why I want to use every available method that we can find to grab onto to get Obama out of office and his Usurpation ended. He will destroy our Country. And then I want to be sure ethat Pelosi, Reid, Boxer, Kennedy, Schumer, Biden, and every other scoundrel who will give away our Country gets removed form their offices also. That is WHY I posted that very long article by Leo Donofrio about The 4th Branch of Justice, the Federal Grand Jury…. it is significant in our ability to fight against all those that are trying to take the very life out of this country and ignore US, we can use that Federal Grand Jury to our benefit, and we have to learn how to do it, NOW!!!! America will perish if we DON’T.

  44. Anonymous says:

    Claudia thanks for the info. Jeff great work. never atop fighting for America. God Bless. One Nation under God.

  45. Anonymous says:

    I heard a person from MDOT say that 30,000 jobs would be created for every million dollars.

  46. goddessdivine says:

    So we create work for people for 2 years and then they’re out of a job again? Anyone with some economic sense should know that to create jobs (that last), we have to strengthen businesses. And how do we do that? Let’s see….how about cutting taxes and deregulating?

    Perhaps all my education and training have been a complete waste. After all, under Obama, the least qualified will be getting jobs. How would it feel to know that your surgeon only went to one year of medical school?

  47. Anonymous says:

    Crime begins in high places and trickles down.
    The American mainstream media has successfully programmed Americans to think in terms of colors black and white, red and yellow; and not as humans. European Americans or Caucasians are not white, African Americans or Negroes are not black, Asian Americans or Mongolians are not yellow, Native Americans or Indians are not red. As long as the media refers to members of the human race as a color, racism will be promoted.

    Crime is crime no matter who commits it and criminals regardless of race should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in our courts. However, we know a double-standard exist in the criminal justice system. The “have-nots” are punished, sent to prison and made examples of, while the “haves” receive a slap on the wrist and sent home to their lavish lifestyles.

    The Bush Justice Department won a conviction against Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens (R) yesterday on seven counts of hiding nearly $250,000 in free home renovations and other gifts from a wealthy oil contractor. Stevens’ indictment and conviction in the middle of his re-election bid ensures his defeat. Democrats are celebrating Stevens’ conviction, hopeful now of capturing 60 Senate seats in this year’s election. Ironically, Democrats have been accusing the Bush administration for the past 8 years of engaging in political prosecutions of Democrats. Let’s see, the Justice Department prosecuted Vice Presidential Chief of Staff Scooter Libby, GOP powerhouse lobbyist Jack Abramoff, U.S. Rep. Randy Cunningham, U.S. Robert Ney and U.S. Rep. Rick Renzi. It is currently investigating at least a half dozen other GOP members of Congress. So, what about Sen. Barack Obama? After all, his convicted political fixer friend, Tony Rezko, put about $300,000 in his pocket to help him and his wife, Michelle, purchase their South Side mansion. After hearing rumors that Rezko was helping funnel cash to Illinois Gov. Rod Blagoyevich to help with remodeling work on his home, Sen. Obama called on his good buddy Rezko for help. It seemed a co-worker of Michelle’s at the University of Chicago hospital had this beautiful Hyde Park home, but they insisted the buyer purchase the vacant lot next door. Obama couldn’t swing the more than $2 million the sellers wanted. So Obama takes Rezko over to the house for a walk through and Rezko comes up with a plan. He had his wife, Rita, purchase the vacant lot at an inflated price of $650,000. If you don’t believe me on that, just ask the bank appraiser who lost his job and has filed a whistle blower lawsuit in Cook County Circuit Court accusing Mutual Bank of tossing his lower appraisal in favor of the inflated appraisal and withholding that information from a federal grand jury looking into the transaction. At the same time, the sellers knocked off $300,000 from the selling price of the home for the Obamas, who received a discounted jumbo mortgage to purchase the home for $1.6 million. Later, Rezko improved the lot with a privacy fence and sold a portion of the lot to the Obamas, thereby rendering the balance of the lot worth significantly less than the original purchase price on it. You can shake that up in a brown paper bag however you like, but when you open it up, it is still a shady land deal designed to personally enrich the Obamas.
    Where’s the Justice Department? Let’s see an indictment of Obama now so the voters will know that Obama is just a typical Chicago politician on the take. This deal is no different than the set of transactions for which you just prosecuted Sen. Stevens. If it’s fair to indict and convict Stevens in the middle of his re-election, then it’s fair to indict Obama.

Speak Your Mind