I Had To Do It

and I'm not running for President, I was just getting a background check to get a security clearance to enter the shipyard to check floor flatness. I went down to the Viginia Vital Statistics Building and had a copy of my birth certificate in my hand in 15 minutes. Every day, normal average Americans are required to produce their birth certificates to gain employment, or to access secure sites to perform their jobs. It's no big deal. Happens all the time. So why is it such an issue with the B. Hussein Obama campaign? Why can't this Marxist half-wit grasp the concept?

The following is an excerpt from Frank Salvato's column at Family Security Matters:

The recent ruling by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick dismissing the lawsuit challenging Barack Obama’s citizenship, brought by former Deputy Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Democrat county chair Phillip Berg, presents the genesis of a Constitutional Crisis. While Barack Obama’s refusal to satisfy the citizens’ request to validate his citizenship illustrates his unbridled arrogance and that of his campaign and supporters, it also exposes the fact that politics, at the hands of political opportunists and ideologues, has usurped the legitimate execution of the supreme law of the land; the United States Constitution.

Make no mistake. I do not support Barack Obama in his quest for the presidency. I find his political ideology to embrace a one-world ideology borrowing heavily from the Marxist-Leninist dogma. But, if in fact he is a legal and naturally born citizen of the United States of America, if he thoroughly satisfies the requirements as set forth in Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, then I will defend his right to be placed on ballots across our nation. My concern is not partisan, it is constitutional.

Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution reads:

"No Person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States."

In what may come as a surprise to many, the Federal Election Commission does not have authority to verify whether or not a presidential candidate has satisfied the constitutional requirements set forth for candidacy.

The FEC’s mission statement reads:

“In 1975, Congress created the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to administer and enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) - the statute that governs the financing of federal elections. The duties of the FEC, which is an independent regulatory agency, are to disclose campaign finance information, to enforce the provisions of the law such as the limits and prohibitions on contributions, and to oversee the public funding of Presidential elections.”

So, a singular question becomes self-evident; what entity requires proof be filed of a candidate’s satisfaction of the constitutional requirements needed to become President of the United States?

In Marquis v. Reed, one of the eight lawsuits filed in an attempt to verify that Barack Obama is indeed eligible to hold the office of President of the United States, Steven Marquis takes a different tract than Berg. Marquis challenges the Washington State Secretary of State, Samuel Reed, to verify Obama’s eligibility.

In this lawsuit Marquis establishes:

“As we do not have a federal ballot per se, Washington State, through the office of the Washington State, Secretary of State creates its own ballot and supervises the same, electing electors to represent our choice for the Office of President...and presents a state question within this Court’s jurisdiction.”

Still, while establishing that the States, rather than the federal government, have jurisdiction over their individual election processes, it still doesn’t quest for the answer to the self-evident question of what entity requires proof be filed of a candidate’s satisfaction of the constitutional requirements needed to become President of the United States? Instead, it adds to the immediacy of the question and brings to the forefront a more refined question; is there an entity that verifies a candidate’s satisfaction of the requirements?

Where is THIS MONEY Coming From?

from NewsMax.com

As Barack Obama reaped a stunning $150 million in campaign donations in September, bringing his total to more than $600 million, new questions have arisen about the source of his amazing funding.
By Obama’s own admission, more than half of his contributions have come from small donors giving $200 or less. But unlike John McCain’s campaign, Obama won’t release the names of these donors.
A Newsmax canvass of disclosed Obama campaign donors shows worrisome anomalies, including outright violations of federal election laws.
For example, Obama has numerous donors who have contributed well over the $4,600 federal election limit.
Many of these donors have never been contacted by the Obama campaign to refund the excess amounts to them.
And more than 37,000 Obama donations appear to be conversions of foreign currency.
According to a Newsmax analysis of the Obama campaign data before the latest figures were released, potential foreign currency donations could range anywhere from $12.8 million to a stunning $63 million in all. With the addition of $150 million raised in September, this amount could be much more.
When asked by Newsmax about excess contributions, Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said that contributions already identified as excess had been returned and that those the campaign was just learning about -- either through news accounts or from the Federal Election Commission -- “will be returned.”
“Every campaign faces the challenge of screening and reviewing its contributions,” LaBolt said. “And we have been aggressive about taking every available step to make sure our contributions are appropriate, updating our systems when necessary.”
But many of the donors Newsmax canvassed said they had “never” been contacted by the Obama campaign or seen any refunds, even though their contributions went over the limit months ago.
In all, Newsmax found more than 2,000 donors who had contributed in excess of the $4,600 limit for individuals per election cycle.
Such donations, if not returned within 60 days, are a clear violation of federal campaign finance laws.
Lisa Handley, a stay-at-home mom from Portland, Ore., recalled giving $4,600 to the Obama campaign by credit card, contributions she made because “I love Obama,” she said.
According to FEC records, however, she gave an additional $2,300 to the campaign, putting her over the limit.
The Obama campaign reported that it had “redesignated” the excess money, which could mean that it had contributed it to a separate party committee or a joint fundraising committee, which have higher limits.
But if that happened, it’s news to Handley. “No one ever contacted me to return any of the money or told me they were redesignating some of the money,” she said.
Ronald J. Sharpe Jr., a retired teacher from Rockledge, Fla., appears in the Obama campaign reports as having given a whopping $13,800.
The campaign reported that it returned $4,600 to him, making his net contribution of $9,200 still way over the legal limit.
But there’s one problem with the Obama data: Sharpe doesn’t remember giving that much money to the Obama campaign in the first place, nor does he recall anyone from the campaign ever contacting him to return money.
“At the end, I was making monthly payments,” he told Newsmax. The Obama campaign records do not show any such payments.
Many donors refused to answer questions about the political campaign contributions appearing in their name when they learned that the caller was from a news organization.
John Atkinson, an insurance agent in Burr Ridge, Ill., refused to discuss his contributions, which totaled $8,724.26, before numerous refunds.
Atkinson and others gave in odd amounts: $188.67, $1,542.06, $876.09, $388.67, $282.20, $195.66, $118.15, and one rounded contribution of $2,300.
Sandra Daneshinia, a self-employed caregiver from Los Angeles, made 36 separate contributions, totaling $7,051.12, according to FEC records. Thirteen of them were eventually refunded.
In a bizarre coincidence, those 13 refunded contributions -- for varying amounts such as $223.88 and $201.44 -- added up exactly to $2,300, the amount an individual may give per federal election.
Also giving in odd amounts was Robert Porter, an accountant for the town of Oviedo, Fla. Porter gave a surprising $4,786.02 to the Obama campaign.
In all, Newsmax found an astonishing 37,265 unique donors to the Obama campaign whose contributions were not rounded up to dollar amounts. That amounts to more than 10 percent of the total number of unique donors whose names have been disclosed by the Obama campaign to the public.
Of those, 44,410 contributions came in unrounded amounts of less than $100. FEC regulations only require that campaigns disclose the names of donors who have given a total of $200 or more, so that means that all these contributors were repeat donors.
Another 15,269 contributions gave in unrounded amounts between $101 and $999, while 704 of the unrounded contributions were in amounts of more than $1,000.
Campaign finance experts find the frequent appearance of unrounded contributions suspicious, since contributors almost invariably give in whole dollar amounts.
One expert in campaign finance irregularities offers a possible explanation.
“Of course this is odd. They are obviously converting from local currency to U.S. dollars,” said Ken Boehm, the chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center.
“The overwhelming number of large dollar contributors -- and even small donors -- are in even dollar amounts,” he told Newsmax. “Anyone who doubts that can go to FEC.gov and look through the campaign contribution data bases. You will not find many uneven numbers.”
Boehm said he had rarely seen unrounded contributions in his 30 years as a lawyer doing campaign finance work.
“There’s always the odd cat who wants to round up his checkbook, but they are very rare,” he said.
Richard E. Hug, a veteran Republican fundraiser in Maryland who who raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004, and spearheaded the successful 2002 gubernatorial race for Bob Ehrlich that brought in a record $10 million, told Newsmax that unrounded contributions were extremely unusual.
“I’ve never seen this in all my years of raising money for political candidates,” he said. “The first thing it suggests is foreign currency transactions -- contributions from foreign donors, which is clearly illegal.”
Top Republican fundraiser Steve Gordon, who has raised $65 million for GOP candidates over the past 30 years, told Newsmax that such contributions in uneven amounts would be “pretty unusual.”
“You might have a rounding process if there was some kind of joint event, but since all appears to be on the Internet, it’s pretty unusual. At the very least, it would need to be explored.”
LaBolt attributed the uneven amounts to the online “Obama store,” which sells T-shirts and other campaign items.
“Contributions made to the Obama store often produce totals that are not exact dollar amounts,” he said.
But the campaign has never produced any accounting for proceeds from its online store, which virtually shut down several weeks ago after Newsmax and news organizations revealed that Palestinians from the Gaza Strip and other foreigners had made large purchases there.
The Republican National Committee has filed a complaint against the Obama campaign for “accepting prohibited contributions from foreign nationals and excessive contributions from individuals,” which incorporated reporting from Newsmax and other news organizations.
“Their responses to FEC inquiries have often been inadequate and late,” RNC general counsel Sean Cairncross told Newsmax.
The Obama camp claims to have 2.5 million donors in all. But until now, they have kept secret the names of the overwhelming majority of these money-givers. According to a Newsmax analysis, the Obama campaign finance records contain just 370,448 unique names.
Even accounting for common names such as Robert Taylor or Michael Brown, which can signify multiple donors, Obama’s publicly known donor base is less than 20 percent of the total number of donors the campaign claims to have attracted. But the identity of the other 2 million donors is being kept secret.
As of the end of August, those secret donors have given an incredible $222.7 million to Obama, according to the FEC -- money whose origin remains unknown to anyone other than Obama’s finance team, who won’t take calls from the press.
While no exact figures are available, if the same percentage of potential foreign contributions found in the itemized contribution data is applied to the total $426.9 million the Obama camp says it has taken in from individuals, this could mean that Obama is financing his presidential campaign with anywhere from $13 million to a whopping $63 million from overseas credit cards or foreign currency purchases.
The sum of all unrounded contributions in the itemized FEC filings for the Obama campaigns comes to $6,437,066.07. That is the actual amount of money that appears to have been charged to foreign credit cards that the Obama campaign has disclosed.
If the same ratio applies to the unitemized contributions, which are again as large, then the Obama campaign may have taken as much as $13 million from foreign donors.
However, the donors who made those unrounded contributions gave a total of $31,484,584.27, meaning that as much as $63 million may have come from questionable sources.
Both presidential campaigns are required to submit detailed fundraising reports for September on Monday.

Red Herring or Don't Look Here, Nothing to See

In the old days, the term "red herring" referred to a technique used by criminals and escapees to avoid tracking dogs. They woud take dried animal blood, mix it with powdered cocaine and sprinkle it along the trail the dogs were on. If they wanted to really screw up the dogs, cayenne pepper was added. The dried blood would make the dogs would go nuts, the cocaine would screw up their olfactory senses, and the cayenne pepper, well, you can imagine what sniffing cayenne pepper would do to you.

Nowadays, the term red herring is used to describe a diversion or distraction. Give the dogs something to sniff around that really doesn't amount to much, while the real crimes continue.

That describes the Ayers/Wright situation we have with Obama perfectly. This is a diversion to keep some dogs from looking too deeply into the online campaign contribution criminal activity that is currently being perpetrated.

It is criminal folks. Obviously fake donors giving tens of thousands of dollars to the Obama campaign in 25 dollar increments. Donors named Doodad Pro, Good Will, both of whom work for "Loving" and both of whom apparently have the same job "You". In some cases, there isn't even a name, it's just a series of random letters.

The real issue is where the money is coming from. No one in the Obama campaign is saying where. FEC investigations are like watching paint dry. The amount of evidence currently available indicates enough questionable donations from questionable sources to immediately call for a suspension of all online credit card donations to political campaigns until better tracking methods are put in place.

We'll never get this sorted out until someone says "STOP, we need to look at these contributions NOW, and then you can continue."

It's being stolen Friends.

Our freedom, our country, our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, our way of life, is being stolen right out from under us by radical elements of society, including radical islamists.

Where Is the Money Coming From?

Mr Doodad Pro, white courtesy telephone. Paging Mr. Doodad Pro.
Mr. Will Good, please pick up your check from the Obama campaign at the betting window.

In a letter dated June 25, 2008, the FEC asked the Obama campaign to verify a series of $25 donations from a contributor identified as “Will, Good” from Austin, Texas.
Mr. Good Will listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You.”
A Newsmax analysis of the 1.4 million individual contributions in the latest master file for the Obama campaign discovered 1,000 separate entries for Mr. Good Will, most of them for $25.
In total, Mr. Good Will gave $17,375.

Similarly, a donor identified as “Pro, Doodad,” from “Nando, NY,” gave $19,500 in 786 separate donations, most of them for $25. For most of these donations, Mr. Doodad Pro listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You,” just as Good Will had done.
But in some of them, he didn’t even go this far, apparently picking letters at random to fill in the blanks on the credit card donation form. In these cases, he said he was employed by “VCX” and that his profession was “VCVC.”
Following FEC requests, the Obama campaign began refunding money to Doodad Pro in February 2008. In all, about $8,425 was charged back to a credit card. But that still left a net total of $11,165 as of Sept. 20, way over the individual limit of $4,600.

More than half of the whopping $426.9 million Barack Obama has raised has come from small donors whose names the Obama campaign won't disclose.
And questions have arisen about millions more in foreign donations the Obama campaign has received that apparently have not been vetted as legitimate.
Obama has raised nearly twice that of John McCain's campaign, according to new campaign finance report.

Read the rest here.

In Case You Missed It Sunday Morning

Pardon me Obama Baybay but your slip is showing.

Soft Jihad Hard Target

Family Security Matters

August 26, 2008
The Democrats’ ‘Soft’ Jihadist
Frank J. Gaffney

On Sunday, Democratic delegates convening in Denver were prayed over by representatives of various faiths. One stood out: Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America. With this choice, Barack Obama's campaign has committed a strategic error of the first order.

After all, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) has been identified by the Department of Justice not only as a front for the Muslim Brotherhood – a global Islamist movement with the stated mission in America of "destroying Western civilization from within." Worse yet, it has also been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the United States' largest alleged terrorism financing conspiracy.

Like other Brotherhood operations, ISNA's purpose is to promote what might be called "soft Jihad" – the task of steadily insinuating the brutally repressive and subversive program the Islamists call Shariah through da'wa, proselytizing and social networking.

The more one learns about Dr. Mattson and her organization, the more questions will be raised about Barack Obama's judgment and that of his party in affording them a prominent role in the 2008 Democratic convention. For example:

Ingrid Mattson is director of the Macdonald Center for the Study of Islamic Studies and Christian-Muslim Relations at the Hartford Seminary in Connecticut. Her program is used to credential Muslim chaplains for U.S. prisons and our military. (The armed forces require its chaplain candidates to take 72 credit hours from Dr. Mattson's program.) This credentialing was previously performed by organizations founded by Abdurahman Alamoudi, once among the most prominent Muslim Brotherhood operatives in America. Today, Alamoudi is serving a 23-year prison sentence for his involvement in terrorism-related crimes.

A course taught by Mattson at the Hartford Seminary entitled "The Koran and Its Place in Muslim Life and Society" featured readings from texts by two of the Islamofascist ideology's most revered figures: Syed Abu A'la Mawdudi and Sayyid Qutb. She has publicly credited the former with producing "probably the best work of [Koranic commentary] in English." As Robert Spencer has observed in his invaluable Jihad Watch blog, Maududi succinctly described the Islamists' Shariah agenda as follows:

"Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a state on the basis of its own ideology and program, regardless of which nation assumes the role of the standard bearer of Islam or the rule of which nation is undermined in the process of the establishment of an ideological Islamic State....Islam does not intend to confine this revolution to a single State or a few countries; the aim of Islam is to bring about a universal revolution."

As to Qutb, an amicus brief filed last week by the Center for Security Policy before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals noted that his "writings expand on [Maududi's] theme of Jihad against wayward Muslim regimes and the infidel West and the establishment of a hegemonic Shariah-based political order. His work has been credited as a central doctrinal source for al Qaeda's doctrine of Jihad, as well." According to the brief prepared for the Center by two of the West's foremost scholars of Shariah, attorneys David Yerushalmi and Stephen Coughlin (resident expert on the subject for the Joint Chiefs of Staff until he was purged by an ISNA admirer in the office of Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England), "Da'wa is used to prepare the battle space for violent Jihad."

Unbeknownst to most Americans, such Da'wa is being systematically advanced through the Islamists' take-over of the vast majority of U.S. mosques, Islamic centers and madrassas (Muslim parochial schools). This onslaught is being accomplished as Saudi money flows through another Muslim Brotherhood front spun off by ISNA, the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), which acquires the mortgages of existing religious facilities or creates new ones. Along with titles to these properties comes Saudi Wahhabi influence in the form of virulently Shariah-adherent clerics, textbooks and other materials. In her capacity as president of ISNA, Mattson also is an ex officio member of NAIT's board.

Insofar as the Muslim Brotherhood explicitly seeks and is working for the destruction of our government and Western civilization more generally, it is engaged in a criminal conspiracy that constitutes treasonous sedition. That reality has two critical implications:

First, the Brotherhood must be formally designated a terrorist organization, putting an end to the reckless notion – promoted by, among others, the U.S. State Department – that practitioners of soft jihad are less dangerous and an effective antidote to co-religionists who are prepared to use violence immediately, rather than later on.

Second, under 18 US Code 2382: " Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to [appropriate officials] is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both."

Sen. Obama, his party, Bush administration officials and, for that matter, ordinary citizens of the United States are obliged to take steps to counteract seditious Muslim Brotherhood activities in our midst. To do otherwise is not just suicidal. It is a crime.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributor Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy and a columnist for the Washington Times.

A Little Hotter

Record amounts of money from abroad are flowing into Barack Obama’s presidential campaign — and there is no easy way to determine if foreigners are making illegal donations.
Through June, Democrat Obama received $2.8 million in donations from foreign sources, according to federal election records obtained by The Hill newspaper.
That dwarfs the $381,809 that Republican rival John McCain received from abroad. It is also more than President Bush and John Kerry combined received in the 2004 presidential campaign. Bush took in $747,857 from foreign sources; Kerry got $550,834.
According to federal laws, contributors to federal, state and local elections must be U.S. citizens or permanent residents with green cards.
But with many Americans living overseas and contributing to campaigns, making sure the donations are legal can be difficult.
Foreigners often can get away with contributing to a campaign if they are willing to make false statements about their status.
“If a contributor lies to campaigns, that’s outside the control of the campaign,” Jan Baran, an elections and ethics lawyer with the firm Wiley Rein, told The Hill.

And Larry Noble, a former Federal Election Commission general counsel, said the ability to donate money via the Internet “has raised the ease with which someone could make a foreign national contribution.”