What I find more interesting about Cao’s victory is his inspiration to enter politics after Katrina, due to the flooding of his office and home and the poor government response to the disaster.  It is this kind of local activism that I have seen in the city and region since the storm.  It is this burgeoning, organized activism that promises to fill the political and socio-economic gaps in the city and region, given the chronic lack of local government leadership in New Orleans, and/or the willful neglect of local and state governments around the Gulf Coast.  That is, one remarkable outcome of the 2005 storms is the tremendous civic infrastructure that is being built by activists, professional advocates, non-profits and funders, because governments either lack the money or political will to rebuild fairly and responsibly.

As the field remarks, the GOP’s big tent pretty much begins and ends in Louisiana.  Much more so than creationist Gov. Jindal, we might look to citizen-activist Representative-elect Cao for insight on how to expand the GOP to include those who simply want better, more responsible government to fulfill our individual rights to private property and to help us run our small businesses.  I’m obviously not all that interested in strengthening the GOP, but I’m intrigued by the task ahead for the Party, as it must modernize and moderate its platform if it ever wants centrist Republicans to turn up at the polls again.

But Cao’s election symbolizes a broader trend underway in Louisiana: the slow, methodological development of citizen engagement, non-profit capacity building, and political accountability.  Louisianans have their work cut out for them: Jindal has abolished the Department of Labor in this right-to-work state, wants to effectively get rid of the Medicaid system, and has imposed cuts to vital non-profits throughout the state.  This is also the place where only 2 months ago GOP Rep. John LaBruzzo advocated sterilization for low-income women as a poverty alleviation measure, then patted himself on the back for taking a tough, bold, innovative anti-poverty approach.  Then there’s Jena.  And Angola.

I need to stop now before I further inspire my LA and Southern colleagues to remind me of the Northeast’s and Boston’s own dirty laundry of injustice and political chicanery.    But I write from an inspired position.  The people I’ve met in New Orleans and across the Gulf Coast are doing more work than is reasonably expected to rebuild their homes and communities in the absence of government leadership.  It is some of the most impressive mobilization I’ve seen in my shortish life.   And they’re dragging their governments, with their shuttered Charity Hospitals, toxic FEMA trailers and bloated ports, into a new, more progressive era.  It’s like the civic activist version of the World’s Strongest Man contest.  Stay tuned!!

Mr. X claimed that his mother had always lived in the U.S. which was untrue as she had lived in another country with her husband and had (a child) there. Mr. X realized early on that he was not a “natural born citizen” because he knew that he was born before his father was naturalized. X told lie upon lie about his father’s age, the year the father came to America, even his own age; and he destroyed most of his papers all in the effort to conceal the fact that he was ineligible for high office. Who is Mr. X?

As strange as this may sound, we are not discussing Barack Obama here. Mr. X is Chester A. Arthur, the 21st President of the United States who succeeded to the Presidency upon the assassination of President James Garfield. Due to the diligent research of Leo C. Donofrio with the assistance of Arthur biographer Greg Dehler we learn that Chester A. Arthur was a usurper, never eligible for POTUS. Talk about an amazing confluence of events: just as we are ready to install the ineligible Barack Obama as POTUS we learn that this has happened before. As Donofrio says in his report on the matter; “… it’s no precedent to follow.”

The political enemy mentioned in the lead paragraph was, in reality, one Arthur P. Hinman (see footnote below)*, who may have been hired by the Democrats to smear Arthur. Interestingly, the charge of ineligibilty for POTUS brought by Hinman against Arthur was true, but for the wrong reason: Chester A. Arthur was a British subject at birth (just as Obama was) but by virtue of his birth prior to his father’s naturalization rather than birth on foreign soil. As in Obama’s case, who acknowledges on his website that he had dual citizenship at birth, we find the evidence in plain sight but too late discern its meaning.

President Chester A. Arthur

*More interesting but entirely without foundation was the Hinman myth circulated in 1880 and 1881. This story asserted that Elder Arthur had three sons: William Chester Alan Arthur, born at the home of his mother’s parents in Dunham, Province of Quebec; Chester Abell Arthur, born at Fairfield; and William Arthur, Jr., born at Hinesburgh, Vermont. When William Arthur, Jr., was born, the oldest son dropped the William and retained the names Chester Alan, as he could do because of the death in infancy of his brother, Chester Abell. He later, according to the Hinman story, appropriated the birth record of the second son in order to sustain his American citizenship. No death record existed to prove this substitution because the father had sold the infant’s body to a medical school! On the basis of these allegations, the American public were assured that Arthur was a British subject and in consequence disqualified for the Vice Presidency or Presidency. It was a political maneuver, and, as such, ineffective. (from “Chester A. Arthur-A Quarter-Century of Machine Politics” by George F. Howe)

On the flip side, this is a fabulous appointment.  Here’s hoping we can rectify some of the massive wrongs by the Bush Administration at the V.A.  The treatment of Vets in our country, preceeding Bush but exacerbated by him (like every other inequality) is reprehensible.  The conditions at Walter Reed ranked right up there with life in FEMA trailers in the post-Katrina Gulf Coast.

a) the misogynistic implications of a woman being felt up and force fed alcohol into her pulled back head by two men (yes, this is sexual harrassment);

b) the “frat boy” culture alleged by the party atmosphere, presence of booze, and casual style of two white men raucously ganging up on a woman, even if it is a cardboard cutout, and then publishing it on a social networking site as evidence of their supposed hilarity; and

c) the complete lack of judgment evidenced by an important member of the Obama team, a young man who has been covered in The NY Times and elsewhere as largely responsible for Obama’s words and eloquence.  Favreau is the speechwriter for a candidate who won in large part because of his ability to draw enormous crowds to hear his electrifying, inspiring speeches.  He’s a player on the no-drama Obama team, a team that invested tremendously in crafting an image and a brand in their candidate.  And this is how a key image-maker behaves?

If Samantha Power is banished for calling Clinton a “monster,” then shouldn’t Favreau be kicked off the bus too?  Given the willfully public nature of his actions; their offensiveness (even if you believe it’s just “boys being boys,” this does mean you realize it’s behavior that requires rationalization, which suggests there’s something going on that needs to be acknowledged, dismissed, possibly forgiven, scolded, etc.); and Favreau’s immaturity and crudity versus Obama’s poised, professional and unruffled demeanor, I can’t believe Obama wouldn’t want to sanction this clown for his embarrassing and uncalled for behavior.

Didn’t Obama run on and beat Clinton and McCain in part because of his better judgment and cool and collected nature?  Yet, he’s got dudez like this working for him?  I listened to Tracy Morgan on TBS’s Laffapalooza for about five minutes the other night, as he painfully tried to layer one black stereotype after another ghetto behavior trope on to the Obamas and their future White House life.  Epic FAIL, as teh bloggerz say.  I don’t see how Favreau’s behavior is any less inappropriate for our President-Elect.  Although Larry Summers and Rick Warren (and Donny McClurkin) suggest otherwise, I do hold out hope that Obama is not “palling around with” men who fail to see women (and gays/lesbians) as their equals and as fully human, versus just cardboard cutouts, punching bags, helpmates, child-rearers, she-devils, and sandwich makers.

Dear Rep. Argall,

 

It has been widely reported that you are seeking to the fill the late Sen. Jim Rhoades’ vacant seat.

 

Before pursuing your newest political endeavor, however, we implore you to repay to the taxpayers the tens of thousands of dollars you owe them for: 1) tax-free, supplemental “per diem” money you’ve collected in excess of your actual expenses for food and lodging; and 2) the money you collected from the repealed pay raise of 2005.

 

With regard to the per diem money: a thorough review of official records from the House Chief Clerk’s office indicates that, from 2005 to 2007 alone, you collected more than $48,000 in per diem money for food and lodging expenses that were incurred on approximately 420 separate business days in Harrisburg. That averages out to a per diem payment to you of $115 per day. This money of course was collected above and beyond your base salary of more than $100,000, and in addition to the money you collected for transportation expenses.

 

As you know, you and your fellow legislators have made it such that you don’t even have to provide receipts for, or documentation of, your actual expenses for food and lodging. Therefore, it is difficult to calculate precisely how much tax-free, supplemental per diem money you collected above and beyond those expenses.

 

This much we know, however: in 2007, the average resident in Schuylkill County was living on $41.93 per day, and the average resident in Berks County on $49.43 per day – for housing costs, health care, food, transportation, utilities, etc. (United States Census Bureau). On average, you collected $113 a day in tax-free, supplemental income, – just for food and lodging – which is more than double what your constituents had to live on for all the costs of life.

 

We also know that it is only 78 miles from your Lake Hautto home to the Capitol (a drive of 1 hour and 28 minutes), which means you are often able to drive home from the Capitol after a session day or nonvoting business day, and not need taxpayer-funded lodging.

 

Further, we know that oftentimes during session days, representatives are usually provided with catered meals out of leadership accounts, or lobbyists simply pick up the tab – further driving down your actual expenses for which you collected per diem money.

 

Concluding our first item on per diems: given that your average per diem check for food and lodging expenses in 2007 ($113) was more than double what your constituents had to live on for all the expenses of life that year ($45, when averaging between Schuylkill and Berks counties’ residents), and multiplying the differential ($68) by the number of days for which you collected a per diem in 2007 (149), we believe you overcharged the taxpayers by $10,000 (rounding down), just for calendar year 2007. We believe this figure to be a conservative estimate given that it does not factor in the abovementioned free meals provided to you from leadership accounts and lobbyists. Furthermore, if we were to multiply your years in the House (24) by the excess per diem money collected for each year, we’d likely compute an amount well over $100,000 in tax-free, supplemental income owed to the taxpayers (after adjusting for inflation). Again, this is a very conservative estimate.      

 

Regarding the second item mentioned above – the 2005 pay raise money: according to news reports in the Morning Call, you collected $7,000 in so-called “unvouchered expense” money from a 2005 pay raise that was not only repealed, but ruled unconstitutional. Many legislators never collected a penny of this illicit raise. Of those that did collect, the overwhelming majority paid the money back, either upon its repeal, or upon its being ruled unconstitutional. Indeed, the man who once walked in the very large shoes you aspire to fill – Sen. James Rhoades – did the honorable thing and paid back every single cent.

 

You’ve stubbornly refused paying back the pay raise money, citing the fact that you gave it to charity, which in your belief should excuse you from reimbursing the taxpayers. We would remind you that in American jurisprudence, giving ill-gotten gains to charity is never an acceptable defense. To say it in other words, someone who robs a bank could never tell the judge he gave the money to charity, and expect to get off the hook.

 

Our first appeal is to your sense of integrity: Giving back the rather large sum of money you owe the taxpayers is simply the right thing to do.

 

Our second appeal is to your sense for fiscal need: the Commonwealth is presently staring at a budget deficit that experts predict will reach anywhere from $1 billion to $2 billion. We are likely facing a combination of tax increases and painful cuts in vital state services and programs. What a shame it would be, for instance, if we had to cut  $100,000 for library services, when you alone owe the taxpayers at least that much in excess per diem money and unconstitutional, unvouchered expenses. Combined with like amounts owed by your colleagues, the figure grows exponentially.

 

Failing our first two appeals, our final appeal is to the political sense for which you are famous. It would simply be political suicide to seek an open state Senate seat when you owe a very large sum of money to the taxpayers for unvouchered expenses and excess, tax-free per diem money. This is akin to expecting to be granted approval for a mortgage with deficiencies in your credit history, something your constituents are painfully aware of during these rough economic times.

 

We look forward to receiving word from you in the very near future that you have decided to do right by the taxpayers you seek to represent in Senate by paying back your unvouchered expenses and excess, tax-free per diem money.

 

Sincerely,                                                                                

 

Eric Epstein

Rock the Capital

                                

Russ Diamond  

PA Clean Sweep

                           

Gene Stilp

Taxpayers and Ratepayers United

 

Tim Potts     

Democracy Rising

                                       

Dennis Baylor   

PA Accountability Project                        

              

The question of eligibility arises from Article 1, Section 6 of the Constitution. It says that no member of Congress can be appointed to a civil office that benefited from a salary increase during the time that House or Senate member served. On Jan. 4, 2008, President Bush signed an executive order raising the salaries of cabinet secretaries from $186,600 to $191,300, a cost of living adjustment….

Meanwhile….

The Senate’s senior member and staunchest constitutional advocate on the Democratic side of the aisle, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, is exploring whether Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) is eligible to become secretary of state in the Obama administration. (CNS reporting again)

Now Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) has a long history in the Senate and consequently a long history in looking at this particular issue. In speaking of a 1973 case during the Nixon administration when there was a circumvention of the  Constitution by lowering the salary in question, Byrd said:

(The Constitution) “is so clear it can’t be waived…In my judgment, the bill itself shouldn’t be passed. We should not delude the American people into thinking a way can be found around the constitutional obstacle.”

From a Washington Post story at the time via CNS

One wonders if the distinguished Senator from West Viginia will be as diligent in his constitutional fervor when it comes to the issue of Obama’s eligibility.

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama’s U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama’s election.

The meeting of justices will coincide with a vigil by the filer’s supporters in Washington on the steps of the nation’s highest court.

The suit originally sought to stay the election, and was filed on behalf of Leo Donofrio against New Jersey Secretary of State Nina Mitchell Wells.

Legal experts say the appeal has little chance of succeeding, despite appearing on the court’s schedule. Legal records show it is only the tip of an iceberg of nationwide efforts seeking to derail Obama’s election over accusations that he either wasn’t born a U.S. citizen or that he later renounced his citizenship in Indonesia.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air goes out of his way to pooh pooh the whole affair and concludes by saying; “I’m sure the comments section will fill with various conspiracy theories over Indonesian school records, Kenyan births, and so on.” Morrissey was correct; he received a torrent of comments, most of them well thought out and on point. Nothing conspiratorial about them. Some sample comments:

–While this has been a tiresome episode, it seems to me that any and all persons seeking the highest office should provide evidence to support their eligibility for the office. The same goes for voter registrations; Self declaration of citizenship does not seem to be satisfactory in this day and age.

–While I agree this basically will fizzle out, why doesn’t he just release it to shut everyone up? Not doing so just looks bad, like there’s something to hide.

–Ed, if there is nothing to hide then why won’t Obama just show the long-form Certificate of Birth. Hawaii doesn’t even accept its own Certification of Live Birth for official proof for their Hawaii Homes Program (or whatever it’s called).Whether there is anything to this or not, if he doesn’t get transparent and just cough up the goods then his upcoming presidency will be even more tainted. It’s easy. Just show us, through the courts not freaking KOS or factcheck.org, the birth certificate. End of story.

–While he’s at it he ought to release his medical records, his tax records and his college records. If he’s gonna be our president we ought to finally get to know who he is and what he’s been up to.

–I had to provide a certified copy of my birth certificate to get a license, go to college, join the military, and get a civilian job. I had to provide high school transcripts to get into college, for my scholarship and to get into the military. I had to provide college transcripts to get into grad school.Why can’t the man who is about to enter the office of the President of the United States be required to do the same?!?!?! Why can’t he be expected to do what the average citizen has no problem doing?

And, on and on….conspiratorial my foot!

Also see Gateway Pundit

And, Bob Parks writing in Canada Free Press yesterday

And, AFRO today

Unite States Supreme Court Building

.

“

This holiday season, celebrate the historic accomplishment of our movement for change. Treat yourself or a loved one to a limited edition four-year calendar featuring some of the best images from the campaign trail.

Make a donation of $35 or more right now and get an official Obama calendar to mark an amazing year:

Items purchased by December 15th are guaranteed to be delivered before December 25th.

When you make your donation, you’ll be supporting the Democratic National Committee. The resources they invested in the 50-state organizing strategy made this movement possible — help us build for future victories together.

Share this amazing moment with your friends and family. Thanks to supporters like you, we all have the opportunity to bring real change to America.

Get your holiday Obama calendar today:

https://donate.barackobama.com/calendar

Thank you,

Obama for America”

Clearly, I am unpatriotic for not appreciating all the merchandizing opportunities associated with our shiny, new historic Prez.  (Limited time offer good through 20126!!)

Last night I attended an anniversary party for the 50th anniversary of my PhD department at MIT.  Perhaps you’ve heard of the school.   Current PhD students – most of us women attending the event (and arguably in our dept. overall) – listened to a panel of 5 PhD recipients representing different decades: the first to speak was a man who is a retiring MIT professor, one of the first graduates of the program in the 1960s who went on to spend, like so many male MIT PhD graduates, almost his entire career at the Institute.  Following him was a woman, a faculty and dean from Princeton, who received her PhD from MIT in 1971.

During the introductions, she was credited as the first woman to receive her PhD from the department.  Everyone in the room clapped and cheered.  I was struck by it; we’re probably one of the most politically-minded departments in the Institute, but if the top 3 employers of PhD grads is any indication – World Bank, MIT, and Harvard – we’re not exactly firebrands.  It struck my obsessive, politicized mind as a distinctly post-election moment.

Prof. XY-’60s spoke first, about being offered a spot in the new PhD program when he arrived as a Master’s student in the early 1960s, the fully funded option coming through the haze of pipe smoke from the male faculty member extending the offer.  When he was close to graduating, another professor man offered Prof. XY-’60s a job: “Would you like to teach here?”  They asked several times before he finally accepted – “okay.”  Why not? 40 years later, he’s finally leaving the department.

When Prof. XX-70s spoke, one of the first thing she said was “no one offered me a job.”  Shocking, I know.  Also shocking – there was no applause for that.

Buried in the print materials lauding the department was the recognition that no women have gone through the complete tenure track in our department – from assistant professor to tenure – since 2007.  As recently as 2002, no woman had done that ever in our School (not just the dept).  Last night’s panel was a perfect encapsulation of that: 5 panelists – 3 women – 1 in academia, 1 in industry, and 1 at the Bank.  There’s still a lot of leaks in the academic pipeline.

The current (birth certificate) question is concerning the man who potentially could have his finger next to the nuclear button.

“[The birth certificate], in theory, should be there,” said Mr. Vieira. “What if it isn’t? Who knows, aside from Mr. Obama? Does Russian intelligence know it isn’t there? Does Chinese intelligence know it isn’t there? Does the CIA know that it isn’t there? Who is in a position to blackmail this fellow?”

This is precisely the danger that the founders considered when they demanded a higher standard of citizenship for a President than for any other federal office.. The question of “divided loyalties”, and the danger of a “dual citizen” becoming President was to be strictly avoided.

Who else may know, other than Obama himself, what the sealed Hawaiian birth certificate says? We can be fairly sure that person(s) in the Hawaii Department of Health have seen the document, or perhaps Gov Linda Lingle herself. Could this be the reason Gov Lingle was a “no show” at the national governors meeting with Mr. Obama?

The serious contenders, Rep. David Argall (R-124), Deer Lake attorney Gretchen Sterns, and Pottsville attorney Christopher Hobbs, have all officially announced and began wooing prospective delegates with websites, palm cards, and phone calls. Truth be told, Schuylkill County GOP Chairman Bob Ames is keeping the names of the delegates to the nominating convention so close to the vest that the respective campaigns are targeting pretty much anyone who has ever donated to, worked a poll for, or been elected to office for the Schuylkill County Republican Party.

Today, the Clarke Report checked in with county GOP officials for a status check on where they are in the delegate selection process. Finance Chairman Jason Ghergel, who has reportedly been assisting Ames with choosing delegates, said “Bob is taking his time and choosing carefully. He knows that he has to play this as straight as possible in order to bring legitimacy to the process,” Ghergel continued, “Bob is committed to choosing the most open minded and neutral batch of delegates, so that Schuylkill County is ensured the most fair and open nominating process possible.”

For those shocked that such an entrenched party operative like Ames would stay neutral in a race like this, you need only look to the top of the Republican Party for an explanation. A few weeks ago, Ames and the other 29th district county chairmen met with Senate President Pro Tempore Joseph Scarnati. Scarnati reportedly put the hammer down by ordering that the processes not be fixed nor decks stacked for one candidate over another. He believes that the GOP can ill-afford for an already demoralized party base to feel like the nominating process was rigged to quiet their collective will.

As for names, Ghergel was silent. However, he did say that current plans entail that Ames will release the names of those who have been selected as delegates and have committed to attend the convention, approximately a week before the actual “conference of counties”. Although, actually getting people to agree to be delegates is a whole other issue.

“We have actually had quite a few people tell Bob that they don’t want any part of the process,” said Ghergel.

This isn’t shocking considering that those attending the convention will have to choose sides between the two most powerful factions of the Republican party (the Argall and Rhoades camps). Yet, according to Ghergel, there are a great many more who have stepped forward to volunteer their time.

Local officials, though, could not give set time tables for WHEN this process would kick off. Apparently, the state GOP committee has taken an active hand in organizing the nominating process. I spoke with state GOP spokesman, Mike Barley, to see if I could nail down some dates. Barley explained that nothing could move forward until the Lt. Governor announced the vacancy, a step that has been delayed by the recent death of Lt. Governor Katherine Baker Knoll. However, Scarnati, the constitutional successor to Knoll, is scheduled to take the oath of office in Harrisburg tomorrow and announce the vacancy within days.

It is only after Scarnati’s announcement that state GOP Chairman Robert Gleason can set a date for the “conference of counties”. However, Gleason has posted some of the ground rules and procedures in the state party’s website for those looking for some information. 

“The state committee would like to have the nomination resolved before the holidays in order to give our candidate time to organize and hit the ground running after the new year,” said Barley.

When I asked what type of influence state party officials have wielded in the selection process, Barley stated, “We [the state GOP] don’t have a dog in this fight. We are not in the business of telling the 29th district who they should select. We are going to give the conferees the opportunity to select the candidate that they think is best to represent them. Our job is just to organize the event and ensure that the process comports with state by-laws.”

If anyone is interested in becoming a delegate for the nominating convention and they meet the required criteria for selection, please contact Bob Ames at (570) 622-1540 or stop by county GOP headquarters at 362 S. Centre St. Pottsville.

LEO DONOFRIO COMMENTS ON JUDAH BENJAMIN ARTICLE CONCERNING NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AND THE COMMON LAW

Leo Donofrio has responded with his comments and corrections to the Judah Benjamin thesis on Barack Obama’s eligiblity which was published at TD Blog two days ago. Doonofrio writes:

While I enjoyed reading this article, and I agree with the conclusion – that Obama is not eligible – I disagree with the basis upon which that conclusion was made.

Specifically, I disagree that the common law is controlling on the issue of “natural born citizen”. It is “national law” which is controlling. I don’t know if Mr. Benjamin is a lawyer, but his reading, explanation and understanding of the natural born citizen issue is not exactly on point.

I do agree with Benjamin’s conclusion, that Obama is not a natural born citizen, but for the wrong reasons…..

Donofrio’s conclusion:

….All in all, Mr. Benjamin has made a valiant attempt to provide a clear analysis of the natural born citizen topic. Please do not assume I am bashing him. I respect his passion and research, but it’s not entirely accurate. And considering what Scalia just said to the Federalist Society about the common law being gone (only three days after my case was scheduled for conference), it’s important to keep things in their proper historical perspective.

We reported here earlier (11/28):

This issue of how ineligible candidates were allowed on the ballot will be coming to a head on Dec 5 when the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has scheduled a conference on the merits of Leo Donofrio v. Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey – no. 08A047

Regarding local Connecticut case (Wrotnowski v CT Sec of State) which has also garnered national attention Donofrio notes:

Today we are watching for the SCOTUS AUTOMATED Docket to be updated with two important developments, one in Cort’s case and one in mine.

We hope the docket will reflect that Cort Wrotnowski has renewed his application to the Honorable Associate Justice Antonin Scalia as of this morning. Cort’s application for an emergency stay and/or injunction was denied by the Honorable Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on November 26, 2008. Cort sent it by Express mail on Saturday Nov. 29, 2008.

Also see Federalist Blog

h/t The Right Side of Life

Unite States Supreme Court Building

That said, I am more than a little wary of centralizing Democratic power in the Executive Branch.  The Senate has now lost Biden and Clinton.  VP-Elect Biden has no particular agenda other than to advise Obama.  The Clinton Global Initiative can no longer convene world leaders around social change initiatives. Et cetera.

I’ve read that Obama is a leader who selects skilled deputies and then gives them the freedom to do good work.  Some of his transition choices demonstrate this possibility.  At the same time, who remains to provide a healthy check on and challenging support system for his agenda?  Yes, yes, I know we have Waxman in a good spot, and in theory Pelosi and Reid will grow a backbone and drive some liberal legislation.   But this reminds me of Obama’s efforts to sideline 527s during the general election, and direct all fundraising to his campaign.

I find myself in an interesting position as a Clinton primary supporter; I have tremendous respect for Obama, am thrilled with his win, and like him and feel more comfortable with his leadership in large part because his most irritating fauxgressive supporters have steam coming out of their ears at some of his choices – and are perhaps crying softly into their pillows at night over the betrayal.  The stakes could not be higher for the Obama Administration, and I’m cautiously optimistic that in four years we will be living in a better world due to his team’s leadership.

But…

If he fails, he’s bringing a lot of good names – and their own well-established networks and infrastructures – down with him.  And in the event of a 1994-esque GOP renaissance (though I don’t see how that’s possible in 2 years), I wonder who’s dispersed through the system to beat back such an uprising.

h/t moniquemonicat

Below is reproduced the document wherby Barack Obama announced his presidential candidacy in Rhode Island. Title 17-23-17 of Rhode Island code reads in part:

(a) Any person is guilty of a felony who:

(1) Makes a declaration of candidacy or obtains, circulates, or causes to be circulated his or her nomination papers for an office, knowing or with good reason to know that he or she is not qualified as provided in this title to be his or her party’s candidate for the office;

(2) Knowingly or without reasonable and proper investigation makes any substantial misstatement in any declaration of candidacy, nomination paper, or affidavit provided for in this title;

(3) Signs a nomination paper when he or she knows that he or she is not qualified to sign;

(link to PDF

On this form Barack Obama “declares that he is eligible under the laws and Constitution of The United States to serve in the Office of The Presidnet of The United States if elected…”

CT SecState Susan Bysiewicz

Let me be clear from  the outset that the constitutional issues clouding Barack Obama’s eligibility also pertain to John McCain (born in Panama), Governor Bill Richardson (a dual Mexico U.S. citizen), former Governor George Romney (Mitt Romney’s father, born in Mexico) and one Roger Calero, who was on the ballot this year as a candidate of the Socialist Workers Party. Calero is clearly not a U.S. citizen as he is a Nicaraguan here on a Green Card.

This issue of how ineligible candidates were allowed on the ballot will be coming to a head on Dec 5 when the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has scheduled a conference on the merits of Leo Donofrio v. Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey – no. 08A047

Attorney Donofrio’s case seems to be the most promising among the dozen or so that have been filed in various states as well as at SCOTUS. (A Connecticut case has found its way to SCOTUS: No. 08A469 Title: Cort Wrotnowski, Applicant v. Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State)

A most interesting discussion of the legal ramifications surrounding the “natural born citizen” issue appeared today at TD Blog. (Also see The Federalist Blog)  Contributor Judah Benjamin at TD Blog states at the outset that:

The next time you are feeling particularly sure “the fix is in” and that my abiding notion that the main problem with this Election isn’t a gigantic conspiracy but a mass of small conspiracies and cabals and a vast mass of negligence, incompetence, ignorance and just plain a-holeism consider the candidacy of Roger Calero. You might also want to think about Governor Bill Richardson’s candidacy, Richardson is a Mexican-American bipatride and a natural-born Mexican citizen, or national, under the Mexican Constitution. It isn’t just BHO II, not even close.

Judah Benjamin is not at all confidant that SCOTUS will hear Donofrio’s case :

….granting that Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy are all either Federalists, or inclined towards the Federalist position, it is my belief that Donofrio’s case will probably not be heard because the whole issue is, as one of my legal friends in England called it “a poisoned chalice”. The Justices can follow the Law and risk calumny and civil disorder, or ignore the plain Common Law reading of the Constitution and risk usurpation and civil disorder.

That’s it folks; “calumny and civil disorder” or “usurpation and civil disorder”! Whatever it is it won’t be pretty but The Constitution must be defended and amended if warranted.

Argall and Rhoades’ son-in-law, Chris Hobbs, have both officially announced their candidacies, along with Deer Lake attorney Gretchen Sterns, to succeed Rhoades, who was killed in a car accident in October. Ames reportedly informed the campaigns last week that despite the fact that the staffs and family are some of the most influential people in the party, they would not be selected as delegates.

I applaud Ames, who throughout this process has tried to play the role of Solomon between two families that he has very close ties to, for choosing fairness above political loyalty. Although he still has the authority to determine the outcome of convention before it happens by stacking the deck for one candidate over the other, Ames has decided to be a mediator instead of a kingmaker. People like me have petitioned the GOP to rely less on the good ol’ boys network and more on openness and inclusion for nearly a year. With this decision, it looks like Ames has finally taken the first steps to make that happen.

Way to go, Bob!

Christopher W. Hobbs, Esq. is the son of former state Sen. Fred Hobbs and grandson of G. Harold Watkins, former President Judge of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. He is married to Alisa Rhoades, daughter of the late Sen. Jim Rhoades, with whom he has a 1-year old daughter, Caroline, and another on the way.

He received his undergraduate degree from Lehigh University in 1994 and his J.D. from Widener University School of Law in Harrisburg. Prior to graduating from law school, Hobbs served as an adminstrative assistant to the Chairman of the PA Liquor Control Board and as a member of the Schuylkill County Economic Opportunity Cabinet.

Hobbs is a currently a licensed and solo practicing attorney with offices in Pottsville. He focuses his practice in the areas of civil litigation, municipal law, commercial transactions, personal injury, family law, bankruptcy, criminal defense, and corporate law. He also works part-time in the Schuylkill County Public Defender’s office and serves as solicitor for the Schuylkill County Zoning Hearing Board, Pine Grove Borough, Tremont Borough, and the Schuylkill County Volunteer Firefighters Association. Prior to private practice, Hobbs was an associate with John Jones and Associates.

STRENGTHS

If heredity is as important in politics as it is in horseracing, then Hobbs is the Sunday Silence of this campaign. He will certainly garner a dedicated block of core Republican voters based on his pedigree and from still lingering sympathy for the loss of his father-in-law.

It will be extremely difficult for his opponents to claim that Hobbs is not qualified, since his resume reads better than most local candidates. As an attorney experienced with the inner workings of local government and as an appointed officer within the Republican Party (He is Parliamentarian for the Executive Committee), Hobbs is no political neophyte, despite the fact that this is his first real run at public office.

Pottsville is a crucial geographic anchor-head for any Republican in a county-wide race and Hobbs has the advantage of living there his entire life. But most importantly, his greatest advantages will be the ability to raise boatloads of cash through his many contacts and utilize his entire family, extended family, and Rhoades’ staff on the campaign trail.

WEAKNESSES

Party leaders are privately very worried that a potential Hobbs v. Lukach match-up in the special election could be an instant replay of the epic 1992 battle for Congress between Pottsville attorney John Jones, who ironically is Hobbs’ mentor, and then-Sheriff Tim Holden. That race was expected to be a barn burner, but turned out to be a total democratic route with Holden crushing Jones by 16 points. That year, the dynamic of a blue blood Pottsville lawyer against a north of the mountain, middle-class, Catholic row officer did not play out very well for the GOP. In a Hobbs v. Lukach race, that same dynamic would be at the forefront of the contest.

Also, living in the shadow of Fred Hobbs and Jim Rhoades is as much a burden as it is a blessing. Anytime Hobbs utters a word, he will be compared to those two political titans, which could result in his never being able to meet voters heightened expectations.

Finally, as is the case with any criminal defense attorney, Hobbs’ past representation of certain criminal clients may turn off many key segments of voters.

Voters have preferred insurance salesman, UPS employees, small business owners, and teachers over entrenched political operatives and county row officers a staggering 44% of the time. Only in overwhelmingly Republican districts where democrats have next to no chance of winning, have old political hands fared well.

Moreover, on Nov. 4th, there were 8 legislative races where a democratic beltway outsider faced an experienced Republican politician in an open race for a GOP held seat. The democratic candidates with unrecognizable faces and blank political resumes won 4 of them.

What does this mean for Schuylkill County and the rest of the 29th senate district?

For starters, it means that the conventional wisdom that the Republican Party MUST nominate Rep. David Argall (R-124) if they want to retain deceased Sen. Jim Rhoades long held seat because voters will only elect the candidate with the most political experience, is absolute nonsense. These statistics show that running an entrenched politician, campaign operative, or government employee does not guarantee an electoral victory. Yes, 24 years in the House of Representatives is a nice bullet point on any person’s resume, but as people like Lancaster businessman Lloyd Smucker, who defeated powerful Lancaster city councilman Jose Urdaneta for the 13th district senate seat on Nov. 4th or tire salesman Mike Folmer, who beat then-Senate Majority Leader Chip Brightbill for the 48th district senate seat two years ago, will attest, Pennsylvania voters are not afraid to send a political newcomer to Harrisburg who shares their values and espouses good ideas. In fact, as mentioned above, the neophyte Republican beats the generic democrat almost half the time.

It also lends credence to Gretchen Sterns and Chris Hobbs argument that “change” is just not a tagline that resonates with voters when Barack Obama is running for the presidency. It also works for Republican newcomers in districts like the 29th that are nearly split down the middle ideology.

Last and most shockingly, assuming the current trend continues in the special election, if the democrats pick a fresh-faced political newcomer to oppose Argall, they will statistically have a 50-50 shot to win the seat. For evidence, just ask Deputy Attorney General Guy Ciarrocchi, who lost to a law clerk in 157th district, or Rep. Steven W. Cappelli, who lost his 23rd district senate bid to a county lawyer. So much for a sure thing, huh?

My point is that elections are ALWAYS about ideas. In this day and age, voters have increasingly forgotten about what letter comes after a politician’s name, choosing instead to focus on who has the most clear and concise message that resonates with their own morals, values, and ideology.

Schuylkill delegates to the 29th district nominating convention would do well to understand this and base their decision not on who has the best name ID or who has paid the requisite amount of dues or who has the most government experience. Instead, they should take a good look at Argall, Hobbs, and Sterns and decide which person has the best IDEAS and the best plan to make those ideas a reality.

A woman who worked for Al Franken earlier this week during the Senate recount in one county ended up counting ballots as a nonpartisan volunteer here Saturday in a recount that grew heated at times.

Bob Westfall, who was in Breckenridge on Saturday as an observer for Norm Coleman, said he had concerns when members of his team learned a ballot counter had worked for Franken.

“I don’t understand how you can switch from being partisan one day to being neutral today,” Westfall said.

Neither do I pal. But then again….nothing like finding 32 votes in the trunk of a car AFTER election day- ALL 32 of them….for Franken.

Yah right.

Being president is about control, and tell me who ever controlled Bill or Hillary Clinton. They can’t control each other. … I think it’s because Warren Buffett and Paul Volcker and others have convinced Obama, ‘You’re going to have to focus like a laser on the economy. That’s issue Number One. And give Hillary and Bill the world.’ …

(Bob Woodward in remarks (emphasis added) from advance transcript of tomorrow’s The Chris Matthews Show)

Perhaps you’re wondering why the proposed Obama administration is looking so familiar, kinda like a Clinton third term. It has certainly teed off the hard lefties among his supporters. Joe Conason over at Salon.com attempts to ‘splain away:

….Wasn’t Obama the One who would exorcise the Clintonite demons from our midst and cleanse the capital of their sins?….Obama no doubt understood that he would be courting disappointment or worse among those whose measure of him depended on his supposed distance from the Clintons. Having encouraged those assumptions as a matter of political necessity, he must have realized within days of his election that if he made selections based on merit, he would inevitably recruit many of the best and brightest of the last Democratic administration…..(now here comes the funny part! emphasis added))….

If her experience in national security and foreign policy were as shallow as advertised back then, after all, on what basis could he offer her the position of top diplomat? If her judgment were as poor as charged by him and others over the past two years, then why would he place such heavy responsibilities on her shoulders? If her honesty were as questionable as his campaign sometimes claimed, then how can he trust her now?

The answer is not necessarily that his campaign rhetoric was false or insincere, but that he developed respect for her over the difficult months of that harsh contest — and came to believe that she would be as formidable at his side as she was in his face.

Not dishonesty or flip-flopping eh Joe?

Jawa Report blog has a theory about the re-emergence of the Clintons: (A Conspiracy You Can Believe In):

What if the Clintons have something on Obama that they’re hanging over his head? Something so destructive and devastating to his Presidency that it could destroy it if made public? What if they’re using it to shoehorn their peeps into positions they want – essentially blackmailing him with whatever it could be? Doesn’t it just seem odd that Obama, who beat Clinton handily and won the campaign convincingly, would have to keep groveling and checking-in with Hillary and Bill? And why exactly are so many Clinton holdovers being seated in the new administration?

Gives one pause, eh? Especially with all of the lawsuits around the country seeking to settle the matter of Obama’s eligibility to be President. The most significant of these is the one by Leo Donofrio now before our Supreme Court and scheduled for conferencing by the justices on Dec. 5. For a fair and balanced account of the various cases please go to the America’s Right blog written by Jeff Schreiber. Be sure to read the sidebar there containing links to many articles and cases. Donofrio’s page* Natural Born Citizen on the blogtext.org site is now missing as well as all the other blogs there; appears to be a cyber attack. We have previously written about the eligibility question here and here.

*Update:Received word that Leo Donofrio’s site page has been resurrected  here.

Other sites to visit for further information are Michelle Malkin about Hill SecState , and about the eligibility controversy see Atlas Shrugs and TD Blog.

Antiwar groups and other liberal activists are increasingly concerned at signs that Barack Obama’s national security team will be dominated by appointees who favored the Iraq invasion and hold hawkish views on other important foreign policy issues.

The activists are uneasy not only about signs that both Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates could be in the Obama Cabinet, but at reports suggesting that several other short-list candidates for top security posts backed the decision to go to war.

Aww….cry me a Mekong Delta river. It’s horrible to wake up to the real world…..huh? Nothing like a steaming hot cup of REALITY.

“I did not expect to be here today,” said Hobbs. “but the loss of my father-in-law has resulted in a need for a candidate that shares his commitment to the ideals that Jim Rhoades exhibited in his illustrious 28-year career serving our area, and I can make that commitment.”

Hobbs joins two other announced candidates in the race, Rep. David Argall (R-124) and attorney Gretchen Sterns.