Tax-Cheat Scandal and Appointment—Hilda Solis’ Family
by Peter Andrew—conservativeamerican.org
The puppet tells press he has “learned” you can’t have “two sets of standards.” He just learned that? Despite that nonsense, yet another tax scandal has popped up for the Obamanator. This guy has only been in office 16 days! Seems the husband of the puppet’s nominee for U.S. Labor Secretary, Hilda Solis, has more than $7,600 in tax liens on his auto repair business. The puppet spokespal says they won’t punish her for her husband’s mistakes. UPDATE—Feb 4—KOA Radio reports Solis made her own mistake when she lobbied for herself as a member of Congress, violating House ethics rules.
3rd
Appointment Scandal—Bill Richardson
by Peter Andrew—conservativeamerican.org
Gov. Bill Richardson is removed from the running to be U.S. Commerce Secretary, supposedly because of an on-going investigation into a possible pay-for-play deal in Richardson’s State. However, the puppet camp knew about that before it named him as its nominee to the post. So the real deal is?
Appointment Scandal—Peter Orszag
by Peter Andrew—conservativeamerican.org
While the puppet’s plans will create the largest deficit ever, he names another liberal blogger from the Brookings Institution [Rice is the other] who says, “Budget deficits could trigger a fiscal crisis!” Don’t we already have one? I guess to Orszag, deficits only matter if a Republican is in the White House. Blazing Deficit Hypocrisy! UPDATE—Apr. 18—KOA Radio reports—By 2016, the puppet deficit would reach $8.7 trillion, which is $2.9 trillion more than the deficits racked up by all Presidents combined since 1789 (232 years).
January 4
Senate Seat Scandal—Reid Reportedly Says, “No Blacks”
by Peter Andrew—conservativeamerican.org
The bankrupt Chicago Tribune says Harry Reid called Blagojevich to tell him not to appoint three different men to the puppet Senate seat, all of whom are black. Reid reportedly suggests two whites instead. UPDATE—Jan. 6—Durbin and Reid refuse to seat Burris, keeping Senate a whites-only club. UPDATE—Jan. 9—The Illinois Supreme Court pulls a King Herod and sent the whole Burris issue back to Pilate (the U.S. Senate) today. The court said no signature is needed by the Illinois Secretary of State and the Burris appointment by Blagojevich is valid. More trouble for Harry Reider and the Half-Black Prince! UPDATE—Jan. 12—At the puppet’s command, Reid and Durbin cave, and allow Burris to be seated. UPDATE—Jan. 15—Burris seated today. UPDATE—Feb. 19—Burris still under attack as some try to oust him. UPDATE—Feb. 24—Dick Durbin asks Burris to leave, “Still going for the whites-only club.” Burris says, “No.”
January 5
Appointment Scandal—possibly Lobbyist Scandal—Leon Panetta
by Peter Andrew—conservativeamerican.org
Democrats Feinstein and Rockefeller are ticked off for the puppet not only picking Panetta to run the CIA, but didn’t ask them or tell them before it all hit the media! Another headache for the puppet—people on both sides of the aisle say Panetta is unqualified. Panetta was the key adviser when Clinton decided against taking Bin Laden from the Sudanese who were ready to hand him over. UPDATE—Feb. 5—Panetta took $700,000 in speaking and consulting fees from bailed out firms and companies doing biz with the Government. His consulting sounds like lobbying work in the ‘no-lobbyists, I promise’ the puppet administration. UPDATE—Feb. 19—Panetta sworn in.
Appointment Scandal—Timothy Geithner—Tax-Cheat Number One
by Peter Andrew—conservativeamerican.org
The puppet’s pick for Treasury Secretary (oops) ‘forgot’ to pay taxes! Gosh, that’s an easy oversight, right? Could have happened to anyone? Hmmm. He failed to pay Social Security and Medicaid taxes for years and didn’t notice that a housekeeper he employed on the side wasn’t here legally. He knew darn well he owed the taxes and chose not to pay them. More proof the puppet is lousy at picking friends! UPDATE—Feb. 5—Mark Stein laughs on Limbaugh’s show as he explains Geithner deducted summer camp for his son! UPDATE—Mar. 9—Geithner promises a crack down on tax cheaters! Like himself and others on Team puppet!
Appointment Scandal—Carol Socialist Browner
by Peter Andrew—conservativeamerican.org
The puppet administration says being Socialist is Not a Problem. OMG, you’re kidding right? Nope. The puppet spokespal Nick Shapiro says the fact the puppet’s pick for Climate Hoax Czar is a Socialist is simply, “not a problem.” That’s it. It certainly is a problem! And a huge one at that! The puppet intends to lead this Nation into Socialism. It worked so well for Europe that it’s “not a problem here.”—Gag.
Appointment Scandal—Eric “let ‘em go” Holder
by Peter Andrew—conservativeamerican.org
The puppet picks Eric Holder for Attorney General. Holder was involved in the pardons of Marc Rich and 16 Puerto Rican terrorists. Another lousy pick. Republicans with no guts don’t bother to oppose him. The puppet gets praise and glory for appointing a minority [Holder is black], even though Bush got little credit for appointing minorities to cabinet positions. Holder’s law firm represents 17 Gitmo terrorists. Sure will be nice for them when the puppet closes Gitmo!
Appointment Scandal—Spy-Man Company Breaches Top Secret Files
by Peter Andrew—conservativeamerican.org
Rush Limbaugh says Terrorism and Intelligence Adviser, John O. Brennan, heads a firm cited for breaching sensitive files in the State Department. “The security breach, first reported by the Washington Times and later confirmed by State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, involved a contract employee of Brennan’s firm, The Analysis Corp., which has earned millions providing intelligence-related consulting services to Federal agencies and private companies. McCormack confirmed the contractor had accessed the passport files of the puppet, Clinton and McCain and that the Inspector General had launched an investigation.” Newsmax says the main target of the breach was the puppet passport file, and that the contractor accessed the file in order to ‘cauterize’ the puppet file, to make sure that whatever was in there, was bottled up.
Broken National Security Promise
by Peter Andrew—conservativeamerican.org
KOA Radio reports that the puppet promised to conduct no National Security business before taking office. However, he had his advisers from the primarily leftist pacifist group United States Institute of Peace and Transition staff (including Ellen Laipson and William Perry) conducting secret, ‘very, very high-level’ meetings in Damascus with Syrian and Iranian officials, according to Jeffrey Boutwell.”
January 7
New Hampshire (Declaring the Tenth Amendment) Gov. John Lynch[D]
Timeline:
Due Out of Committee House State-Fed. Relations & Veteran Affairs Commit. 03/19/2009
Reconsideration (Yeas—104, Nays—212); Lay Reconsideration On Table (Rep W.O’Brien) (Yeas—108, Nays—207); Reconsideration (Moved By Rep Eaton) (Yeas—216, Nays—150); State/Federal Relations & VA deemed “Inexpedient to Legislate”; On Floor; Special Order to
Beginning of Calendar 03/04/2009
Minority Committee Report: Ought to Pass; Majority Committee Report: Inexpedient to Legislate for
Mar 4 RC (vote 11-7) 02/19/2009
Deemed “Inexpedient to Legislate” but “Ought to Pass” 02/05/2009
Executive Session: 2/12/2009 01/27/2009
Set Public Hearing: 2/5/2009 01/14/2009
Introduced; Referred to State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs 01/08/2009
2009 SESSION House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 6
Sponsored by: Rep(s) Itse[R], Ingbretson[R], Comerford[R]; Sen(s) Denley[not listed in roster]
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Nine, A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.
Whereas the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 1, Article 7 declares that the people of this State have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled; and Whereas the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 2, Article 1 declares that the people inhabiting the territory formerly called the province of New Hampshire, do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each other, to form themselves into a free, sovereign and independent body-politic, or State, by the name of The State of New Hampshire; and
Whereas the State of New Hampshire when ratifying the Constitution for the United States of America recommended as a change, “First That it be Explicitly declared that all Powers not expressly & particularly Delegated by the aforesaid are reserved to the several States to be, by them Exercised;” and Whereas the other States that included recommendations, to wit Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island and Virginia, included an identical or similar recommended change; and Whereas these recommended changes were incorporated as the ninth amendment, the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, and the Tenth Amendment, the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people, to the Constitution for the United States of America; now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring: That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, —delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress; and
That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations, slavery, and no other crimes whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” therefore all acts of Congress which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory; and
That it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitution, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people;” and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated, rather than the use be destroyed. And thus also they guarded against all abridgment by the United States of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises, and retained to themselves the right of protecting the same. And that in addition to this general principle and express declaration, another and more special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the Constitution, which expressly declares, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press:” thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press: insomuch, that whatever violated either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, and that libels, falsehood, and defamation, equally with heresy and false religion, are withheld from the cognizance of federal tribunals. That, therefore, all acts of Congress of the United States which do abridge the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, are not law, but are altogether void, and of no force; and
That the construction applied by the General Government (as is evidenced by sundry of their proceedings) to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” and “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof,” goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to their power by the Constitution: that words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers, ought not to be so construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument: that the proceedings of the General Government under color of these articles, will be a fit and necessary subject of revisal and correction; and
That a committee of conference and correspondence be appointed, which shall have as its charge to communicate the preceding resolutions to the Legislatures of the several States; to assure them that this State continues in the same esteem of their friendship and union which it has manifested from that moment at which a common danger first suggested a common union: that it considers union, for specified national purposes, and particularly to those specified in their federal compact, to be friendly to the peace, happiness and prosperity of all the States: that faithful to that compact, according to the plain intent and meaning in which it was understood and acceded to by the several parties, it is sincerely anxious for its preservation: that it does also believe, that to take from the States all the powers of self-government and transfer them to a general and consolidated government, without regard to the special delegations and reservations solemnly agreed to in that compact, is not for the peace, happiness or prosperity of these States; and that therefore this State is determined, as it doubts not its co-States are, to submit to undelegated, and consequently unlimited powers in no man, or body of men on earth: that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the General Government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non foederis), to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them: that nevertheless, this State, from motives of regard and respect for its co-States, has wished to communicate with them on the subject: that with them alone it is proper to communicate, they alone being parties to the compact, and solely authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it, Congress being not a party, but merely the creature of the compact, and subject as to its assumptions of power to the final judgment of those by whom, and for whose use itself and its powers were all created and modified: that if the acts before specified should stand, these conclusions would flow from them: that it would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights: that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism—free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power: that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go. In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. That this State does therefore call on its co-States for an expression of their sentiments on acts not authorized by the federal compact. And it doubts not that their sense will be so announced as to prove their attachment unaltered to limited government, whether general or particular. And that the rights and liberties of their co-States will be exposed to no dangers by remaining embarked in a common bottom with their own. That they will concur with this State in considering acts as so palpably against the Constitution as to amount to an undisguised declaration that that compact is not meant to be the measure of the powers of the General Government, but that it will proceed in the exercise over these States, of all powers whatsoever: that they will view this as seizing the rights of the States, and consolidating them in the hands of the General Government, with a power assumed to bind the States, not merely as the cases made federal, (casus foederis,) but in all cases whatsoever, by laws made, not with their consent, but by others against their consent: that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority; and that the co-States, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal, will concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shall be exercised within their respective territories; and
That the said committee be authorized to communicate by writing or personal conferences, at any times or places whatever, with any person or person who may be appointed by any one or more co-States to correspond or confer with them; and that they lay their proceedings before the next session of the General Court; and That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:
I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.
II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.
III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.
IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.
V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.
VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and
That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government; and That copies of this resolution be transmitted by the house clerk to the President of the United States, each member of the United States Congress, and the presiding officers of each State’s legislature.
January 10
Inauguration Scandals
by Peter Andrew—conservativeamerican.org
The puppet told ABCDEmocrat News he won’t be able to carry out his campaign promises! [You mean he lied? Now, we have to listen to four years of ‘the puppet Lied.’ Great.] The puppet Coronation price-tag will be more than three times any other inauguration ever cost! UPDATE—Jan. 19—He’ll be spending $150 million! So, big spending on the next CEO of our Nation is okay, but other CEOs have to skip the spas and the evil corporate jet rides? —Blatant Hypocrisy. UPDATE—Ally was close to $175 million. The puppet picks an anti gay-marriage pastor to speak, creating commotion over what inclusiveness means. The puppet chose Rick Warren, Evangelical Pastor and author. Geoff Kors, Equality California, said, “Appalling. If that’s the puppt’s idea of a new day, we are in a lot of trouble.” UPDATE—Jan. 21—Warren actually said “Jesus” during the prayer!
The puppet picks a Muslim scholar to speak at his Coronation Prayer Service January 21—who is the leader of a group that Federal prosecutors say has ties to terrorists! Yet another instance of the puppet befriending terrorists. She is Ingrid Mattson, President of the Islamic Society of North America. In July 2008, Federal prosecutors in Dallas filed court documents linking her terror group, Hamas, which is hell-bent on the destruction of Israel. The puppet sells only inauguration day interview to ABC for the $2 million. They paid to sponsor the D.C. Neighborhood Ball!
KOA Radio reports that the puppet becomes the first President ever to skip the Salute to Heroes Inaugural Ball, which is held in honor of Medal of Honor recipients, Purple Heart recipients, paralyzed Veterans and other military heroes. The puppet did, however, find time to attend the Neighborhood Ball, which was filled with Hollywood’s ultra elite. New York Post—In the third sentence of his first speech as President, the puppet said, ‘44 Americans have now taken the Presidential oath.’ The correct number is 43, as Grover Cleveland served twice.”
January 12
Oregon (Restoring Governor Powers of State Militia)
Timeline:
Public Hearing Held 03/11/2009
Referred to Rules by order of Speaker; without recommendation as to adoption and be referred to Rule 02/20/2009
Work Session held 02/17/2009
Referred to Veterans and Emergency Services 01/27/2009
First Reading; Referred to Speaker’s Desk 01/12/2009
75th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY—2009 Regular Session
House Joint Memorial (HJM) 5
Sponsors: ?
SUMMARY—The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject to consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editor’s brief statement of the essential features of the measure as introduced. Urges Congress to enact legislation that restores powers of Governors to withhold consent to federalization of their National Guard units, unless declaration of war has been adopted or United States faces attack or invasion and President has invoked powers authorized by act of Congress to address those circumstances.
JOINT MEMORIAL—To the puppet and the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled: We, your memorialists, the Seventy-fifth Legislative Assembly of the State of Oregon, in legislative session assembled, respectfully represent as follows:
Whereas under clause 15, section 8, Article I of the United States Constitution, Congress may call forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; and Whereas since 1933, federal law has provided that persons enlisting in a State National Guard unit simultaneously enlist in the National Guard of the United States, a part of the United States Army; and Whereas State National Guard enlistees retain their status as State National Guard members unless and until ordered to federal active duty and then revert to State status upon being relieved from federal service; an
Whereas in 1986, Congress passed and the President signed the ‘Montgomery Amendment,’ which provides that a Governor cannot withhold consent with regard to federal active duty outside the United States because of any objection to the location, purpose, type or schedule of such duty; and Whereas under the United States Constitution, each State’s National Guard unit is controlled by the Governor in time of peace, but can be called up for federal duty by the President, provided that the President is acting pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the United States; and Whereas the War Powers Act of 1973 specifically limits the power of the President to wage war without the approval of Congress; and
Whereas in October 2002 Congress authorized military force under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) Against Iraq in a resolution in response to a presidential request under the War Powers Act; and Whereas if the Congressional intent of the 2002 Iraq AUMF was to enforce then, current and all future United Nations Security Council resolutions about Iraq, then the 2002 Iraq AUMF is too broad and the National Guard could remain federalized indefinitely; and Whereas the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists of September 18, 2001, similarly is overly broad and should not be construed to allow the President to call up the National Guard to go to Iraq, Afghanistan or any other country deemed part of the ‘war on terror‘; and
Whereas the AUMF resolutions contained neither a termination date nor a process or procedure to determine when the authorization should terminate; and Whereas United States military forces, including members of the Oregon National Guard and guard members from other States, have long since addressed the purposes recited under the 2002 Iraq AUMF resolution and Iraq does not pose a continuing threat to the national security of the United States nor is there an extant United Nations Security Council resolution to be implemented; and Whereas the President may not maintain United States military forces, and in particular members of the Oregon National Guard, in Iraq other than for the purposes set forth by Congress in the AUMF resolutions; and
Whereas without a specific date for withdrawal of United States military forces, or a method or formula for determining the time for withdrawal, and in the absence of congressional legislation curing these omissions, the President is required to order the withdrawal of troops within a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner, and the puppet has taken no such action; and Whereas other than the AUMF resolutions, there is no authority under the Constitution or the laws of the United States for the continued presence of Oregon National Guard members in Iraq and Afghanistan; and Whereas the maintenance of Oregon National Guard members in Iraq beyond the time and scope set forth in the AUMF resolutions has resulted in, and continues to result in, significant harm to guard members and their families, including death and injury, loss of time together and financial hardship; now, therefore,
Be It Resolved by the Legislative Assembly of the State of Oregon—(1) The Congress of the United States is respectfully requested to revisit the 1986 Montgomery Amendment and enact legislation that restores the powers of a governor to withhold consent to federalization of a State National Guard unit, except when a declaration of war has been adopted or when the United States faces attack or invasion and the puppet has invoked powers authorized by an act of Congress to address those circumstances. (2) A copy of this memorial shall be sent to the puppet, to the Senate Majority Leader, to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to each member of the Oregon Congressional Delegation.
January 13
Maine (Budget) Gov. John Baldacci[D] (No Tenth Amendment Resolution)
Timeline:
Under Suspension of the Rules read and adopted, in concurrence; Read; Adopted; Sent to Concurrence;
Ordered Sent Forthwith 01/13/2009
JOINT RESOLUTION ___?
MEMORIALIZING THE PRESIDENT-ELECT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS
TO SUPPORT THE “DIVIDED WE FAIL” EFFORT
WE, your Memorialists, the Members of the One Hundred and Twenty-fourth Legislature of the State of Maine now assembled in the First Regular Session, most respectfully present and petition the puppet and the members of the United States Congress, as follows:
WHEREAS, the opportunity to have access to health care and long-term financial security is a basic need that all Americans share and it is the foundation for future generations; and WHEREAS, we believe that all Americans should have peace of mind about their future long-term financial security and have access to affordable health care, including prescription drugs, and these costs should not burden future generations; and WHEREAS, wellness and prevention efforts, including changes in personal behavior such as diet and exercise, should be top national priorities; and
WHEREAS, Americans should have choices when it comes to long-term care, allowing them to maintain their independence at home or in their communities with expanded and affordable financing options; and WHEREAS, our children and grandchildren should have an adequate quality of life when they retire, and Social Security must be strengthened without burdening future generations; and WHEREAS, workers should be provided with financial incentives to save, should have access to effective retirement plans and should be able to keep working and contributing to society regardless of age; moreover, Americans of all ages should have access to tools to help manage their finances and save for the future as well as easy-to-understand information to help them increase their financial literacy and manage their money wisely; and
WHEREAS, individuals, businesses, health care providers, nonprofit organizations and government must work together to find solutions, personally, privately and publicly; and WHEREAS, the American Association of Retired Persons, the Business Roundtable and the Service Employees International Union have committed to be champions for this new American dream by launching Divided We Fail, an effort that engages millions of Americans to call their elected leaders to work together across party lines to provide answers, action and accountability on these issues; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: That We, your Memorialists, on behalf of the people we represent, express our support for the Divided We Fail effort and respectfully urge federal elected officials to do the same; and be it further RESOLVED: That suitable copies of this resolution, duly authenticated by the Secretary of State, be transmitted to the puppet, President-elect of the United States, to the President of the United States Senate, to the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives and to each Member of the Maine Congressional Delegation.
January 20
Appoints many cabinet members—Janet Napolitano
conservativeoasis.com
One noteworthy one? Janet Napolitano. She’s an attorney and politician. Wouldn’t it have been nice to have someone in there that was actually involved in real security issues, with a background in something useful, like defense, or intelligence? Basically, her only qualification for being in this position that I can tell is her involvement in the Oklahoma City bombing as a U.S. Attorney; and her involvement as an attorney for Anita Hill when she tried to Coke can Clarence Thomas. Surely such loyalty to the liberal cause must be rewarded someday, even if you are not qualified for the position. Of recent import were her great contributions were stating that the Canadian border was like and needed to be treated like the Mexican border; that the 9-11 hijackers came through Canada; and that right-wing extremism might be on the rise, perhaps enticing our military vets into radical para-criminal activity. As we can see, great start for Barry.
Biden Doesn’t Know Name of Supreme Court Justice!
by Peter Andrew—conservativeamerican.org
[Another Gaffe for Joe Biden.] Fox News reports—Biden misspoke when he told a cheering crowd of supporters, “Jill and I had the great honor of standing on that stage, looking across at one of the great justices, Justice Stewart.” Justice John Paul Stevens—not Stewart—swore Biden in as Vice-President.
Wyoming (Employee Free Choice Act) Gov. Dave Freudenthal[D]
Timeline:
(Has not made a Tenth Amendment Resolution yet)
House comm. returned bill (Ayes—4, Nayes—5) 03/03/2009
House introduced; referred; No report prior to CoW Cutoff 01/23/2009
House Received for introduction 01/22/2009
Bill number assigned 01/20/2009
House Joint Resolution (HJR 0013)
Sponsored by: Rep(s) Cohee[R], Buchanan[R], Childers[R], Edmonds[R], Illoway[R], Miller[R], Petersen[R],
Quarberg[R], Teeters[R]; Sen(s) Landen[R], Ross[R]
A JOINT RESOLUTION requesting Congress to defeat the Employee Free Choice Act.
WHEREAS, the right of employees under the National Labor Relations Act to choose whether to be represented by a labor organization by way of secret ballot election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board is among the most important protections afforded under federal labor law; and WHEREAS, the right of employees to choose by secret ballot their union representative is the only method that ensures a choice free of coercion and intimidation; and WHEREAS, the recognition of a labor organization by private agreement, rather than a secret ballot election overseen by the National Labor Relations Board, threatens the freedom of employees to choose whether to be represented by a labor organization and severely limits the ability of the National Labor Relations Board to ensure the protection of workers; and
WHEREAS, the Employee Free Choice Act, if it becomes law, would eliminate the rights of employees to vote to recognize a union by secret ballot, and replace it with the card check process, where employees are forced to make their choice in front of union supporters; and WHEREAS, the Employee Free Choice Act would increase potential penalties against employers but not on labor organizations for certain violations of the National Labor Relations Act, and employers would be subject to paying triple back pay and civil penalties of up to twenty thousand dollars ($20,000.00) per violation; and WHEREAS, the United States House of Representatives passed the Employee Free Choice Act on March 1, 2007 and the legislation is now pending before the United States Senate.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WYOMING—Section 1. The Legislature of the State of Wyoming urges the United States Senate to defeat the Employee Free Choice Act, which would destroy a system established more than seventy (70) years ago with the enactment of the National Labor Relations Act, a system that protects the interests of both the employee and employer by ensuring that both sides have an opportunity to make their case, and by which employees are able to express their decisions in private, free from coercion and intimidation. Section 2. That the Secretary of State of Wyoming transmit copies of this resolution to the puppet, to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States Congress and to the Wyoming Congressional Delegation.
January 21
The puppet—Do as I say, not as I do
by Peter Andrew—conservativeamerican.org
KOA Radio reports David Axelrod says the puppet likes to be warm and keeps the oval office so hot you could grow tropical plants in there! Odd, considering on May 19, 2008, the puppet chided Americans that it is wrong for them to keep their thermostats on 72 degrees and stated, “That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen.”
Broken Promise on Iraq War
by Peter Andrew—conservativeamerican.org
[On his first full day in office, the puppet breaks a promise he made in July, 2008.] Fox News reports the puppet said he would hold a full cabinet meeting his first day to set a new course to get out of Iraq. He did not hold the meeting and instead, plans to get troops out of Iraq “in good time” while adding to forces in Afghanistan!
January 22
Orders the Closure of Guantanamo—Within a Year
conservativeoasis.com
“Where will they go?” Don’t know. “Will they be tried?” Don’t know. “Will other countries take them?” None volunteering so far. [Bright move, dipstick. Make a commitment—Have no solution how to “get there from here.” Sounds like some of his other starry eyed proposals. Add to that the fact that his administration is now talking about using Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan for the same purpose we now use Guantanamo. Amazing]
Executive Orders Scandal
by Peter Andrew—conservativeamerican.org
The puppet demonstrates he’s not ready for prime time as he signs Executive orders, but has to ask his attorney what they actually say! How can you, in good faith, sign an executive order when you don’t know what it says! Greg Craig had to help the puppet. Remember when they said Bush was too dumb to be President and Dick Cheney was actually doing the work? Maybe the puppet is too dumb and Greg Craig is actually doing the work!
Lobbyist Scandal—William Lynn
by Peter Andrews—conservativeamerican.org
A U.S. Senate committee puts the nomination of William Lynn to be Deputy Defense Secretary on hold. It seems he breaks the brand new the puppet administration rules just set up the day before! The puppet promised no former lobbyists would serve in his administration. That would rule Lynn out. The puppet’s press team says rules are made to be broken! UPDATE—the puppet administration says it’s in “the public interest” to grant Lynn a waiver! So, all the other lobbyists hired in the past were hired against “the public interest?” UPDATE—Feb 11.—Lynn gets approval without any trouble.
Appointment Scandal—Secretary of State Unconstitutional?
by Peter Andrew—conservativeamerican.org
With no objections from wimpy Republicans, Hillary Rodham Clinton is sworn in as Sec. of State. Her Senate vote increasing the pay for the Sec. of State made her ineligible for the position according to Article 1 Section 6 of the U.S. Constitution.
Lobbyist—William Corr
by Peter Andrew—conservativeamerican.org
Again, the puppet breaks his brand new no lobbyist rules! Twice in one week! This time it is with the naming of lobbyist William Corr to be Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services. So much for ‘higher standards’ for Team puppet. “When I am the puppet, they [lobbyists] won’t find a job in my White House.”
Terrorist Scandal—Talks with Terrorists—Apology Tour
by Peter Andrew—conservativeamerican.org
The puppet makes a big mistake in granting his first post-inauguration TV interview to Al-Arabiya (not a U.S. network!) and says America must stop “dictating” to others. Fox News—All too often the United States starts by dictating … and we don’t always know all the factors that are involved. So, let’s listen. And I think if we do that, then there’s a possibility at least of achieving some breakthroughs. … My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect.”
Lobbyist Scandal—Mark Patterson
by Peter Andrew—conservativeamerican.org
And Again, the puppet breaks his own no lobbyist rule. No big deal, rules schmules after all. This time it is with yet another waiver and the appointment of Goldman Sachs Lobbyist Mark Patterson, named to be number two under Tim the Tax-Cheat Geithner at the Treasury. The puppet again demonstrates what a lousy judge of character he is in picking a tax-cheat and lobbyist with conflicts of interest to head the treasury.
Tax-Cheat Scandal and Appointment Scandal—Tom Daschle
by Peter Andrew—conservativeamerican.org
[The theme to this list—the puppet does a lousy job of picking friends.] AP reports former U.S. Senator Tom Daschle, picked by the puppet to lead health reform, “recently filed amended tax returns to report $128,203 in back taxes and $11,964 in interest.” [Hey, it was okay for Geithner, so it’s okay for Daschle.] Chicago-Style Democrat Senator Dick Durbin says Daschle “lost an election ending his public career…he went out in the private sector, and now he’s found himself having made a mistake and admitted to it. He took the steps necessary to start paying the taxes, make sure they’re paid. Now, that’s the right thing to do.” [I doubt Durbin would say that about a republican!] UPDATE—Feb. 20—I was right. Durbin kept quiet about taxes Palin owes after laws were changed to hurt her. UPDATE—Feb. 3— in his handling of Daschle’s Cabinet nomination, telling Fox News he takes full responsibility for a process that ended in Daschle withdrawing. “I consider this a mistake on my part, one that I intend to fix and correct and make sure that we’re not screwing up again,” the puppet said.
And this—All Voices reports the puppet said, “So, this is a mistake—probably not the first one I’m going to be making in this office, but what I’m absolutely committed to doing is fixing it.”[Excuse me, the puppet, but somethin’ ain’t right with that statement. Don’t you mean “probably not the last one I’m going to me making in this office” or at least “not the first one I made in this office”?”]
Comedian Gaffe
by Peter Andrew—conservativeamerican.org
Democrat Matt Lauer tells the puppet singer Jessica Simpson has replaced him on the cover of US Magazine. The puppet jokes that she is “losing a weight battle, apparently.” Not very funny and not a very nice, or Presidential thing to do.
Michigan (Declaring the Tenth Amendment) Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm[D]
Timeline
SCR4— Referred to the Committee on Judiciary; RULES SUSPENDED; Pending the order that, under rule
3.204, the concurrent resolution be referred to the Committee on Government Operations and Reform 03/03/2009
HCR4—Referred to Committee on Government Operations 01/22/2009
House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 4
Sponsored by: Rep(s) Opsommer[R]; Sen(s) Patterson[R], Richardville[R], Brown[R], Cropsey[R], Sanborn[R],
Allen[R], Barcia[D], Gleason[D], Kuipers[R], Pappageorge[R]
A concurrent resolution to affirm Michigan’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not enumerated and granted to the federal government. Whereas, The Tenth Amendment provides that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the States are reserved to the States and to the people. The Tenth Amendment limits the scope of federal power and prescribes that the federal government was created by the States specifically to be an agent of the States. Currently, the States are treated as agents of the federal government; and
Whereas, Many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the United States Congress may not commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the States. By this resolution Michigan claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment over all powers not granted to the federal government under the United States Constitution; and Whereas, All government agencies and their agents and employees operating within the geographic boundaries of the State of Michigan, or whose actions have an effect on the inhabitants, lands, or water of Michigan, shall operate within the confines of the original intent of the Constitution of the United States or be subject to penalty of law as provided for now or in the future within the Constitution of the State of Michigan, the Michigan statutes, or the common law. This resolution serves as notice and demand to the federal government, as Michigan’s agent, to cease and desist immediately all mandates that are beyond the scope of the federal government’s constitutionally delegated powers;
Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That we affirm Michigan’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not enumerated and granted to the federal government; and be it further Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to the puppet, Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, and the members of the Michigan congressional delegation.
Missouri (Declaring the Tenth Amendment) Gov. Jay Nixon[D]
Timeline:
HR1094—Proposed Effective 08/28/2009
HCR13—Hearing Not Scheduled
HCR13—Sent to Rules, Joint Rules, Resolutions and Ethics Committee
HCR29—Motion to Pass Failed; Executive Session Completed 04/22/2009
HCR13—Public Senate Hearing Held 04/07/2009
HCR13—Refered to Senate Joint Rules, Resolutions, & Ethics 03/24/2009
HCR13—Reported to the Senate; Adopted 03/23/2009
HR1094—Offered 03/11/2009
HCR13—Rules – Reported Do Pass; Rules – Executive Session Completed 03/10/2009
HCR29—Public Hearing Completed 02/24/2009
HCR 29—Referred: Special Stand Comm. On Infrastructure & Trans. Fund 02/19/2009
HCR 29—Offered 02/16/2009
HCR13—Referred: Rules-Pursuant to Rule 25(32)(f); Reported Do Pass; Voted Do Pass; Executive
Session Completed 02/18/2009
HCR13—Public Hearing Completed 02/10/2009
HCR13—Referred to Read ID and Personal Privacy 01/29/2009
HCR13—Public Hearing Completed 01/22/2009
FIRST REGULAR SESSION
95TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY
House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 13
Sponsored by: Rep(s) Guest[R], Ervin[R]
House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 29
Sponsored by: Rep(s) Schaaf[R], Guest[R]
House Resolution (HR) 1094
Sponsored by: Rep(s) Davis[R]
Whereas, the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”; and Whereas, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and Whereas, the founders of this nation rejected the principles of socialism, communism and other forms of tyrannical governments that allow for redistribution of the wealth, preferring instead to set up a constitutional republic form of government, based upon Judeo-Christian beliefs, that encourages personal responsibility; and
Whereas, the Declaration of Independence was written for the purpose of freeing these United States from the tyranny of a government that would not listen to its citizens, as set forth in the following language: “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…”; and Whereas, the Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people of the United States of America and each sovereign State in the Union of States, now have, and have always had, rights the federal government may not usurp.
January 23
Rescinds “Mexico City Policy” on Abortion
conservativeoasis
Previously placed by Ronald Reagan, then removed by Bill Clinton, and then reinstated by George W. Bush, this policy prohibited American taxpayer money from going to agencies in the world who provided information on abortion or performed them. Now, with all the liberals in the world crying constantly about how much we could feed people in our own country if we stopped fighting wars in other countries, it is amazing that liberals are willing to send taxpayer money into the hands of other governments and agencies to fight the war on live babies in the womb.
January 25
Breaks Promise to Anti-Life Anti-Family Pro Choice Crowd
by Peter Andrew—conservativeamerican.org
Last year before the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, the puppet told pro-abortion activists: The first thing I’d do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. With a single stroke of the pen, the puppet (promised he) would wipe away virtually every state law on abortion nationwide. Instantly, it will undo thirty-seven years of legal work, research, and educational successes that AUL has accomplished in the 50 States. UPDATE—July 16—the puppet no longer has to worry about this Act. He has included it within the puppet Health Care Plan.
January 26
Appointment Scandal—James Steinberg
by Peter Andrew—conservativeamerican.org
The puppet’s pick for Deputy Sec. of State rewrites the Constitution saying in written testimony that Americans have a free speech right to tax-payer funded abortion! LifeNews—Steinberg claims Congress cannot constitutionally restrict taxpayer funding to perform or promote abortions. He says the Mexico City policy, which the puppet rescinded “is an unnecessary restriction that, if applied to organizations based in this country, would be an unconstitutional limitation on free speech.”
Tax-Cheat Nominee Timothy Geithner
conservativeoasis
It is confirmed to watch over our money. Don’t worry, more tax-cheats to come!
Hollister v. Soetoro, Case 08-cv-02254-JR
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Gregory S. Hollister, Plaintiff v. Barry Soetoro, et al., Defendants
Civil Action No. 1:08-cv-02254-JR
Motion to Dismiss of the puppet and Vice-President Joseph Biden
Defendants the puppet and Vice President Joseph Biden, through counsel, respectfully move to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The grounds for this motion are set forth in defendants’ Memorandum in Support of their Motion, which defendants incorporate herein by reference. Dated: January 26, 2009. Respectfully submitted, Perkins Coie, By: /s/ Robert F. Bauer, Robert F. Bauer, D.C. Bar No. 938902, rbauer@perkinscoie.com, 607 Fourteenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005-2003, Telephone: 202.628.6600, Facsimile: 202.434.1690, Attorney for Defendants the puppet and Joseph Biden
IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendants the puppet and Vice President Joseph Biden submit this Brief in support of their Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff’s allegations are patently false and baseless, but even taking them as true for purposes of this Motion, the suit must be dismissed immediately. Plaintiff fails to establish the Court’s jurisdiction and he fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Accordingly, the Court must dismiss the complaint with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
The puppet has publicly produced a certified copy of a birth certificate showing that he was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu Hawaii. See, e.g., Factcheck.org, “Born in the U.S.A. The truth about the puppet’s birth certificate,” available at http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html (concluding that the birth certificate is genuine, and noting a contemporaneous birth announcement published in a Honolulu newspaper). Hawaii officials have publicly verified that they have the puppet’s “original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.” See “Certified,” Honolulu Star Bulletin, Oct. 31, 2008. This Court can take judicial notice of these public news reports. See The Washington Post v. Robinson, 935 F.2d 282, 291 (D.C. Cir. 1991); Agee v. Muskie, 629 F.2d 80, 81 n.1, 90 (D.C. Cir. 1980).
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff alleges that he is a retired Colonel from the United States Air Force and is part of the “Individual Ready Reserve,” which “means he is subject to Presidential recall for the rest of his life.” As a result, plaintiff contends he owes a “duty” to obey lawful orders of the President as Commander-in-Chief. Plaintiff further alleges that he “has reason to believe that the puppet may not be a ‘natural born’ United States Citizen and therefore is not qualified pursuant to the United States Constitution to serve as President of the United States.” Based on these allegations, plaintiff contends that if the puppet issues an order to reinstate plaintiff to active duty, plaintiff will not know whether to obey or disregard the order given his alleged uncertainty regarding the puppet’s citizenship status.
Plaintiff’s complaint consists of a single interpleader claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1335 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 22. He names defendants the puppet and Vice President Biden as alleged claimants to the supposed “property” at issue—i.e., the duties plaintiff contends he owes the puppet as Commander-in-Chief. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, a declaration whether the puppet is constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States under the Natural Born Citizen Clause, U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 5. This requested relief is not new. Plaintiff’s counsel, Philip Berg unsuccessfully pursued similar relief in Berg v. the puppet, 574 F. Supp. 2d 509 (E.D. Penn. 2008). Id. (dismissing under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) plaintiff’s complaint, which alleged, inter alia, that the puppet was barred from holding the office of President under the Natural Born Citizen Clause); see also United States Supreme Court Docket, available at Case 1:08-cv-02254-JR Document 9 http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/docket.html (Case No. 08-4340 (denying Berg’s petition for a writ of certiorari on Jan. 12, 2009 and application for injunction on Jan. 21, 2009). Courts throughout the nation have dismissed similar suits filed by others.
In this case, plaintiff through his counsel, Philip Berg, attempts to use interpleader as a means to sidestep prior decisions denying challenges to the puppet’s citizenship status. (“Plaintiff through his Counsel, Philip J. Berg …allege the following[.]”). For the reasons set forth below, the Court should reject plaintiff’s transparent attempt to reassert his counsel’s prior unsuccessful challenges to the puppet’s citizenship status and dismiss plaintiff’s complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12.
ARGUMENT
I. Legal Standard—“[On] a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiff bears the burden of persuasion to establish subject-matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.” Thompson v. Capitol Police Bd., 120 F. Supp. 2d 78, 81 (D.D.C. 2000). “In reviewing a Lawsuits have been filed in at least 10 states claiming that either the puppet or the 2008 Republican Presidential Candidate, Senator John McCain, is not a “natural born citizen.” All of the cases that have proceeded to judgment have been found to be improper and have been quickly dismissed. See, e.g., Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz, 958 A.2d 709, 713 (Conn. 2008) (dismissing case regarding the puppet for lack of statutory standing and subject matter jurisdiction); Stamper v. United States, 2008 WL 4838073, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 4, 2008) (dismissing suit regarding the puppet and McCain for lack of jurisdiction); Roy v. Federal Election, 2008 WL 4921263, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 14, 2008) (dismissing suit regarding the puppet and McCain for failure to state a claim); Marquis v. Reed, Superior Court Case No. 08-2-34955 SEA (Wash. 2008) (dismissing suit regarding the puppet); Hollander v. McCain, 566 F. Supp. 2d 63, 71 (D.N.H. 2008) (dismissing suit regarding McCain on standing grounds); In re John McCain’s Ineligibility to be on Presidential Primary Ballot in PA., 944 A.2d 75 (Pa. 2008); Lightfoot v. Bowen, Supreme Court Case No. S168690 (Cal. 2008) (Original Proceeding) (denying Petition for Writ of Mandate/Prohibition and Stay regarding the puppet); Robinson v. Bowen, 567 F. Supp. 2d, 1144, 1147 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (dismissing suit regarding McCain for lack of standing and lack of a state court remedy); Constitution Party v. Lingle, 2008 WL 5125984, at *1 (Haw. Dec. 5, 2008) (unpublished) (dismissing election contest challenging the puppet’s Nov. 4, 2008 victory); Martin v. Lingle, Supreme Court Case No. 08-1-2147 (Haw. 2008) (Original Proceeding) (rejecting original writ petition regarding the puppet on several grounds); Cohen v. the puppet, 2008 WL 5191864, at *1 (D.D.C. Dec. 11, 2008) (dismissing suit regarding the puppet on standing grounds); Donofrio v. Wells, Motion No. AM-0153-08T2 before the New Jersey Appellate Division (N.J. 2008).
Motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), the court must accept the complaint’s well-pled factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.” Thompson, 120 F. Supp. 2d at 81. “The court is not required, however, to accept inferences unsupported by the facts alleged or legal conclusions that are cast as factual allegations.” Rann v. Chao, 154 F. Supp. 2d 61, 64 (D.D.C. 2001). Moreover, the court need not limit itself to the allegations of the complaint, but rather may consider such materials outside the pleadings as it deems appropriate to resolve the question whether it has jurisdiction in the case. Id. To withstand a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the plaintiff must state a claim upon which relief can be granted. “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of his entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and conclusions.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65, 1974 (2007) (internal quotations and citation omitted; alteration in original); Shirk v. Garrow, 505 F. Supp. 2d 169, 172-73 (D.D.C. 2007).
“Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 127 S. Ct. at 1965 (internal citations omitted). The court must construe the factual allegations in the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and must grant the plaintiff the benefit of all inferences that can be derived from the facts as they are alleged in the complaint. Barr v. Clinton, 370 F.3d 1196, 1199 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (citing Kowal v. MCI Commc’ns Corp., 16 F.3d 1271, 1276 (D.C. Cir. 1994)). However, as with a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, “the court need not accept inferences drawn by plaintiff if such inferences are unsupported by the facts set out in the complaint. Nor must the court accept legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations.” Kowal, 16 F.3d at 1276; see also Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986). Ultimately, the complaint must state a plausible claim for relief. Smith v. Shimizu, 544 F. Supp. 2d 15, 16 (D.D.C. 2008) (citing Twombly, 127 S.Ct. at 1968).
II. The Complaint Fails to Establish this Court’s Jurisdiction Plaintiff fails to establish the Court’s jurisdiction. At the outset, granting the requested relief would raise serious separation of powers issues. See, e.g., Mississippi v. Johnson, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 475, 501 (1866). But even assuming, arguendo, that this Court could exercise “jurisdiction…to enjoin the President in the performance of his official duties,” cf. id., plaintiff has not established his own standing to sue. Plaintiff must satisfy three elements to meet the constitutional requirements for standing. First, he must demonstrate that he has suffered an “injury in fact,”—i.e., an invasion of a legally-protected interest that is “concrete and particularized” and “actual or imminent,” not “conjectural or hypothetical.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Second, he must establish “a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of—the injury has to be ‘fairly trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not…th[e] result [of]…some third party not before the court.” Id. at 560 (quoting Simon v. E. Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 41-42 (1976)). Third, he must show a substantial likelihood that the requested relief will be redressed by a favorable decision; mere speculation is not enough. Id.; see also Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81 (2000); Sierra Club v. EPA, 292 F.3d 895 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
Although plaintiff alleges he “is literally caught between a rock and a hard place,” plaintiff has not alleged that he has personally suffered any injury. See Dkt. #1 at 34. In addition, even if these peculiar claims built on a hypothetical recall to active military duty are taken at face value, plaintiff is engaged in the rankest speculation: He does not even allege a basis for believing that his return to duty is likely, much less probable. Instead, plaintiff’s allegations expressly concede that his renewed military service is pure conjecture at this point. (“If reactivated, he comes under a duty to obey lawful orders.”); (“Plaintiff faces the possibility of a conflict in his duties and multiple claims against him for the performance of these duties.”); (“It is particularly important to the Plaintiff to know whether the puppet is eligible to be President before he is reactivated because if the puppet issues an order to reactivate him, he will have to know whether that is an order he is required to obey, or perhaps (at least in certain cases) whether that is even an order he is required to disobey.”); (“Plaintiff will be left on his own to determine his duties should he receive what is purported to be his reactivation orders from the puppet“); (“Plaintiff in the instant case will be completely left out in the cold following Inauguration Day if he should happen to face a possible conflict between his duties to obey lawful orders on the one hand and his duties to disobey unlawful orders[.]”) (emphasis added).
Accordingly, plaintiff has not satisfied the first element of Lujan‘s three-part inquiry. See, e.g., Bates v. Rumsfeld, 271 F. Supp. 2d 54, 62 (D.D.C. 2002) (“Because the likelihood that Bates will be subjected to the administration of AVA is remote, as is the situation for the other similarly situated plaintiffs who are no longer on active duty, they cannot satisfy Lujan’s first prong.”). Furthermore, plaintiff does not allege that any injury was caused by defendants, or that it can be redressed by a decision from this court. Because plaintiff has not established standing, the complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1).
III. The Complaint Also Fails to State a Plausible Claim upon which Relief Can Be Granted Even if this Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate this case, dismissal would be required. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to the interpleader statute and rule, 22 U.S.C. § 1335 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 22. “Interpleader allows a party exposed to multiple claims on a single obligation or property to settle the controversy and satisfy his obligation in one proceeding.” Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. United States, 999 F.2d 581, 583 (D.C. Cir. 1993); see also Star Ins. Co. v. Cedar Valley Express, LLC, 273 F. Supp. 2d 38, 40 (D.D.C. 2002). It is typically used in insurance cases, where the plaintiff holds property on behalf of another, but does not know to whom among several adverse parties the property should be transferred. See id.; see also Nwachukwu v. Karl, 223 F. Supp. 2d 60 (D.D.C. 2002); Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America v. Madole, 48 F. Supp. 2d 26 (D.D.C. 1999). Interpleader is inappropriate when it “is sought for improper or ulterior purposes.”
Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1707 (3d ed. 2001). In this case, plaintiff improperly attempts to use interpleader as a means to obtain a ruling from the Court regarding the underlying issue concerning the Natural Born Citizenship Clause. Actions where interpleader is used as a means to obtain a judgment on a collateral issue should be dismissed. See, e.g., Mallinckrodt Med., Inc. v. Sonus Pharms., Inc., 989 F. Supp. 265, 270 (D.D.C. 1998) (“The notion that the procedural device of interpleader can be used as a hook to give the Court subject matter jurisdiction to order the patent-owning defendants to initiate an interfering patents action under 35 U.S.C. § 291 is not only novel but far-fetched.”); see also Bierman v. Marcus, 246 F.2d 200, 203-204 (3d Cir. 1957) (“Actually, what has been done in this suit has been to misuse interpleader, based on mere pretense of adverse claims to a fund, to obtain adjudication of controversies other than entitlement to that fund…The interpleader action should have been dismissed once its true character was disclosed, as presenting no bona fide issue of the type essential to this form of equitable relief, and therefore, constituting an imposition upon the jurisdiction of the court.”). “Interpleader is an equitable remedy[.]” Star Ins. Co., 273 F. Supp. 2d at 40.
Accordingly, the Court has discretion to determine whether the equities in the case warrant further adjudication. See, e.g., Truck-a-Tune v. Ré, 23 F.3d 60, 63 (9th Cir. 1994) (“Interpleader is an equitable proceeding, and the District Court acted well within its discretion in determining that the equities did not warrant further federal court adjudication.”) (internal citation omitted). Given plaintiff’s counsel’s previous unsuccessful attempt to prevail on the underlying issue in this case, and the fact that plaintiff is attempting to shoehorn that issue into the interpleader statute, the Court should dismiss the complaint under its equitable and inherent authority. See, e.g., Berg, 574 F. Supp. 2d at 521 (“We therefore find that Plaintiff’s attempt to use these statutes [2 U.S.C. § 431 et seq.; 5 U.S.C. § 702; 8 U.S.C. § 1481(b); 5 U.S.C. § 552; 28 U.S.C. § 1343; and 28 U.S.C. § 1331] to gain standing to pursue his Natural Born Citizen Clause claim are frivolous and not worthy of discussion.”).
Even if plaintiff’s use of interpleader were not illegitimate on its face, the complaint would fail to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. In an interpleader action, there must be adverse claimants to the property in plaintiff’s possession so that plaintiff risks multiple or inconsistent liability with respect to the property. See 28 U.S.C. §1335 (stating interpleader is proper if “[t]wo or more adverse claimants…are claiming or may claim to be entitled to such money or property, or to any one or more of the benefits arising by virtue of any note, bond, certificate, policy or other instrument, or arising by virtue of any such obligation[.]”) (emphasis added); Wright, Miller & Kane §1705 (“A prerequisite for permitting interpleader is that two or more claimants must be ‘adverse’ to each other. This requirement is not met when one of the claims clearly is devoid of substance, or…liability is groundless[.]”). Here, not only is the claim clearly devoid of substance, but plaintiff has not alleged facts demonstrating that defendants are adverse claimants. He offers only speculation on this point. See Dkt. #1 at 52. He also concedes that it is mere conjecture that there may be more than one claimant. See Dkt. #1 at 39. In addition,
CONCLUSION—For all of the foregoing reasons, this Court should dismiss plaintiff’s complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Dated: January 26, 2009 Respectfully submitted, PERKINS COIE LLP, By /s/ Robert F. Bauer, Robert F. Bauer, D.C. Bar No. 938902, rbauer@perkinscoie.com, 607 Fourteenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005-2003, Telephone: 202.628.6600, Facsimile: 202.434.1690, Attorney for Defendants Barack Obama and Joseph Biden plaintiff has failed to make any showing regarding the likelihood that a claim on his “property” will ever be made. See supra, at 5. In short, no matter how the complaint is construed, plaintiff has not stated a plausible claim for relief. See Smith, 544 F. Supp. 2d at 16 (“The facts alleged in the complaint . . . must be sufficient ‘to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.'”) (quoting Twombly, 127 S. Ct. at 1974); see also 7 Wright, Miller & Kane § 1705 (“[I]nterpleader is inappropriate when the claims not only are remote in time but actually fall below any meaningful threshold level of substantiality.”). His claim must be dismissed.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE—I hereby certify that I served a copy of the foregoing Motion to Dismiss and Proposed Order on this 26 day of January 2009, by First Class Mail on: John David Hemenway, HEMENWAY & ASSOCIATES, 4816 Rodman Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20016, (202) 244-4819, Attorney for Gregory S. Hollister, Dated: January 26, 2009 Respectfully submitted, PERKINS COIE LLP, By: /s/ Robert F. Bauer, Robert F. Bauer, D.C. Bar No. 938902, rbauer@perkinscoie.com, 607 Fourteenth Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005-2003, Telephone: 202.628.6600, Facsimile: 202.434.1690, Attorney for Defendants Barack Obama and Joseph Biden
January 27
First Presidential Interview goes to a Muslin TV Channel
conservativeoasis.com
Expressing that “American’s are not your enemy,” this is the first of many awkward apologetic and unnecessary attempts to kiss the a** of the world. Not only was this the first interview on a Muslim channel, but it was also the puppet’s first overall…including of course, any U.S. channels. In it, he said he wanted to address the Middle East peace process immediately. Wow. Immediately must mean “sometime after the Tonight Show.”
Iowa (Declaring the Tenth Amendment) Gov. Chet Culver[D]
Timeline:
HCR6—Lobbyist Declaration Bryan Iehle (IA. Fathers.com) 03/10/2009
HCR6—Lobbyist Declaration Robert Ussery (IA Minutemen Civil Defense Corps) 03/03/2009
HCR6—Laid over under Rule 25; Resolution filed 03/02/2009
SCR1—Lobbyist Declaration Robert Ussery (IA Minutemen Civil Defense Corps) 02/28/2009
SCR1—Resolution filed; referred to Rules & Administration 01/27/2009
83rd General Assemble
House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 6
Sponsored by: Rep(s) Sorenson[R], DeBoef[R], Schultz[R], Tymeson[R], Deyoe[R], Paulsen[R], Upmeyer[R], Raecker[R], Watts[R], Hagenow[R], Helland[R], Kaufmann[R], Windschitl[R], Cownie[R], Wagner[R], Koester[R], Lukan[R], Baudler[R], Sands[R], Huseman[R], Soderberg[R], Pettengill[R]
Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR) 1
Sponsored by: Sen(s) Mckinley[R]
A concurrent resolution claiming state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over certain mandates imposed on States by the federal government. WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”; and WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and WHEREAS, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and WHEREAS, today, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and WHEREAS, many federal mandates on the states are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SENATE, THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CONCURRING, That the State of Iowa hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Iowa General Assembly demands that the federal government, as its agent, cease and desist, effective immediately, enacting federal mandates on the states that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That a copy of this resolution be sent to the puppet, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, and each member of Iowa’s congressional delegation.
January 29
Signs First Bill, Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
conservativeoasis.com
Yawn.
Missouri (End Partnership of North America) Gov. Jay Nixon[D]
Timeline:
Offered 01/29/2009
Referred: Special Standing Committee on General Laws 05/15/2009
FIRST REGULAR SESSION, 95TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY, House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 20
Sponsored by: Rep(s) Guest[R], Pratt[R]
Whereas, President George W. Bush established the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America, with the nations of Mexico and Canada on March 23, 2005; and Whereas, this plan is nothing short of revolutionary. As Lou Dobbs put it on his CNN program, it is “an absolute contravention of our law, of our Constitution, every national value.”; and Whereas, this plan sounds like a new innovation, it is not new. It is the next step in a progression of steps that, in a manner very similar to the process used in Europe to supplant individual nations with the European Union, will ultimately lead to the formation of a new government for the United States, the North American Union; and
Whereas, the gradual creation of such a North American Union from a merger of the United States, Mexico, and Canada would be a direct threat to the Constitution and national independence of the United States, and imply an eventual end to national borders within North America; and Whereas, a White House news release confirmed the continuing existence of the SPP and its “ongoing process of cooperation” on March 31, 2006; and Whereas, Congressman Ron Paul (who opposed the SPP or any form of North American Union between countries in the Americas) has written that a key to the SPP plan is an extensive new NAFTA superhighway: “[U]nder this new ‘partnership’, a massive highway is being planned to stretch from Canada to Mexico, through the State of Texas”; and
Whereas, this trilateral partnership to develop a North American Union has never been presented to Congress as an agreement or treaty, and has had virtually no congressional oversight; and Whereas, state and local governments throughout the United States would be negatively impacted by the SPP/North American Union process, such as the “open borders” vision of the SPP, eminent domain takings of private property along the planned superhighways, and increased law enforcement problems along those same superhighways:
Now, therefore, be it resolved that the members of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-fifth General Assembly, First Regular Session, the Senate concurring therein, hereby urge the Congress of the United States to use all of its efforts, energies, and diligence to withdraw the United States from any further participation in the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America and any other bilateral or trilateral activity, however named, which seeks to advance, authorize, fund, or in any way promote the creation of any structure to accomplish any form of North American Union as herein described; and Be it further resolved that the Chief Clerk of the Missouri House of Representatives be instructed to prepare properly inscribed copies of this resolution for each member of the Missouri Congressional delegation.
January 30
Health/Human Services Nominee Tom Daschle’s Tax Problems
conservativeoasis.com
Wait. Is the word “problem” big enough, considering that bastard was $100 thousand in arrears?
Family Scandal—George Obama
by Peter Andrew—conservativeamerican.org
The puppet’s half-brother who lives in a shack and earns $1 a day in Kenya, was arrested for having marijuana. This is the man the puppet has done nothing to help even though he preaches [like during his acceptance speech] about caring for your brother. Interesting how the press can say this is the puppet’s “half” brother, but they can’t say the puppet is “half” black.
Appointment Scandal—Samantha Power
by Peter Andrew—conservativeamerican.org.
Newsday—Samantha Power, who earned notoriety for calling Hillary Clinton a “monster” while working to elect the puppet President, will take a senior foreign policy job at the White House, the Associated Press has learned. Officials say the puppet has tapped Power to be Senior Director for Multilateral Affairs at the National Security Council, a job that will require close contact and potential travel with Clinton, who is now Secretary of State.
Washington (Declaring Tenth Amendment) Gov. Christina Gregoire[D]
Timeline:
Read first; Sent to committees and tribal 01/30/09
The Washington State Campaign for Sovereignty Support: HJM 4009 Claiming state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/House%20Joint%20Memorials/4009-State%20sovereignty.pdf It’s Now or Never. The Restoration of The Republic must Start Now. It must start within our Local State Level; it will start in the state of Washington. We must demand that our Washington State Legislators’ immediately exercise a Cease and Desist Order on all activities of the Federal “District of Criminal’s” that grossly abuse their delegated powers as a part, but not a whole, of our Constitutional Rights for the people, by the people. We are not alone. There are many Washington State Representatives that are supportive of our Constitutional efforts. It should be an effort crossing party lines. We must not be distracted by our personal views (Party, religion, etc). If we do not retain our freedom we will not have rights to debate our personal views. The only focus should be to restore the Rule of Law that is in the Constitution that protects OUR Individual Rights. Government Officials are not our masters, we do not serve them. We the People are the Masters and they serve U.S. The Time is Now!
“Our legislators are not sufficiently apprised of the rightful limits of their power; that their true office is to declare and enforce only our natural rights … and to take none of them from us.” —Thomas Jefferson
State of Washington 61st Legislature 2009 Regular Session
House Joint Memorial (HJM) 4009
Sponsored by: Rep(s) Shea[R], Klippert[R], Condotta[R], Kretz[R], Anderson[R], McCune[R], Kristiansen[R]
TO THE HONORABLE BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE AND THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AND TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES, IN CONGRESS ASSEMBLED, AND TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE AND SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF EACH STATE’S LEGISLATURE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
We, your Memorialists, the Senate and House of Representatives of the State of Washington, in legislative session assembled, respectfully represent and petition as follows: WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States specifically provides that, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”; and WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being those powers specifically granted to it by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and WHEREAS, Federalism is the constitutional division of powers between the national and State governments and is widely regarded as one of America’s most valuable contributions to political science; and
WHEREAS, James Madison, “the father of the Constitution,” said, “The powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.”; and WHEREAS, Thomas Jefferson emphasized that the states are not “subordinate” to the national government, but rather the two are “coordinate departments of one simple and integral whole. The one is the domestic, the other the foreign branch of the same government.”; and
WHEREAS, Alexander Hamilton expressed his hope that “the people will always take care to preserve the constitutional equilibrium between the general and the State governments.” He believed that “this balance between the national and State governments forms a double security to the people. If one [government] encroaches on their rights, they will find a powerful protection in the other. Indeed, they will both be prevented from overpassing their constitutional limits by [the] certain rivalship which will ever subsist between them.”; and WHEREAS, The scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the States specifically to be limited in its powers relative to those of the various States; and
WHEREAS, Today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and WHEREAS, Many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and WHEREAS, The United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the States; and WHEREAS, A number of proposals from previous administrations and some now being considered by the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States;
NOW, THEREFORE, Your Memorialists respectfully resolve: (1) That the State of Washington hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States; and (2) That this serve as a Notice and Demand to the federal government to maintain the balance of powers where the Constitution of the United States established it and to cease and desist, effective immediately, any and all mandates that are beyond the scope of its constitutionally delegated powers.
BE IT RESOLVED, That copies of this Memorial be immediately transmitted to the puppet, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of each state’s legislature of the United States of America, and each member of Congress from the State of Washington.
Speak Loud America! 