Monthly Archives: June 2009

Larry Sinclair book, Update, June 27, 2009, BARACK OBAMA & LARRY SINCLAIR: Cocaine, Sex, Lies & Murder?, Book ready for shipment


I just spoke to Larry Sinclair about his new book, ” BARACK OBAMA & LARRY SINCLAIR: Cocaine, Sex, Lies & Murder?” The book is ready to be shipped. The book can be ordered directly from Sinclair Publishing and there are multiple ordering and shipping options. Barnes & Noble will not have the book until later in July. Sinclair is urging small businesses to order by the carton at the wholesale price.  I urge you to help get the word out and inform the general public about the real Barack Obama. Order a copy of the book for yourself and a friend or coworker.


From Larry Sinclair’s blog and publishing site:

Saturday, June 27, 2009

For any Business that wishes to sell the Book

Cocaine, Sex, Lies & Murder?
You can order the Book by the carton (30 per carton) for $507.00 plus shipping (method of your choice) directly from Sinclair Publishing, Inc. That is 35% off the per book retail price.

You can have the books shipped as follows:

Commercial Ground $17.65
Residential Ground $21.75
2nd Day Air $52.61
Residential 2nd Day Air $57.41
Overnight $150.71

Contact Sinclair Publishing, Inc at 386-761-0606 for more information and/or to place an order use the following Order Form Link

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Its official, the Book is finished and printing beginning. I will be sending copies to a host of Magazines and Journalist who have requested them. There was a minor change made to the cover. We added a brief piece written by an individual who has read the Book.
I have already begun a second book to follow this one. In addition, I will be updating the order form at allowing those who are willing to accept standard mail delivery to order the book at the $25.99 price with free shipping. I will begin shipping out the Signed/Numbered copies of this book upon receipt expected next week. To those who ordered a signed/numbered copy and have been patient I am confident you will be happy with the Book.
For UPS Delivery
For US Mail Delivery
As for those ordering from Barnes & Noble, Amazon, etc… the title is going into the system as “Available” and their orders will be filled and processed by the distributors, not by me or Sinclair Publishing, Inc. You do not have to be a book store to sell this book. Gift Shops, Gas Stations, Drug Stores, Clothing Stores, etc.. can order at the Wholesale price to place for sale in your business. For Bulk Order Inquiries contact us at 386-761-0606

KTBB’s Question of the Day: Is There Enough Proof President Obama is a U.S. citizen?, KETK news, World Net Daily, Joseph Farah

The real question is if Obama is a natural born citizen and thus eligible to be president, not whether he is a US citizen. However, finally components of the mainstream media are addressing this important issue. From a recent call in session on KTTB:

“KTBB’s Question of the Day: Is There Enough Proof President Obama is a U.S. citizen?”

“The editor of the popular Web site, World Net Daily, Joseph Farah, is offering a $10,000 reward to anyone who can prove they were resent at the birth of President Barack Obama.

KTBB news anchor Garth Maier, asks East Texans if they think there is a lack of proof that the President was born in Hawaii.”

Click here to listen


Thanks to commenter azgo for the lead.

Steven Lee Craig, Obama lawsuit, June 22, 2009, Motion Declaratory Judgement, Natural born citizen

From Steven Lee Craig:

“These are the operative filings to the merits, there are othe Docs of process.

These Docs are pending at the 10th Circ 09-6082 and are part of the Petition for Writ of Certiorari at Scotus 08-10817”


Steven Lee Craig

1309 Hisel Rd.

Del City, Oklahoma   73115



The United States of America

C/o U.S. Attorney

Washington, D.C.  





)   Case No. Civ-09-0343-F



Declaratory Judgment



MOVANT HEREIN ASSERTS that the grievance of the Complaint is given rise by virtue of ‘exclusion and omission’ of definition and meaning of a term of consequence found within a Constitutional phrase by Act’s, Bill’s, Resolution’s, Proclamation’s or Judgement’s of the United States of America.


The fact’s being indisputable.




MOVANT HEREIN ASSERTS that any ‘controversy’ as to the meaning of the subject phrase “Natural Born Citizen” is contrived, incomprehensible and frivolous.


MOVANT HEREIN ASSERTS that with and by the process of ‘distilling’ all forms of ‘Naturalization’, arising from any and all Act’s promulgated regarding Naturalization or from any and all Litigated Cases of same, the ‘natural born’ form of Citizenship is all that remains, naturally so; a person born within the jurisdiction of the United States of America of two (2) American Citizen parents who are without further Citizenship alienation and/or allegiance.


    THEREFORE MOVANT seeks Declaratory Judgment under the Rules.


By leave of the Court I do pray it be so Ordered.





Pro Se, In Forma Pauperis



Steven Lee Craig

1309 Hisel Rd.

Del City, Oklahoma  73115

(405) 670-1784


Steven Lee Craig, Obama lawsuit, June 22, 2009, Second amended complaint, Natural born citizen

 From Steven Lee Craig:

“These are the operative filings to the merits, there are othe Docs of process.

These Docs are pending at the 10th Circ 09-6082 and are part of the Petition for Writ of Certiorari at Scotus 08-10817”

Steven Lee Craig

1309 Hisel Rd.

Del City, Oklahoma 73115



The United States of America

C/o U.S. Attorney

Washington, D.C.  








)    Case No. Civ-09-0343-F
)    10th Circuit 09-6082








NOW COMES, Steven Lee Craig, Claiming to be of Constitutionally recognized form of Citizenship known as Natural Born Citizen of the United States of America under the definition as found expressed in a published work of general use by the Framers of the Constitution of the United States of America in formulating many of the principles and specific Articles, Sections and Clauses found therein. That



publication being Emmerich de Vattel’s,  “The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns”, and specifically;


“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on




their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”


Claimant submits further evidence of the Framers considerations and intent regarding the differing forms of Citizenship found within the Constitution;


Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (3 vols., 1833),  of Joseph Story, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, February 3, 1812 – September 10, 1845


Volume 3: § 1473.

“It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced




(for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities. But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source. A residence of fourteen years in the United States is also made an indispensable requisite for every candidate; so, that the people may have a full opportunity to know his character and merits, and that he may have mingled in the duties, and felt the interests, and understood the principles, and nourished the attachments, belonging to every citizen in a republican government. By “residence,” in the constitution, is to be understood, not an absolute inhabitancy




within the United States during the whole period; but such an inhabitancy, as includes a permanent domicil in the United States. No one has supposed, that a temporary absence abroad on public business, and especially on an embassy to a foreign nation, would interrupt the residence of a citizen, so as to disqualify him for office. If the word were to be construed with such strictness, then a mere journey through any foreign adjacent territory for health, or for pleasure, or a commorancy there for a single day, would amount to a disqualification. Under such a construction a military or civil officer, who should have been in Canada during the late war on public business, would have lost his eligibility. The true sense of residence in the constitution is fixed domicil, or being out of the United States, and settled abroad for the purpose of general inhabitancy, animo manendi, and not for a mere temporary and fugitive purpose, in transitu.”


The entire text of the Chapter is included herein to show that Associate Justice Joseph Story touched upon many of the circumstances of Citizenship as they occur in the political and natural world and how they ought be regarded when making Uniform Laws



of Naturalization of which many are to be found in the full volumes of Vattel.

Specifically Claimant points to the parenthetical passage,

 “…for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct…”


in support of Claimants assertion of the intended definition of “natural born citizen”.

Whereas ALL first Citizens of the United States of America were necessarily Naturalized by the Ratification of the Constitution and therefore the exception allowing for those of that generation to be eligible for the Executive Office as Naturalized Citizens noting that, in the authors words, “will soon become wholly extinct”, thereby meaning that as that generation of First Citizens passed it would devolve to the Second Generation of those



Citizens to be the eligible Natural Born Citizens, this conforming with Vattel’s definition noted above and as also considered in the House of Representatives as found in;

The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution

[Elliot’s debates,Volume4]Seamen’s Bill.–For the Regulation of Seamen on Board the Public Vessels, and in the Merchant Service of the United States.

House of Representatives, February, 1813.


Mr. ARCHER. “The framers of our Constitution did not intend to confine Congress to the technical meaning of the word naturalization, in the exercise of that power–the more especially when the comprehensive word rule was made use of. The principle upon which the power was to be exercised was left to the judicious exercise of Congress; all that was required was, that the rule should be uniform throughout the states. In the grant there is no other specification, as to the exercise of it, than that of its uniformity. The term naturalization was borrowed from England. It must be understood here in the sense and meaning




which was, there attached to it. Whether it was absolute or qualified, it was still a naturalization. But the grant of a power in general terms necessarily implied the right to exercise that power in all its gradations. It Was in the political as it was in the natural world: the genus included the species. Besides, the power to naturalize was an attribute to sovereignty. It was either absolute or qualified; and if the grant to Congress only implied a power of unlimited naturalization, the power to qualify existed in the states or in the people, for what was not specifically granted was reserved.


In treating of the executive power, the Constitution defines the qualifications of the President. It declares that he should be a naturalborn citizen, or a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution. This article is unquestionably no limitation of the power of Congress upon the subject of naturalization. It was impossible to abridge a specific grant of power without a specific limitation, and the article alluded to could not be tortured, by the most ingenious mind, to diminish, even by implication, the authority of Congress upon a subject to which it was totally irrelevant.”







Claimant asserts that the “genus” mentioned in the first paragraph is referring to the First Naturalized Citizens as being the natural born citizens and that the “species” are the thereafter naturalized citizens who, with time and circumstance, beget their own natural born citizens, increasing the ‘genus’, in keeping with the political and natural world. In the second paragraph Mr. Archer acknowledges that the Congress has no mandate to ‘abridge’ the authority of Article II Section I Clause V and thereby the inability of the Congress to politically ‘limit’ nature in the performance of the mandate to promulgate laws of naturalization. Neither the Fourteenth Amendment or the Nineteenth Amendment abridged, nullified or amended Article II Section I Clause V, neither do their words say so nor do their words require it. In the former case the



source of future natural born citizens was increased and in the latter the source of conferring citizenship, which had been wholly of the father, was then split equally amongst the two parents.

The chief author of the 14th Amendment, Sen. John A. Bingham, wrote,


“…[E]very human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen,'”


Therein is read, “Parents”, being plural and after the Nineteenth Amendment, with each “not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty”, which implies domestic domicile and being naturalized or otherwise, for how else could the conditions and circumstances be examined.



That the source of the subject of ‘natural born citizen’ is found in the Constitutional Articles concerning the executive offices of the Government does not exclude it or diminish it in the concerns of the general population but rather elevates it to the most fundamental concerns of our Citizenry’s national allegiance, pride and protection of the nations sovereignty. The first duty of the Government and the Citizens thereof is to ‘Preserve, Protect and Defend’ the Constitution of the United States of America. That the Government is ‘of the People, by the People and for the People’ it can not be denied and must be hoped that those People with the greatest understanding, the greatest regard, the greatest interest, and the greatest allegiance to the Nation are those who




have longest been bound and blessed by the liberties shared as contemplated by Vattel;

“…The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it…”




1.  This case involves diversity of citizenship and this Court has jurisdiction pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. §1343  (a)(4), and/or, § 1346 (a)(2), and/or § 1357

2. This case further arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States and presents a federal question within this Court’s jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.



3. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(3).

The issue of who is a “natural born citizen” under Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 is an issue of legal interpretation outside the Constitutional authority of Congress.


Only the judicial branch can interpret the laws of this nation.




4. Plaintiff,    Steven Lee Craig

                 1309 Hisel Rd.

                 Del City, OK 73115


10. Defendant,   The United States of America













Claimant incorporates by reference all of the foregoing allegations as if set forth herein at length.

Claimant alleges that the United States of America and, specifically, the Representatives elected, appointed or otherwise engaged in the publics trust, have failed to Preserve, Protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States of America and the Amendments thereto in overt acts of lack of defense of the definition of Natural Born Citizen as a specific form of Citizenship acknowledged within the Constitution and the preservation of the original intent of its usage in the Constitution



and its protection in its relation to the term of Citizen(s), found within the same Article of the Constitution and elsewhere, thereby violating Claimants Ninth and Tenth Amendment Rights of equal protection.


Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 1 Cranch 137 pg 174;


“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect, ……”


Elk Grove Unified School District et al v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004).

Justice O’Connor, concurring in the opinion;


“There are no de minimis violations of the Constitution — no constitutional harms so slight that the courts are obliged to ignore them”.



Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479


“The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are



additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments. . . .


Moreover, a judicial construction that this fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment.


Nor do I mean to state that the Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of right protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government. Rather, the Ninth Amendment shows a belief of the Constitution’s authors that fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments and an intent that the list of rights included there not be deemed exhaustive.”


United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941).


“While the Tenth Amendment has been characterized as a ‘truism,” stating merely that ‘all is retained which has not been surrendered,’ [citing Darby], it is not without significance.





Although the Tenth Amendment has seldom been used to assert and/or exert a personal reserved power the Claimant, nevertheless, asserts the ‘reserved power’, individually as one of the People, granted by the Tenth Amendment for retaining that which has not been surrendered; that being the Constitutionally recognized circumstance, of the political and of nature, that confers the naturalness of a natural born citizen.

Claimant alleges said lack of definition of Natural Born Citizen violates Claimants Fifth Amendment Rights of Due Process of the Law in that the Claimants intrinsic personal property guaranteed by the Ratification of the Constitution and enunciated as a form of American Citizenship, natural born citizen, having not been duly codified as have the numerous Laws promulgated that provide for the



Naturalizing of new Citizens, thereby deprives and denies the Claimant of his rights and privileges of claiming the natural inheritance as a Citizen born of multiple generations of Citizens as contemplated by the distinctions of Citizenship within the Constitution.

Claimant alleges that the United States of America and, specifically, the Representatives elected, appointed or otherwise engaged in the publics trust and in the performance of their mandate to make uniform the Laws of Naturalization have been discriminatory in that the form of Citizenship, natural born citizen, has been ‘excluded and omitted’ while every circumstance, situation, happenstance, possibility and probability of Naturalization of new Citizens has been and continues to be Codified and / or adjudicated.



Claimant alleges that unequal treatment has occurred against the Claimants intrinsic personal property guaranteed by the Ratification of the Constitution by the United States of America and, specifically, the Representatives elected, appointed or otherwise engaged in the publics trust in performance of its mandate to make uniform the Laws of Naturalization, by the “exclusion and omission” of the definition and acknowledgement of that citizenship known as natural born citizen within any and all the Acts, Bills, Laws, Rules and / or Regulations hereto promulgated regarding Citizenship and Naturalization.

Currin v. Wallace, 306 U.S. 1 (1939)

“The Constitution has never been regarded as denying to the Congress the necessary resources of flexibility and practicality which will enable it to perform its function in laying down policies and establishing standards while leaving to




selected instrumentalities the making of subordinate rules within prescribed limits and the determination of facts to which the policy as declared by the Legislature is to apply. Without capacity to give authorizations of that sort, we should have the anomaly of a legislative power which in many circumstances calling for its exertion would be but a futility.”


United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER, with whom concurred MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissenting. (re: 14th Amendment)


“Nobody can deny that the question of citizenship in a nation is of the most vital importance. It is a precious heritage, as well as an inestimable acquisition, and I cannot think that any safeguard surrounding it was intended to be thrown down by the amendment.”


Claimant alleges that, upon recounting the 222 years of Legislation regarding Citizenship and Naturalization it amounts to a gross negligence of the United States of America and, specifically, the Representatives elected, appointed or otherwise



engaged in the publics trust, in the performance of the mandates to Legislate and then delegate administrations the Legislated Laws making Naturalization uniform without looking to the Constitutional forms of Citizenship found within the Constitution its self, Article II Section I Clause V, and the intent of the distinctions thereof, thereby denying Claimant of his rights and privileges of the American form of Citizenship, natural born Citizen, without due process and with discriminatory Un-Uniform promulgation of Naturalization Laws.

Perez v. Brownell 356 U.S. 44

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion of the Court.

“…By the early 1930’s, the American law on nationality, including naturalization and denationalization, was expressed in a large number of provisions scattered throughout the statute books. Some of the specific laws enacted at different times




seemed inconsistent with others, some problems of growing importance had emerged

that Congress had left unheeded. At the request of the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, see 86 Cong.Rec. 11943, President Franklin D. Roosevelt established a Committee composed of the Secretary of State, [p53] the Attorney General and the Secretary of Labor to review the nationality laws of the United States, to recommend revisions and to codify the nationality laws into one comprehensive statute for submission to Congress; he expressed particular concern about “existing discriminations” in the law. Exec.Order No. 6115, Apr. 25, 1933…”


Claimant alleges that the United States of America and, specifically, the Representatives elected, appointed or otherwise engaged in the publics trust, in having violated Claimants Fourth Amendment Rights by extension have violated Claimants Eighth Amendment Rights against cruel and unusual punishment in that denying Claimant of that natural portion of Claimants American Constitutionally Guaranteed Citizenship Rights and


Privileges have imposed upon Claimant a penalty of separation from the Constitution and the internalized allegiance derived from the Claimants asserted definition of ‘natural born citizen”.

Trop v. Dulles 356 U.S. 86

We believe, as did Chief Judge Clark in the court below, [n33] that use of denationalization as a punishment is barred by the Eighth Amendment. There may be involved no physical mistreatment, no primitive torture. There is, instead, the total destruction of the individual’s status in organized society. It is a form of punishment more primitive than torture, for it destroys for the individual the political existence that was centuries in the development. The punishment strips the citizen of his status in the national and international political community. His very existence is at the sufferance of the country in which he happens to find himself. While any one country may accord him some rights and, presumably, as long as he remained in this country, he would enjoy the limited rights of an alien, no country need do so, because he is stateless. Furthermore, his enjoyment of even the limited rights of an alien might be subject to termination [p102] at any time by reason of deportation. [n34] In

short, the expatriate has lost the right to have rights.



This punishment is offensive to cardinal principles for which the Constitution stands. It subjects the individual to a fate of ever-increasing fear and distress. He knows not what discriminations may be established against him, what proscriptions may be directed against him, and when and for what cause his existence in his native land may be terminated. He may be subject to banishment, a fate universally decried by civilized people. He is stateless, a condition deplored in the international community of democracies. [n35] It is no answer to suggest that all the disastrous consequences of this fate may not be brought to bear on a stateless person. The threat makes the punishment obnoxious. [n36]


… When it appears that an Act of Congress conflicts with one of these provisions, we have no choice but to enforce the paramount commands of the Constitution. We are sworn to do no less. We cannot push back the limits of the Constitution merely to accommodate challenged legislation. We must apply those limits as the Constitution prescribes them, bearing in mind both the broad scope of legislative discretion and the ultimate responsibility of constitutional adjudication. We do well to approach this task cautiously, as all our predecessors have counseled. But the ordeal of judgment cannot be shirked. “





Denationalization, being a “punishment more primitive than torture,”, then is not denying that natural portion of citizenship, that portion which is required to make one eligible to the highest office of the land, no less than  a severing of generational ties and an involuntary amputation upon that Citizenship?


WHEREFORE Plaintiff request, on any one or all alligations, the same:

1.  An immediate Order of Declaratory Judgement expressing Courts Opinion of the Constitutional and Legal Definition of “Natural born Citizen”.

2.  Entry of Judgment


By leave of the Court I pray it be so ordered






Pro Se, In Forma Pauperis



Steven Lee Craig

1309 Hisel Rd.

Del City, Oklahoma 73115

(405) 670-1784

Inspector General of the AmeriCorps fired, Obama reasons, Gerald Walpin firing, proper procedure not followed, Michelle Obama involved?

From the Wall Street Journal:

“The White House Fires a Watchdog
The curious case of the inspector general and a Presidential ally.”

“President Obama swept to office on the promise of a new kind of politics, but then how do you explain last week’s dismissal of federal Inspector General Gerald Walpin for the crime of trying to protect taxpayer dollars? This is a case that smells of political favoritism and Chicago rules.

A George W. Bush appointee, Mr. Walpin has since 2007 been the inspector general for the Corporation for National and Community Service, the federal agency that oversees such subsidized volunteer programs as AmeriCorps. In April 2008 the Corporation asked Mr. Walpin to investigate reports of irregularities at St. HOPE, a California nonprofit run by former NBA star and Obama supporter Kevin Johnson. St. HOPE had received an $850,000 AmeriCorps grant, which was supposed to go for three purposes: tutoring for Sacramento-area students; the redevelopment of several buildings; and theater and art programs.”

“Mr. Walpin’s investigators discovered that the money had been used instead to pad staff salaries, meddle politically in a school-board election, and have AmeriCorps members perform personal services for Mr. Johnson, including washing his car.

At the end of May, Mr. Walpin’s office recommended that Mr. Johnson, an assistant and St. HOPE itself be “suspended” from receiving federal funds. The Corporation’s official charged with suspensions agreed, and in September the suspension letters went out. Mr. Walpin’s office also sent a civil and/or criminal referral to the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California.”

“If this seems like small beer, keep in mind that Mr. Obama promised to carefully watch how every stimulus dollar is spent. In this case, the evidence suggests that his White House fired a public official who refused to roll over to protect a Presidential crony.”

Read more:

From Fox news:

“June 16, 2009
Obama Accuses Fired Inspector General of AmeriCorps of Being “Confused, Disoriented”
WASHINGTON – Responding to criticism from a Senate Democratic ally, President Obama for the first time explained why he fired the Inspector General of the AmeriCorps without the 30-day notification required by law, calling Gerald Walpin so “confused” and “disoriented” that there was reason to question “his capacity to serve.”

In a letter to the bi-partisan leaders of the Senate Committee that oversees AmeriCorps, Obama listed these alleged defects in Walpin’s leadership as an Inspector General.

            * Removed after unanimous request from the AmeriCorps board of directors”

“Hours before, Sen. Claire McCaskill, Missouri Democrat, criticized Obama for failing to specify why he fired Walpin.

            “The White House has failed to follow the proper procedure in notifying Congress as to the removal of the Inspector General for the Corporation for National and Community Service,” McCaskill said in a statement. “The legislation which was passed last year requires that the president give a reason for the removal. ‘Loss of confidence’ is not a sufficient reason. I’m hopeful the White House will provide a more substantive rationale, in writing, as quickly as possible.”

            Obama voted for the legislation requiring specific notification to Congress of the reasons to dismiss an inspector general. Any move to fire an inspector general requires 30-days notice. Obama voted for the law to strengthen the independence of inspectors general.

            Walpin led a 2008 investigation into allegations of misused taxpayer funds distributed by AmeriCorps to the St. HOPE Academy of Sacramento, founded in 1989 by Obama supporter and former NBA player Kevin Johnson. Walpin said Johnson, now mayor of Sacramento, misused roughly $850,000 in AmeriCorps funds. His referral to the U.S. Attorney’s Office did not result in the filing of criminal charges. But St. HOPE officials agreed, via a settlement, to repay half of its AmeriCorps grants.”

“Republicans also have asked what role, if any, First Lady Michelle Obama played in Walpin’s firing. The White House denies Mrs. Obama had any voice in Walpin’s future with the agency. Republicans began to question Mrs. Obama’s role after press reports indicated she was taking a strong interest in AmeriCorps activities and when her former chief of staff, Jackie Norris, became a “senior adviser” to the Corporation for National and Community Service, also known as AmeriCorps.”

Read more:

Glenn Beck interview with Gerald Walpin:

GERALD WALPIN, FMR. INSPECTOR GENERAL: I am fine. Thank you, and glad to be here.

BECK: OK. I read this story. You were in your car. You get a phone call from the White House.


BECK: Any idea that they were going to ask you to resign?

WALPIN: No, because I thought they were calling me — I thought the White House had called me already three, four times already in the last two weeks, because I happened to be — you might disagree with this — a supporter of Sonia Sotomayor, even though I’m conservative.


WALPIN: And they had asked me for help on that and to support her, and I was doing that. So, I thought this was the same phone call.

BECK: OK. And you — you are a conservative.


BECK: But you’re not — I mean, obviously, you’re endorsing Sotomayor, so you’re — you know, you’re an open-minded guy and you have gone after Republicans in the past?

WALPIN: Oh yes, I have.

BECK: Who have you gone after?

WALPIN: Well, I prosecuted Roy Cohn, for example. I was also disclosed as the person responsible for the indictments against Nixon’s Cabinet members Mitchell and Stans.

BECK: So, you’re not a — you’re not a Republican hack or anything like that?

WALPIN: Well, I believe when I’m doing my work, I call the cards as they come out.

BECK: OK. So, gosh, he hasn’t given you a reason on why you have been terminated.


BECK: I have read the letter. It doesn’t — it just does — it says it just basically that he doesn’t have faith in you.

WALPIN: Well, that’s a conclusion. That’s not a reason.

BECK: Now, you not only went after one of his good friends, Kevin Johnson, but you’re after going after CUNY, which is City University of New York.

WALPIN: Which is a good university — and, in fact, I’m an alumnus of it — and is doing a good job in getting teachers.

But the problem is, the AmeriCorps people have put almost $80 million into that program, even though the teachers at CUNY agree to be teachers before they’re even told that there is an opportunity to make some money by joining AmeriCorps.

BECK: So, your job, as I understand it, is to track down money that is being wasted or is being misused.

WALPIN: Exactly.

BECK: My tax dollars, Erin’s tax dollars, everyone’s tax dollars.

WALPIN: That is correct. The AmeriCorps program and the other agency programs and services I believe are great as long as they are properly managed and the money is not abused or misused.

BECK: Why do you think this is happening?

WALPIN: I can only say that I became a thorn in the side of someone, and because I was doing my job and I was fired for doing my job.

And by the way, the investigation, for example, of Johnson, was started by the agency itself. AmeriCorps management called us and asked us to investigate reports they had heard that there was wrongdoing, and we…

BECK: Were you ever pressured to stop it?


BECK: Were you ever…


BECK: Did anybody — I mean, what makes you think…

WALPIN: The only thing — the only thing that had came up was after Johnson was elected mayor, after the stimulus money came in, there was great media and political pressure to get him off the hook and get his suspension lifted.

BECK: This happened on Thursday. Do you remember the case when…

WALPIN: Wednesday night.

BECK: Wednesday night. Do you remember the case when George Bush fired those attorneys which he had the right to do?

WALPIN: They were serving at his…

BECK: At his discretion.

WALPIN: …discretion.

BECK: Yes. You are not serving at the president’s discretion.

WALPIN: Only he can — under the statute which is intended to protect the independence of inspector generals, I could be terminated only if he gives 30 days advance notice and gives the reason for it to Congress.

BECK: Got it. So, it’s all open and everybody knows.

WALPIN: That’s correct.

BECK: Right. OK. That way you are truly independent.


BECK: Because if somebody doesn’t — if somebody doesn’t — if somebody can put pressure on you, well, then, you’re no good to anybody.

WALPIN: That is correct.


WALPIN: And by the way, the fact that pressure was placed on me and that I was terminated is going to have a chilling effect on all the other inspectors general.

BECK: Why do you say that?

WALPIN: Because they know that if they do something wrong to somebody who is liked by somebody else or for whatever reason, they can be terminated, too.

BECK: Are you familiar with RAT, the new thing under the stimulus package?

Is Byron still on with us? Byron?

YORK: Yes, here I am.

BECK: Can you explain RAT — the thing tucked into the stimulus package that no one wants to claim now?

YORK: This is a Recovery Accountability and Transparency board. And, you know, one of the things Democrat sponsors of the $787 billion stimulus bill did was promised it would all be transparent and there would be a lot of accountability. So, they created this new board.

The problem was the board was given the power to tell inspectors general to conduct an investigation or probably, more importantly, to not conduct investigations.

Senator Charles Grassley, who is the Republican senator who is kind of a guardian angel of inspectors general got very concerned about that and made some noise about it, but couldn’t stop it from being in the bill. So, there is possibly another threat to the independence of inspectors general.

BECK: What do you think about that?

WALPIN: I now know what you were talking about, and that’s a horrible provision in the statute.

BECK: Why would they do it?

WALPIN: Why? I think, in view of the fact that they terminated me, that they don’t want inspectors generals doing the job that they were hired to do — which is to objectively look at the facts and determine whether there is waste, fraud and abuse.

BECK: How long you been in government?

WALPIN: On this stint? Just 2 1/2 years.

BECK: How long total? I mean, you…

WALPIN: Oh, I’ve been — I was a prosecutor in the U.S. Attorneys Office in New York, where, as I said, I prosecuted Roy Cohn, and I — so, I have had over 10 years of government service, but I was in private practice when President Bush’s White House called me.

BECK: Have you seen anything like this before?

WALPIN: No. This is shocking. I know of no other inspector general who has been terminated on this method, and the call to me — look, as you can tell, I’m not a young guy and I didn’t need this. But I felt that I couldn’t look myself in the mirror if I just resigned to this pressure.

BECK: What’s your next step?

WALPIN: Oh, I’m considering all alternatives. And what I think is most important is that the public know, because as Franklin Roosevelt said, the great — sunshine is the greatest…

BECK: Yes.

WALPIN: What was the word?

BECK: I know what you’re saying…

WALPIN: Disinfectant!

BECK: Yes.

WALPIN: I want the public to know and I want other inspectors general to know that they can stand up, too.

BECK: Thank you, sir.

WALPIN: Thank you.

Read more:,2933,526650,00.html

James D Schneller, Obama lawsuit, Update, June 16, 2009, Obama Suit Scheduled For Supreme Court Conference, Acorn fraud

This was received from James D. Schneller regarding his lawsuit:

“Obama Suit Scheduled For Supreme Court Conference

Obama Fires U.S. Whistleblower Who Uncovered $$ 75 Million ACORN-type fraud !


Dear citizen who is horrified by events in Washington,
This is a news item that concerns our Supreme Court’s fourth chance to address the Obama birth certificate issue.  I wrote most of you in January, at a prior turning point.  Because you are a concerned citizen, you have to know about this, and I hope you’ll share it with your friends and family and pastor.  This is not a request for donation.
I have filed a supplementary brief in the Supreme Court of the United States in Case No. 08-9797 objecting to the failure of Barack Obama to file an answer, and requesting that the Supreme Court enable  newer evidence in the Obama birth issue.   The Supreme Court has set this case for a conference on June 18th.
I filed the appeal on April 6, 2009, asking reversal of denial of my petition for injunction filed in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in December of 2008.  That petition requested a delay of the tally by the Pennsylvania electoral college, because the ballots of the Pennsylvania electors had been unlawfully finalized despite the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s erroneous and fraudulent certifying of the ballot to all County officials, without any examination, nor investigation, of the eligibility and qualification of Barack Obama for the office of President of the United States. 
Why are all the cases in this issue filed by concerned citizens , rather than organizations ?  To my belief, many firms believe it to be futile, and most of the others have been warned against it. (see the article following this letter)  The fact that only citizens have sued does not mean that a Court, at some time or other, could decide to address this issue.
In my suit I am demanding that the Secretary of the Commonwealth perform his duty, as was required, by requiring Obama to prove that he is a natural born citizen.  I claim that the Secretary had ample time to demand proofs from Obama in December, before the vote was certified and delivered to the Electoral College.
I also am objecting that the Pennsylvania election law makes the Office of the President of the United States exempt from the requirement that candidates file an affidavit swearing that they are eligible for office.  I’ve asked the Justices to declare that this 2006 amendment is arbitrary and unconstitutional.  (Anyone so inclined – please check your state’s election law for this type of amendment and email me any findings !)
I raise new material in the brief in order to encourage the Supreme Court to address the gaping absence of eligibility of our head of state:  
  – Obama’s recent, biased, dropping of the suit against certain Philadelphia Black Panther members for voter intimidation,
  – recent ill-conceived “stimulus” awards to ACORN and efforts to make ACORN a census participant,
  – recent White House efforts to create unprecedented levels of security around common documents that are normally available to the public.
  – national celebrations and official proclamations in the Nation of Kenya, on the basis of Obama’s  birthplace being there !  
  – the fact that the United States Attorney General avoided several opportunities to investigate substantial complaints presented against ACORN during the 2008 campaign, despite ample time and manpower available,
  – the White House’s unpredicted and unconstitutional policy of doubling the national debt, nationalizing  decrepit industries, and pardoning violent terrorists, despite the public’s not being made aware of this intent during the campaign.
  – the Homeland Security boondoggle alleging that veterans and pro-life citizens are extremists.
  – I also claim that Obama was required to answer my petition because he claims to hold the highest office in the land, and must therefore be open with the people rather than clandestine.  Since he didnt answer, he has in essence admitted to all of the allegations made against him.
There is much more, which is why I ask the Court to allow new evidence !  Just last week outrageous news happened :

Obama Fired the U.S. Whistleblower Who Uncovered $$ 75 Million ACORN-type fraud !
The patriots who are continuing to file suits and to blog, newsletter, and report the case against Obama for his clear cut illegal acts are greater in number now, and you may want to check some of the websites at intervals.  This story about huge government fraud is a news item carried by Judicial Watch, which is a respected watchdog organization, who recently began to actively cover Obama in respect to his constant illegal behavior.
Help Make Prosecution Happen

Since the Supreme Court case is up for Court Conference on Thursday, I hope you’ll be able to offer prayers or a moment of silence, and to make serious talk at work and leisure, to impress all with the hard truth of our new government.  I firmly believe in an ability granted by the Creator, for America to rise, despite great odds, above this unnatural situation, and to redirect our Republic onto a positive and moral path, rather than a descent to oblivion.”

“James D. Schneller”

2009 flu pandemic, WHO June 11, 2009, influenza pandemic phase 6, Dr Margaret Chan, World Health Organization

From WHO, the World Health Organization, June 11, 2009.

“World now at the start of 2009 influenza pandemic
Dr Margaret Chan
Director-General of the World Health Organization

Ladies and gentlemen,

In late April, WHO announced the emergence of a novel influenza A virus.

This particular H1N1 strain has not circulated previously in humans. The virus is entirely new.

The virus is contagious, spreading easily from one person to another, and from one country to another. As of today, nearly 30,000 confirmed cases have been reported in 74 countries.

This is only part of the picture. With few exceptions, countries with large numbers of cases are those with good surveillance and testing procedures in place.

Spread in several countries can no longer be traced to clearly-defined chains of human-to-human transmission. Further spread is considered inevitable.

I have conferred with leading influenza experts, virologists, and public health officials. In line with procedures set out in the International Health Regulations, I have sought guidance and advice from an Emergency Committee established for this purpose.

On the basis of available evidence, and these expert assessments of the evidence, the scientific criteria for an influenza pandemic have been met.

I have therefore decided to raise the level of influenza pandemic alert from phase 5 to phase 6.

The world is now at the start of the 2009 influenza pandemic.

We are in the earliest days of the pandemic. The virus is spreading under a close and careful watch.

No previous pandemic has been detected so early or watched so closely, in real-time, right at the very beginning. The world can now reap the benefits of investments, over the last five years, in pandemic preparedness.

We have a head start. This places us in a strong position. But it also creates a demand for advice and reassurance in the midst of limited data and considerable scientific uncertainty.

Thanks to close monitoring, thorough investigations, and frank reporting from countries, we have some early snapshots depicting spread of the virus and the range of illness it can cause.

We know, too, that this early, patchy picture can change very quickly. The virus writes the rules and this one, like all influenza viruses, can change the rules, without rhyme or reason, at any time.

Globally, we have good reason to believe that this pandemic, at least in its early days, will be of moderate severity. As we know from experience, severity can vary, depending on many factors, from one country to another.

On present evidence, the overwhelming majority of patients experience mild symptoms and make a rapid and full recovery, often in the absence of any form of medical treatment.

Worldwide, the number of deaths is small. Each and every one of these deaths is tragic, and we have to brace ourselves to see more. However, we do not expect to see a sudden and dramatic jump in the number of severe or fatal infections.

We know that the novel H1N1 virus preferentially infects younger people. In nearly all areas with large and sustained outbreaks, the majority of cases have occurred in people under the age of 25 years.

In some of these countries, around 2% of cases have developed severe illness, often with very rapid progression to life-threatening pneumonia.

Most cases of severe and fatal infections have been in adults between the ages of 30 and 50 years.

This pattern is significantly different from that seen during epidemics of seasonal influenza, when most deaths occur in frail elderly people.

Many, though not all, severe cases have occurred in people with underlying chronic conditions. Based on limited, preliminary data, conditions most frequently seen include respiratory diseases, notably asthma, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, autoimmune disorders, and obesity.

At the same time, it is important to note that around one third to half of the severe and fatal infections are occurring in previously healthy young and middle-aged people.

Without question, pregnant women are at increased risk of complications. This heightened risk takes on added importance for a virus, like this one, that preferentially infects younger age groups.

Finally, and perhaps of greatest concern, we do not know how this virus will behave under conditions typically found in the developing world. To date, the vast majority of cases have been detected and investigated in comparatively well-off countries.

Let me underscore two of many reasons for this concern. First, more than 99% of maternal deaths, which are a marker of poor quality care during pregnancy and childbirth, occurs in the developing world.

Second, around 85% of the burden of chronic diseases is concentrated in low- and middle-income countries.

Although the pandemic appears to have moderate severity in comparatively well-off countries, it is prudent to anticipate a bleaker picture as the virus spreads to areas with limited resources, poor health care, and a high prevalence of underlying medical problems.

Ladies and gentlemen,

A characteristic feature of pandemics is their rapid spread to all parts of the world. In the previous century, this spread has typically taken around 6 to 9 months, even during times when most international travel was by ship or rail.

Countries should prepare to see cases, or the further spread of cases, in the near future. Countries where outbreaks appear to have peaked should prepare for a second wave of infection.

Guidance on specific protective and precautionary measures has been sent to ministries of health in all countries. Countries with no or only a few cases should remain vigilant.

Countries with widespread transmission should focus on the appropriate management of patients. The testing and investigation of patients should be limited, as such measures are resource intensive and can very quickly strain capacities.

WHO has been in close dialogue with influenza vaccine manufacturers. I understand that production of vaccines for seasonal influenza will be completed soon, and that full capacity will be available to ensure the largest possible supply of pandemic vaccine in the months to come.

Pending the availability of vaccines, several non-pharmaceutical interventions can confer some protection.

WHO continues to recommend no restrictions on travel and no border closures.

Influenza pandemics, whether moderate or severe, are remarkable events because of the almost universal susceptibility of the world’s population to infection.

We are all in this together, and we will all get through this, together.

Thank you.”