Category Archives: Congress Watch

Scott Brown, Catholic Families for America endorsement, CFA, January 13, 2010, Voters of conscience, Not Kennedy seat, People’s seat

Catholic Families for America, CFA, has endorsed Scott Brown for the MA senate seat.

From the Christian News Wire, January 13, 2010.

“Catholic Families for America Endorses Scott Brown for Massachusetts Senate Seat”

“CFA Executive Director: “For voters of conscience in Massachusetts, the choice is clear: Scott Brown is a traditional values public servant who would bring a refreshing voice of common sense to the U. S. Senate. We applaud him for reminding the political class in Washington that this is not ‘the Kennedy seat — it’s the people’s seat.'””

WASHINGTON, Jan. 13 /Christian Newswire/ — Dr. Kevin Roberts, executive director of the Catholic grassroots advocacy group, Catholic Families for America (CFA), announced the organization’s endorsement of Scott Brown in next Tuesday’s special election for the U.S. Senate.



“”Scott would be such an upgrade on every major issue from the late Teddy Kennedy,” Roberts said. “Furthermore, his opponent, who espouses the same anti-life, anti-family, anti-values agenda that made Kennedy such a tragic figure to the Church, should give Catholic, Christian, and values voters an easy choice next Tuesday.””

“”Our republic cannot withstand a long period of liberal, anti-family super-majorities in Congress,” Roberts explained. “If Scott Brown surprises the pundits next week, then we know that the end is near for the abject failures of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama.””

Read more:

http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/5497512674.html

I love this response Scott Brown gave during the recent MA Senate Debate.

The Citizen Wells blog enthusiastically
endorses Scott Brown for the MA senate seat.

US Chamber of Commerce, Obama, Chamber pledges to stop Obama agenda, Play big role in November elections, President Thomas Donohue, Health care legislation, Fiscal insolvency, Valerie Jarrett

“Those who can, do; those who can’t, teach.”…George Bernard Shaw

Those who can’t do, won’t do, have never successfully run a business and hate business are part of the Obama Administration…Citizen Wells

 

From USA Today, January 12, 2010.

“U.S. Chamber pledges to stop Obama agenda, play big role in Nov. elections”

“U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue attacked President Obama’s domestic agenda Tuesday, criticizing Democratic efforts on climate change, health care and oversight of the nation’s financial system.

And he pledged to use the chamber’s might in November’s elections to take on the president’s allies in Congress.”

“The chamber will carry out “the largest, most aggressive” campaign in its 100-year history as it works to influence the outcome of mid-term congressional elections and stop legislation it views as harmful to the economy, he said. “As Americans choose a new House and senators this fall,” Donohue added, “the chamber will highlight lawmakers and candidates who support a pro-jobs agenda and hold accountable those who don’t.””

Read more:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2010/01/us-chamber-pledges-to-stop-obama-agenda-play-big-role-in-nov-elections.html

Apparently Obama and US Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue are not good buddies. Of course, the Obama Administration, a model of business acumen and job creation, has it’s answer to the US Chamber of Commerce in the Business Roundtable. Valerie Jarrett is the president’s liaison to the corporate world. You remember Jarrett.

“I was in the process of reporting more on Valerie Jarrett and her past ties to corruption in Chicago and I will do so. For now, Michelle Malkin does an excellent job in this video of exposing the truth about Obama and Jarrett and their motives for getting the Olympics for Chicago.”…Valerie Jarrett, corrupt slumlord Obama friend

From the LA Times, October 25, 2009.

“White House confronts the U.S. Chamber of Commerce”

“WASHINGTON — The Obama White House, stepping in where other Democrats feared to tread, has launched a potentially risky fight with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — attempting to bypass the nation’s most powerful business organization and develop independent ties to corporate America.

In recent weeks, President Obama, his Energy secretary and one of his other most senior advisors have begun criticizing the chamber publicly, casting it as a profligate lobbying organization at odds with its members in opposing the administration on such issues as consumer protection and climate change.

At the same time, the administration has been meeting privately with prominent corporate leaders — more than 60 of them since June — in an effort to develop its own pipeline to the business community.
The White House also has gone out of its way to cultivate another corporate group, the Business Roundtable, which is much smaller than the chamber but represents chief executives of many of the nation’s largest corporations.

“Our strategy is to reach out directly to the business community,” said Valerie Jarrett, the president’s liaison to the corporate world. “This is a shift. Previously, the chamber had served as the sole intermediary for business. That’s not our approach.”

Jarrett praised the Business Roundtable, saying that it brings member CEOs to White House meetings in addition to Washington lobbyists.

In an indirect dig at the chamber, Jarrett said the roundtable meetings were more substantive and valuable because they included not just a trade association leader but someone who actually runs a business.

The White House role in criticizing the chamber has, predictably, riled Republicans. But it also has made some Democrats nervous.”

Read more:

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/25/nation/na-chamber25

Here are some exerpts from the speech of US Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue, January 12, 2010.

“Think for a moment about the nation’s job creators—the men and women who run our small and large businesses—as well as those who lead our universities, our health care facilities and the many other institutions that employ our workforce. If you were in their shoes today, would you jump quickly into new investments and hiring? Or would you wait for some clarity, and some common sense, to take hold first?

Most of these job creators would like nothing more than to keep their workers employed, create new jobs, and bring some hope and relief to families struggling without a paycheck. But when they look at what’s going on in Washington, in the states, and around the world, what do they see?

They see massive tax increases on the horizon—not just the expiration of the tax cuts passed over the last decade, but also hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes.

They see health care legislation that contains a burdensome mandate on employers and virtually no meaningful reforms to improve quality or control costs.

They see a climate change bill and potential EPA regulations that could significantly raise energy prices and impose new layers of bureaucracy on their organizations.

They see financial services legislation moving forward that could choke off their access to capital at a time when lending is already very tight.

America’s job creators also see a renewed push by unions to pass card check and many other measures to control the workplace.

They see the trial bar working with their allies in Congress and with many state attorneys general to expand opportunities for new litigation.

They see the rise of trade isolationism at home and abroad that could threaten their export markets—and now, renewed fears about terrorism.

And our job creators see the federal government planning to expand the national debt by at least $9 trillion over the next decade—more debt than has been piled up in all previous years since George Washington. They see many states going broke as well. What will the impact be on their companies and employees?

These are the uncertainties that job creators are wrestling with—uncertainties that call into question how quick or strong our economic recovery will be. And no one is paying a higher price than the American worker.

Over seven million Americans have lost their jobs since the recession began. Ten percent of the workforce is unemployed—a number that soars beyond 17 percent when you add those who have stopped looking for jobs and the millions of part-time workers who want to work full-time.”

Read more:

http://www.uschamber.com/press/speeches/2010/100112_sab

By the way, the Chamber of Commerce of a major NC city, was my first business account assigned to me when I was young. It was a pleasure to present this article.

MA senate debate video, January 11, 2010, Scott Brown, Martha Coakley, Joseph L Kennedy, Youtube video, Cspan video

*** Update below  1:20 PM, EST ***

The MA senate debate between Scott Brown, Martha Coakley and  Joseph L Kennedy took place last night January 11, 2010 at the University of Massachusetts, Boston. Here is a Youtube video with portions of video from Fox 25, Boston and News 22, WWLP, Springfield, MA. Links to the complete videos are below.


http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/p…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgT_TS…

Cspan video.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/291174-1

This post will be updated later today.

***  Update  ***

The Boston Globe provided interactive comments during the debate.

At 7:02 PM poll results were presented

What candidate do you support?
Scott Brown (R)  

 
 ( 71% )
Martha Coakley (D)

 
 ( 25% )
Joseph L. Kennedy (I)

 
 ( 4% )

Comments

6:52
Andrew Phelps (WBUR): 

We’ll be watching and talking about the Senate debate, which starts at 7 p.m. sharp.

Monday January 11, 2010 6:52 Andrew Phelps (WBUR)
6:53
Andrew Phelps (WBUR): 

Our guest bloggers this evening are Renee Loth, columnist for The Boston Globe; Ralph Ranalli, WGBH’s “Greater Boston”; and Julie Mehegan, deputy editorial page editor of The Boston Herald.

Monday January 11, 2010 6:53 Andrew Phelps (WBUR)
6:53
Andrew Phelps (WBUR): 

The debate will be broadcast on television and radio stations throughout Massachusetts.

Monday January 11, 2010 6:53 Andrew Phelps (WBUR)
6:59
Julie Mehegan (Herald): 

Those who plan to vote but haven’t paid attention at all to this race will probably be tuning in tonight, and the candidates know it.  Big stakes.

Monday January 11, 2010 6:59 Julie Mehegan (Herald)
7:00
[Comment From BrianBrian: ] 

Brown is raising a lot more money than I thought he would today…

Monday January 11, 2010 7:00 Brian
7:00
[Comment From Allen GAllen G: ] 

Watching from Tennessee

Monday January 11, 2010 7:00 Allen G
7:01
[Comment From SteveSteve: ] 

Watching from northern Virginia.

Monday January 11, 2010 7:01 Steve
7:01
[Comment From ChristopherChristopher: ] 

Watching from Kalifornia

Monday January 11, 2010 7:01 Christopher
7:01
[Comment From Chris PChris P: ] 

Watching from Virginia (former Mass resident)

Monday January 11, 2010 7:01 Chris P
7:02
[Comment From mlsmls: ] 

logging in from texas…y’all hold the fate of our nation in your hand. do the right thing mass voters!

7:02
[Comment From LindaLinda: ] 

Watching from Florida…go Scott!

Monday January 11, 2010 7:02 Linda
7:02
Ralph Ranalli – WGBH: 

Complacency on the Democratic side will be the biggest enemy.

Monday January 11, 2010 7:02 Ralph Ranalli – WGBH
7:02
[Comment From JoannaJoanna: ] 

Watching from Jacksonville, FL Go SCOTT

Monday January 11, 2010 7:02 Joanna
7:02
[Comment From AndrewAndrew: ] 

watching from Pennsylvania! Go Brown!!!!

Monday January 11, 2010 7:02 Andrew
7:02
[Comment From Jo ElizabethJo Elizabeth: ] 

Go Scott Brown!!!!!! Florida support 110%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Read all comments:

Scott Brown, Martha Coakley, Joseph Kennedy debate, January 11, 2010, MA Senate debate, Boston.com

From Boston.com, January 11, 2010.

Debate begins at 7:00PM EST 

 

“The US Senate debate

The US Senate candidates from Massachusetts: Democrat Martha Coakley, Republican Scott Brown, and Independent Joseph L. Kennedy, are facing off in a final debate tonight. Watch and discuss as the debate unfolds live.”

Thanks to Phil of the Right Side of Life.

http://www.therightsideoflife.com

Scott Brown MA senate race, Massachusetts Senate Mystery: Scott Brown vs. Martha Coakley, WSJ, Boston Globe poll, Ted Kennedy’s senate seat, likely voters, race is closing, Wall Street Journal January 11, 2010

From the Wall Street Journal, January 11, 2010.

“Massachusetts Senate Mystery: Scott Brown vs. Martha Coakley – WSJ.com”

“Turnout for special elections is notoriously hard to predict, especially for a Massachusetts race in the dead of winter. ”

“People trying to follow the suddenly hot Massachusetts race to fill the late Ted Kennedy’s senate seat can be excused if they’re getting poll whiplash. On Saturday, the Democratic polling firm Public Policy Polling announced a startling survey of 744 likely voters that found Republican Scott Brown taking a 48% to 47% lead over Democrat Martha Coakley. “The Massachusetts Senate race is shaping up as a potential disaster for Democrats,” said Dean Debnam, president of PPP.

The next day, the Boston Globe displayed its own poll of 554 people, showing Ms. Coakley with a comfortable 15-point lead. “If there was ever a time for a Republican to win here, now is the time,” Andrew Smith, the director of the polling firm used by the Globe, reported. “The problem is you’ve got a special election and a relatively unknown Republican going up against a well-liked Democrat.””

“No one knows exactly who will turn out on January 19. But the evidence suggests the race is closing. In three polls taken before the December primary that made Ms. Coakley her party’s nominee, she had an average 29-point lead over Mr. Brown. In three surveys taken over the last ten days or so, her lead has shrunk to an average of eight points. Ms. Coakley is ahead, but Mr. Brown is making a late surge. He can only hope it isn’t stopped because previously apathetic Democrats respond to the polls by deciding to drag themselves out to vote.”

Read more:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104574652442227001988.html?mod=WSJ_latestheadlines

Scott Brown election certification delayed for Health Care Bill vote?, Nancy Pelosi swore in Bill Owens early, Niki Tsongas precedent, William Francis Galvin, MA Secretary of the Commonwealth, State Ethics Committee, MA Election statutes

Scott Brown’s election certification will be delayed to allow temporary Senator Paul Kirk to vote for the Health Care Bill. Sound familiar? Nancy Pelosi did just the opposite in November 2009, to allow just elected Representative Bill Owens to vote for the House version of the Health Care Bill.

Reported here yesterday, January 9, 2010.
“From The Boston Herald, January 9, 2010.
“Scott Brown swearing-in would be stalled to pass health-care reform”
“It looks like the fix is in on national health-care reform – and it all may unfold on Beacon Hill.
The longtime aide and confidant of the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, who was handpicked by Gov. Deval Patrick after a controversial legal change to hold Kennedy’s seat, vowed to vote for the bill even if Republican state Sen. Scott Brown, who opposes the health-care reform legislation, prevails in a Jan. 19 special election.”
MA Democrats will delay Scott Brown’s certification

Nancy Pelosi chicanery from November 12, 2009

“John Charlton of The Post & Email just brought a breaking story to our attention.

“It looks increasingly that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in her zeal to get the Health Care Federalization Bill passed, may have sworn in an unelected candidate for the NY-23 Congressional District, in violation of the U.S. Constitution and New York State laws.

As a matter of fact, the Secretary of State of New York has not certified the election, in which Dough Hoffman and Bill Owens vied in a special election, nearly head to head, after Scozzafava retired in humiliation, having lost the support of conservatives in her district.”
“It turns out that Pelosi’s swearing-in of Owens had the political effect of garnering the addition Republican vote, of Cao, in the vote for the Health Care Bill, which passed narrowly, 220-215.  The election fraud therefore puts in doubt the legitimacy of that vote also.””
Nancy Pelosi swears in Bill Owens before he is certified

On November 19, 2009 we learn of election night irregularities and voting machine viruses

“We already knew there were election night irregularities in the New York District 23 congressional race between Doug Hoffman and Bill Owens and that Nancy Pelosi prematurely certified Owens as the winner. Now we find out that some of the voting machines had computer viruses.

From The Gouverneur Times, November 19, 2009.

“VIRUS in the VOTING MACHINES: Tainted Results in NY-23″””
New York voting machines had viruses

The Democrats have a history of using the voting process not as it was intended, to echo the will of the people, but to further their own agenda.

From CBS News, October 17, 2007.
“Niki Tsongas Wins U.S. House Race”
“Tsongas said Wednesday that she expected to be sworn in on Thursday, and was eager to participate in the House vote scheduled for that day to override President Bush’s veto of expanded funding for the State Children’s Health Insurance program.”

Read more:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/17/politics/main3376886.shtml?source=related_story
From Fox News, October 18, 2007.
“Massachusetts Democrat Niki Tsongas Sworn In as Congresswoman”
“Shortly after being sworn in to the seat her late husband Paul Tsongas held in the 1970s, she joined her Massachusetts colleagues in voting to override President Bush’s veto of a bill that would have expanded the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. The effort failed by 13 votes.”

Read more:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303180,00.html

Here is a recent letter addressed to John Kerry, Niki Tsongas and Paul Kirk.

“Are Massachusetts Democrats planning to obstruct the voice of the people?

To:
Sen. John Kerry
Rep. Niki Tsongas
Sen. Paul Kirk

January 9, 2010

I read in today’s Boston Herald that the Massachusetts Democrat organization is now planning to delay the certification of the January 19th election to keep Scott Brown out of the Senate until a health reform bill can be rushed through Congress.

This is unacceptable and I hope that you will take a strong stand AGAINST it.

When Sen Brown wins the election, the people will have spoken, and their voice must be heard, not stifled underneath layers of obstruction.

Rep Tsongas was voting in Washington ONE DAY after winning her special election.

So why is Massachusetts Sec. of State Galvin’s office saying that they will not certify the Jan 19 election for 10 days because that is the rule for ALL special elections?

This is CLEARLY NOT TRUE.”

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/userletter/?letter_id=4500181596

From the Massachusetts Election Statutes

“PART I. ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT
TITLE VIII. ELECTIONS”

“CHAPTER 50. GENERAL PROVISIONS RELATIVE TO PRIMARIES, CAUCUSES AND ELECTIONS
DETERMINATION OF RESULTS
Chapter 50: Section 2. Results of election; determination
Section 2. In elections, the person receiving the highest number of votes for an office shall be deemed and declared to be elected to such office; and if two or more are to be elected to the same office, the several persons, to the number to be chosen to such office, receiving the highest number of votes, shall be deemed and declared to be elected; but persons receiving the same number of votes shall not be deemed to be elected if thereby a greater number would be elected than are to be chosen. Except as otherwise provided, this section shall apply to all nominations and elections by ballot at primaries or caucuses. Nothing herein shall derogate from the provisions of chapter fifty-four A.”

“CHAPTER 56. VIOLATIONS OF ELECTION LAWS
PENALTIES ON OFFICERS FOR OFFENCES IN THE CONDUCT OF PRIMARIES, CAUCUSES, CONVENTIONS AND ELECTIONS
Chapter 56: Section 12. Misconduct of officers; failure to perform duties
Section 12. An officer of a primary, caucus or convention who knowingly makes any false count of ballots or votes, or makes a false statement or declaration of the result of a ballot or vote, or knowingly refuses to receive any ballot offered by a person qualified to vote at such primary, caucus or convention, or wilfully alters, defaces or destroys any ballot cast, or voting list used thereat, before the requirements of law have been complied with, or refuses or wilfully fails to receive any written request made as thereby required, or refuses or wilfully fails to perform any duty or obligation imposed thereby shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than six months.”

Election Day Legal Summary by William Francis Galvin, MA Secretary of the Commonwealth

“Counting Votes
The process of counting the ballots differs depending on the type of voting equipment used. However, the basic requirements are the same. The clerk must record the final register number on the ballot box. G. L. c. 54, §§ 105, 105A (1998 ed.). A count must be made of the voters on both the check in and check out lists, and the voting lists must thereafter be sealed in an envelope. Id.; see also G. L. c. 54, § 107 (1998 ed.) (procedure for sealing voting lists and ballots; applicable to all of the materials required to be sealed as indicated below). The escrow ballots must be counted, placed in an envelope, the number placed on the outside of the envelope, and the envelope must then be sealed. G. L. c. 54, §§ 105, 105A (1998 ed.).
The election officers shall canvass and count the ballots if paper ballots are used, and otherwise, the election officers shall read the vote totals from the counting device after the polls close, either by a printer mechanism or otherwise. G. L. c. 54, §§ 105, 105A (1998 ed.). The ballots not able to be read by the machines must be hand counted. Id. Election officers may not hold a pen or any other kind of marking device during the counting of the ballots, except for the person actually recorded the votes. G. L. c. 54, § 80 (1998 ed.). Furthermore, such election officials may only use red pencils or red ink to record or tabulate votes. Id. For the purpose of ascertaining the results of a state election, city election, or a town election where official ballots are used, or of question submitted to the voters, the election officials must use the blank forms and apparatus provided by the Secretary of the Commonwealth. G. L. c. 54, § 104 (1998 ed.).
The unused and spoiled ballots must also be counted, placed in a container under seal, and the clerk must record the numbers. G. L. c. 54, §§ 105, 105A (1998 ed.). The counted ballots are placed into a designated container, which is then sealed a certificate is affixed thereto stating that only ballots cast and no other ballots are contained therein. Id. The total tally sheets are placed in an envelope, sealed, and the warden and clerk also sign the outside of the envelope. Id. In communities using a central tabulation facility, the ballots will then be transported thereto, and then transmitted to the city or town clerk who must retain them in a secure location. G. L. c. 54, § 105A (1998 ed.). In all other communities, the sealed envelopes and containers will be returned directly to the city or town clerk who must retain them in a secure location. G. L. c. 54, §§ 105, 105A (1998 ed.).”

http://www.medford.org/Pages/MedfordMA_BComm/ELECTIONSummary.pdf

From the MA State Ethics Committee

“Section 23 contains standards of conduct applicable to all public employees.” 
 
“Political Activity
Section 23(b)(2) provides that a public employee may not use his official position to secure unwarranted privileges or exemptions of substantial value for himself or others.  This prohibition has been applied by the Commission to restrict a number of political activities involving, for example, campaign use of public resources, campaigning on the job, and certain types of solicitation and fundraising.”

“Section 23(b)(3)  Appearances of a Conflict of Interest”
“Section 23(b)(3) prohibits a public employee from knowingly, or with reason to know, engaging in conduct which would cause a reasonable person to conclude that any person or entity can improperly influence the employee or unduly enjoy his favor in the performance of his official duties, or that he is likely to act or fail to act as a result of kinship, rank, or position of any person.
For example, issues may arise under this section if a matter involving a non-immediate family relative, a close friend or business associate, or a civic organization in which a public employee is a member comes before the public employee in his official capacity, even if the public employee is not otherwise required to abstain under G.L. c. 268A, sections 6, 13 or 19.  The public employee’s private relationship with such an individual or organization creates an impression that he could be biased in his official actions as a result of the private relationship.”

“Supplemental provisions; standards of conduct.”
“Section 23. (a) In addition to the other provisions of this chapter, and in supplement thereto, standards of conduct, as hereinafter set forth, are hereby established for all state, county and municipal employees.”
“(3) act in a manner which would cause a reasonable person, having knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to conclude that any person can improperly influence or unduly enjoy his favor in the performance of his official duties, or that he is likely to act or fail to act as a result of kinship, rank, position or undue influence of any party or person. It shall be unreasonable to so conclude if such officer or employee has disclosed in writing to his appointing authority or, if no appointing authority exists, discloses in a manner which is public in nature, the facts which would otherwise lead to such a conclusion;”

 http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=ethhomepage&L=1&L0=Home&sid=Ieth
William Francis Galvin, MA Secretary of the Commonwealth, is responsible for elections

http://www.sec.state.ma.us/Ele/elespeif/senatorincongressma.htm

Given the MA statutes, state ethics laws and the precedent of swearing in Representative Niki Tsongas one day after the election, the Democrats have a major problem trying to perpetrate another illegal act, especially after they have advertised it ahead of time. 

Scott Brown, election certification delayed, Paul Kirk, Deval Patrick, MA, Health care bill, Ted Kennedy, Sean Hannity, Fox, Senator, Senate election, Boston Herald, Democrat Party chicanery

The Scott Brown senate race against MA Attorney General Martha Coakley is tight and MA and national Democrats such as Harry Reid are beginning to sweat. Paul Kirk, the temporary senator who replaced Ted Kennedy, has stated he will vote for the Health Care Bill. I have stated on numerous occasions that I can not comprehend how any concerned, informed and patriotic American can support the modern day Democrat Party. The following report is one of many examples of why I hold this belief.
From The Boston Herald, January 9, 2010.
“Scott Brown swearing-in would be stalled to pass health-care reform”
“It looks like the fix is in on national health-care reform – and it all may unfold on Beacon Hill.

At a business forum in Boston Friday, interim Sen. Paul Kirk predicted that Congress would pass a health-care reform bill this month.

“We want to get this resolved before President Obama’s State of the Union address in early to mid-February,” Kirk told reporters at a Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce breakfast.

The longtime aide and confidant of the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, who was handpicked by Gov. Deval Patrick after a controversial legal change to hold Kennedy’s seat, vowed to vote for the bill even if Republican state Sen. Scott Brown, who opposes the health-care reform legislation, prevails in a Jan. 19 special election.”

“But if Brown wins, the entire national health-care reform debate may hinge on when he takes over as senator. Brown has vowed to be the crucial 41st vote in the Senate that would block the bill.

The U.S. Senate ultimately will schedule the swearing-in of Kirk’s successor, but not until the state certifies the election.”

“Friday, Brown, who has been closing the gap with Coakley in polls and fund raising, blasted the political double standard.

“This is a stunning admission by Paul Kirk and the Beacon Hill political machine,” said Brown in a statement. “Paul Kirk appears to be suggesting that he, Deval Patrick, and (Senate Majority Leader) Harry Reid intend to stall the election certification until the health care bill is rammed through Congress, even if that means defying the will of the people of Massachusetts. As we’ve already seen from the backroom deals and kickbacks cut by the Democrats in Washington, they intend to do anything and everything to pass their controversial health care plan. But threatening to ignore the results of a free election and steal this Senate vote from the people of Massachusetts takes their schemes to a whole new level. Martha Coakley should immediately disavow this threat from one of her campaign’s leading supporters.””

Read more:

http://www.bostonherald.com/business/healthcare/view.bg?articleid=1224249
Scott Brown was interviewed by Sean Hannity on Fox, January 8, 2010.

Look for more articles about this Democrat Party chicanery and Scott Brown soon.

Al Franken, MN senate election, Minnesota judge declares uncounted absentee ballots open to public inspection, January 8, 2010, Norm Coleman Republican opponent, Recount and court battle 312 votes

The MN senate race between Democrat Al Franken and Republican Norm Coleman smelled from start to finish. Recounts and a court decision handed Al Franken the senate seat with a margin of 312 votes.

From the Star Tribune, January 6, 2010.

“Minn. judge grants access to rejected ’08 ballots”

“ST. PAUL, Minn. – Six months after Democrat Al Franken tardily joined the U.S. Senate, a Minnesota judge has declared that uncounted absentee ballots from the drawn-out 2008 election should be open to public inspection.
The New Year’s Eve ruling from Ramsey County Judge Dale Lindman granted a media outlet’s request to inspect absentee ballots rejected as flawed, potentially giving a new glimpse into a Senate race that stretched well into 2009. Franken outlasted Republican incumbent Norm Coleman in a recount and court battle and won by 312 votes.
The ruling has its limitations and could be appealed. And there doesn’t appear to be any legal avenue for Coleman to change the election’s outcome.
For now, the decision applies only to Ramsey County, Minnesota’s second most populous. KSTP-TV and other Hubbard Broadcasting Corp. affiliates sued for access to the ballots there and have begun the legal process in Douglas, Olmsted and St. Louis counties, said Mark Anfinson, an attorney for the stations. No political interest is a party to the lawsuit.
Anfinson said he hopes Minnesota’s other 86 counties voluntarily defer to Lindman’s ruling. The goal of the ballot examination is to fully understand what worked and what didn’t in Minnesota’s election so policymakers can consider law changes, he said.
But even if as many as 10,000 uncounted ballots are eventually opened, it won’t be as simple as adding to each candidate’s tally.
“There’s no doubt that under any scheme of absentee ballot regulation some of those would be rejected,” Anfinson said. “There’s considerable effort that’s going to have to be invested in understanding why certain ballots weren’t accepted and others were.”

Rejected absentee ballots were a point of contention in the protracted election. Franken’s lawyers fought to get them re-examined and have some included in the count. During an election trial, Coleman’s attorneys tried to get more added by arguing that standards were inconsistently applied, with some counties taking a tougher stand than others.
For absentee ballots to count in Minnesota, voters must be registered, have a qualified witness, mail their signed ballot envelopes back before to Election Day and not cast a replacement ballot at the polls.”

Read more:

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/80791362.html?elr=KArks:DCiUocOaL_nDaycUiacyKUUr

We have so much on our plates already. However, this procedural catastrophe, which I consider to be chicanery, should be investigated further. 

Thanks to the great commenter and patriot Joyce.

Obama citizenship status, Natural born citizen, Obama illegal alien?, Kerchner V Obama, Attorney Mario Apuzzo, Obama not born to a US citizen father and mother, US Constitution, Hawaii or Kenya

Although this blog has not focused on Barack Obama’s citizenship status but  rather his status as a natural born citizen, Obama may indeed be an illegal alien.

Mario Apuzzo, the attorney in the Kerchner V Obama and Congress lawsuit, has presented an indepth analysis of the US Constitution and US laws and how they pertain to information supplied or not supplied by  Obama.

“What Is Putative President Obama’s Current U.S. Citizenship Status?”

“We have seen that Obama cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen” because when he was born, regardless of what place that may be, he was not born to a United States citizen father and mother. The “natural born Citizen” clause of our U.S. Constitution requires that both of the child’s parents be U.S. Citizens at the time of birth. Rather, if Obama was born in Hawaii as he claims, then under the liberalized and questionable meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” he can be a born Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” and a “citizen of the United States at birth” under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401 (a). Again, that citizenship status does not make him an Article II “natural born Citizen.” But what would Obama’s citizenship status be if he was not born in the United States? First, let us examine why there is still existing doubts as to whether Obama was born in Hawaii. Second, let us examine what law would apply to determine Obama’s citizenship status should he not be born in Hawaii or any other part of the United States and what his citizenship status would be under that law.

These are the reasons for the existing doubts regarding Obama’s place of birth:

1. What Obama or some other unknown person posted on the internet is not a birth certificate (BC). Rather, he/she posted a digital image and picture of a questionable “certification of live birth” (COLB) which at best is only prima facie evidence of the place of his birth. The prima facie value of this document fails in light of numerous existing factual circumstances which contradict the COLB’s validity and which have not been adequately explained by Obama.

2. According to Obama and his Press Secretary, Mr. Gibbs, this digital document alone is supposed to allow Obama to qualify to be President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Military. According to them, this electronic image alone is sufficient to prove that Obama is a U.S. citizen and therefore qualified to have the full power of the executive vested in him. It is unbelievable that Obama would expect the American people to grant him such license over their lives based simply upon an electronic image on a computer screen. It is even more unbelievable that the Electoral College, our Congress, political institutions, security forces, and media would allow him to get away with it. This document, which in its paper form is undoubtedly a legal document, has no probative value given that it was posted by some unknown person on the internet as a digital image without following any prescribed electronic media security protocols. We know that digital images can be easily manipulated through computer technology. See http://technology.findlaw.com/articles/01102/010555.html for an explanation of the need to follow defined federal and state standards when it comes to electronic/digital information transmittal of legal documents. If Obama expects this digital image of a COLB to have such unprecedented value which allows him to be President of the United States, then he should at least show that the electronic image he posted meets electronic/digital security standards.

3. While not officially confirmed, the authenticity of the COLB computer image has been questioned by at least two digital image experts who have concluded that the COLB image is a forgery.

4. Obama says he was born in a hospital. A birth certificate provides the name of the hospital where the birth occurred and the name of the doctor delivering the baby. The COLB does not have this vital corroborating information.

5. The key point that Obama supporters are redirecting attention away from is that the underlying foundational information supporting his Certification of Live Birth is unknown. This unknown information may not matter much when it comes to an ordinary person. But for someone running for President of the United States and currently sitting in that Office it is of crucial importance.

6. When Obama was born in 1961, Hawaii had in effect the Certificate of Hawaiian Birth Program which it established in 1911 and which it terminated in 1972. Someone could under Act 96 get a certificate claiming a Hawaiian birth even if he was physically born in a foreign country by an adult or parent falsely claiming to the director of health that he was born in Hawaii when in fact he was born abroad. Hence, because of the contradictory evidence that exists such as statements made by relatives and newspaper reporters in Kenya and elsewhere regarding where he was born, plaintiffs are entitled to pierce the alleged COLB and examine the file that is in the possession of the Hawaiian Secretary of State which may contain a sworn application/petition in which some party set forth circumstantially all the facts upon which the application rested and supporting sworn affidavits of witnesses. The file could also contain the results of the Secretary or his designee examinations under oath of the applicant or other person who may have been cognizant of the alleged facts regarding the application/petition along with other documentary evidence that they may have obtained as a result of issuing subpoenas for books and other papers.

7. The DoD 5220.22-M, “National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual,” 2/28/2006 (NISPOM) provides baseline standards for the protection of classified information released or disclosed to industry in connection with classified contracts under the “National Industrial Security Program (NISP). It prescribes the requirements, restrictions, and other safeguards to prevent unauthorized disclosure of classified information. It also states at 2-209 that only U.S. citizens are eligible to receive a security clearance. The Manual requires a contractor to show proof of U.S. citizenship. It states at 2-208: “For individuals born in the United States, a birth certificate is the primary and preferred means of citizenship verification.” http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/522022mchaps.pdf. Surely, we should require such documentation of someone seeking to occupy the Office of President of the United States.

8. At the time that Obama was sworn in as President, not even the Hawaii Department of Home Lands accepted a certification of live birth (COLB) as conclusive evidence of being a native of Hawaii for its Homeland program. From its web site: “In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.”

9. Since the controversy over Obama’s alleged birth certificate, Hawaii has changed its web page to read as follows:
“Birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth and Certifications of Live Birth) and Certificates of Hawaiian Birth are the primary documents used to determine native Hawaiian qualification.The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth (original birth certificate) and Certifications of Live Birth because they are official government records documenting an individual’s birth. The Certificate of Live Birth generally has more information which is useful for genealogical purposes as compared to the Certification of Live Birth which is a computer-generated printout that provides specific details of a person’s birth. Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth.”http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl.

10. Despite the numerous law suits that have been filed against Obama, he continues to refuse to release his original birth certificate and has opted rather to spend large sums of money using lawyers to defend himself and to cause the courts and litigants to expend large amounts of time and resources pursuing litigation against him and other third parties. He relies on procedural and other threshold arguments such as jurisdiction, justiciability, standing, political question, separation of powers, mootness, and ripeness rather than simply produce his original birth certificate and make a motion for summary judgment with prejudice as to the merits so that no other future cases can be brought against him and others which would then put an end not only to the ongoing drain of money, time, and other resources but also to the great public outrage that continues to increase over time regarding his constitutional eligibility.

11. For some unknown reason and relying on federal and state privacy laws, Obama has refused to publicly release his original Certificate of Live Birth (BC) even though in his book, Dreams from My Father, he stated that he had it.

12. Obama and his half-sister, Maya, have each stated that he was born in different hospitals in Hawaii. In November 2004, in an interview with the Rainbow Newsletter, Maya told reporters her half-brother, Sen. Barack Obama, was born on August 4, 1961, at Queens Medical Center in Honolulu. But Obama has said he was born at Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women & Children, also in Honolulu. Changing her story, in February 2008 Maya then told reporters for the Honolulu Star-Bulletin that Obama was born at the Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children.

13. On February 5, 2008, Madelyn Dunham was still alive, but the Obama campaign did not make her available for interviews with the media. Obama’s maternal grandmother surely would have known where her grandson was born but Obama refused the media access to her. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004164387_brodeur05m.html.

14. Neither of the two or any other hospital in Hawaii or anywhere in the world has been willing to come forward and claim its place in history as being the hospital where the first African-American U.S. President was born. There is no Hawaiian hospital that has confirmed that Obama and/or his mother were present in any such hospital at the time of Obama’s alleged birth in Honolulu. Not a single person has come forward, not a doctor, nurse, hospital administrator, nor any one else to confirm Obama’s birth in Hawaii. “We don’t have plans to do anything,” said Kapi’olani Medical Center spokeswoman, Claire Tong, when asked how the center plans to commemorate the soon-to-be 44th U.S. president, who, according to Obama’s family and other sources, was born at that hospital on Aug. 4, 1961. “We can’t confirm or deny it — even though all the information out there says he was born at Kapiolani Hospital. And that’s because of the HIPA law.” Tong acknowledged that the center has received daily inquiries from news agencies far and wide asking for confirmation of Obama’s birthplace. Despite her wanting to do so, Tong said it is not possible. “Our hands are tied,” she said. http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081109/NEWS01/811090361/-1/specialobama08. I wonder why Tong said that “even though all the information out there says he was born at Kapiolani Hospital.” He surely did not even slightly hint that any information in the hospital supported such a claim. One would think that Obama would do a simple thing and give the hospital permission to release the information to the news-thirsty public. After all, what harm to his privacy would he suffer from authorizing the hospital to simply confirm that the President of the United States was born there?

15. Attorney Philip Berg has served subpoenas on the hospitals mentioned by Obama and his half sister as the place where Obama was born to obtain the medical records which would show the fact of Obama being born in either one of them but Obama has refused to sign the consent that the hospitals need to release the documents.

16. “Birthplaces and boyhood homes of U.S. presidents have been duly noted and honored for nearly as long as America has been a nation. In the case of such towering figures as Thomas Jefferson, Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, those early locations have been deemed national treasures and historic sites, visited annually by the multitudes.” http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081109/NEWS01/811090361/-1/specialobama08. But we have not seen any movement by any public charity or foundation, non-profit organization, or government agency to commemorate Obama’s place of birth in Hawaii.

17. We have not seen any media events or news conferences at the hospital where Obama was born which I am sure is a place the location of which is highly news worthy not only to the American people but to the whole world. Hence, we do not even know in which hospital Obama was born.

18. Other than the COLB and the two newspaper announcements whose basis for information is the same single source, there does not exist one known corroborating medical or other document of any kind which shows that Obama was born in Hawaii. The Honolulu Advertiser, on Sunday, August 13, 1961 contained the following short announcement: “Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6085 Kalanianaole Highway, son, Aug. 4.” The Honolulu Star-Bulletin, an unaffiliated, competing publication, carried the exact same notice the following day. The numerous birth announcements above and below the Obama listing also were identical in both papers. Advertiser columnist and former Star-Bulletin managing editor, Dave Shapiro, was not at either paper in 1961, but he remembers how the birth notices process worked years later when both papers were jointly operated by the Hawaii Newspaper Agency, which no longer exists. He states: “Those were listings that came over from the state Department of Health . . . . They would send the same thing to both papers.” http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081109/NEWS01/811090361/-1/specialobama08. Hence, we can see that the information for those birth notices comes straight from the state Health Department’s Vital Records Division. Hence, the birth announcements, not having their source of information in some other place, do not add any corroboration to the COLB. Other secondary evidence may include baptismal or circumcision certificates, hospital birth records, or affidavits of persons having personal knowledge about the facts of birth. Other documentary evidence can be early census, school, or family bible records, newspaper files, or insurance papers. No such documents have been produced for the American public. Furthermore, no one has been able to confirm that Obama’s mother and father in fact ever lived at 6085 Kalaniana’ole Highway, Honolulu.

19. Although Obama has had a first-class education that spanned 25 years, there is only a single document that has ever been released, the application for entrance to the Franciscus Assisi Primary School in Indonesia. That document was discovered by independent investigators. That documents shows that Obama was an Indonesian citizen. It is also reported that his Kindergarten records are missing. Needless to say how probative these kindergarten records would be since they would contain his legal name, parents’ names, date of birth, place of birth, and vaccination records.

20. No public official in Hawaii has publicly confirmed with any conclusive and credible evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii. Whatever statements Director of Hawaiian Department of Heath, Fukino, has made are not conclusive on the question of whether Obama was born in Hawaii. What is lacking is what information the Department is relying upon to make its statements. Just from her statement alone, we also do not know what evidence exists in the Department of Health file to corroborate what is stated in the “original birth certificate.”

21. We have not heard from one international, federal, state, or local police or security agency that Obama’s birth place has been officially confirmed.

22. On June 27, 2004, the East African Newspaper, The Sunday Standard, in its article entitled, Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate, declared in its newspaper that Obama is Kenyan-Born. This long pre-dates Obama’s decision to run for President when the truth about his birth location was not being hidden. This is not the only African paper that made such statements during a time that Obama’s birth place was not an issue.

23. An Investigator working for Philip Berg, Esq. learned the following which is contained in the investigator’s affidavit dated October 30, 2008, that was filed with a Federal District Court in the case of Berg v. Obama, 08-cv-04083: Obama’s step-grandmother, Sarah Obama, told Bishop McRae, who was in the United States, during a telephonic interview on October 12, 2008, while she was in her home located in Alego-Kogello, Kenya, that was full of security police and people and family who were celebrating then-Senator Obama’s success story, that she witnessed Obama’s birth in Kenya, not the United States (the English and Swahili conversation is recorded and available for listening). She was adamant about this fact not once but twice. The conversation which was placed on speaker phone was translated into English by “Kweli Shuhubia” and one of the grandmother’s grandsons who were present with the grandmother in the house. After the grandmother made the same statement twice, her grandson intervened, saying “No, No, No, He [sic] was born in the United States.” During the interview, the grandmother never changed her reply that she was present when Obama was born in Kenya. The fact that later in the same interview she change her statement to say that Obama was born in Hawaii does not change the fact that she at first stated twice that she was present when Obama was born in Kenya. I cannot imagine a grandmother not knowing whether she was present or not at the birth of her American Senator and U.S. Presidential candidate grandson.

24. The investigator then personally went to the hospital in Mombasa, Kenya. He spoke with the Provincial Civil Registrar and he learned that there were records of Ann Dunham giving birth to “Barack Hussein Obama, III” in Mombassa, Kenya on August 4, 1961. The investigator then “spoke directly with an Official, the Principal Registrar, who openly confirmed the birthing records of Senator Barack H. Obama, Jr. and his mother were present, however, the file on Barack H. Obama, Jr. was classified and profiled. The Official explained Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. [sic] birth in Kenya is top secret. [H]e was further instructed to go to the Attorney General’s Office and to the Minister in Charge of Immigration if [he] wanted further information.”

25. The Kenyan Ambassador to the United States, Peter N.R.O. Ogego, confirmed on November 6, 2008, during a radio interview with Detroit radio talk-show hosts Mike Clark, Trudi Daniels, and Marc Fellhauer on WRIF’s “Mike In the Morning,” that “President-Elect Obama” was born in Kenya and that his birth place was already a “well-known” attraction. The radio interview went as follows:
Clark: “We want to congratulate you on Barack Obama, our new president, and you must be very proud.”
Ogego: “We are. We are. We are also proud of the U.S. for having made history as well.”
Fellhauer: “One more quick question, President-elect Obama’s birthplace over in Kenya, is that going to be a national spot to go visit, where he was born?”
Ogego: “It’s already an attraction. His paternal grandmother is still alive.”
Fellhauer: “His birthplace, they’ll put up a marker there?”
Ogego: “It would depend on the government. It’s already well known.”
http://my.wrif.com/mim/index.php?s=Ogego
Later on, Ogego’s assistant, denying that Obama was born in Kenya, insisted Ogego was speaking about Barack Obama Sr., and not President-elect Obama.She said she could not say why Ogego responded the way he did. Listening to the radio interview in its entirety, it is very obvious the interviewers were all talking about President-elect Barack Obama and not his father. It is doubtful that Obama’s father’s paternal grandmother (Obama’s great-grandmother) was still alive. We would also expect that Ogego would have said that Obama was not born in Kenya, but there is an attraction there to honor his father. If it were true that Ogego was referring to Obama’s Sr. and not Obama Jr., we should have heard about and received credible evidence as to what preparatory steps had already been taken in Kenya to honor the birth place of Obama Sr. In evaluating Ogego’s statement, we have to also remember that Obama’s grandmother also said that Obama Jr. was born in Kenya. Hence, Ogego’s assistant’s claim that Ogego thought they were talking about Obama’s father does not appear credible.

26. It is alleged that the Kenyan government authorities have refused to cooperate and have thwarted all efforts by anyone to obtain any documents concerning Obama.

27. Obama has refused all effort to have him release the following documents, relying on sealing of records and/or privacy laws: Punahou High School records, Occidental College records, Columbia College records, Columbia Thesis paper, Harvard College records, Selective Service Registration, medical records, Illinois State Senate records, Illinois State Senate schedule, Law practice client list, Certified Copy of original Birth Certificate, Harvard Law Review articles that were published, University of Chicago scholarly articles, exit and entry immigration records covering all of Obama’s travels out of the United States; passports; and record of baptism, if any.

28. Fightthesmears.com and factcheck.org have since maintained silence on the birth place issue after the questionable COLB was posted on the internet.

29. Other than a digital composite image representation on the internet of a questionable letter dated January 24, 2009 that he allegedly wrote to Kapi’olani Medical Center congratulating the hospital on its centennial celebration (it is reported that he refused to confirm that the letter was genuine, http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103503), Obama has remained silent and has not declared publicly after his COLB and place of birth were questioned that he was born in Hawaii.

30. No member of the media, any political party, the Executive Branch of Government, Congress, any political institution, the Judiciary, or any law enforcement entity, has publicly stated that he or she has independently confirmed that Obama was born in Hawaii. Nor has House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, the Chair of the Democratic National Convention, publicly announced that she confirmed that Obama was born in Hawaii.”

Continue reading:

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/12/what-is-putative-president-obamas.html

William M. Daley, Democrat party, Obama approval rating, Listen to American people, Alabama Representative Parker Griffith, Washington Post warning, Far left agenda

A warning to the Democrat Party from the Washington Post (hardly a conservative rag) to listen to the American public and embrace centrist viewpoints.

“Keep the Big Tent big”

“The announcement by Alabama Rep. Parker Griffith that he is switching to the Republican Party is just the latest warning sign that the Democratic Party — my lifelong political home — has a critical decision to make: Either we plot a more moderate, centrist course or risk electoral disaster not just in the upcoming midterms but in many elections to come.
Rep. Griffith’s decision makes him the fifth centrist Democrat to either switch parties or announce plans to retire rather than stand for reelection in 2010. These announcements are a sharp reversal from the progress the Democratic Party made starting in 2006 and continuing in 2008, when it reestablished itself as the nation’s majority party for the first time in more than a decade. That success happened for one major reason: Democrats made inroads in geographies and constituencies that had trended Republican since the 1960s. In these two elections, a majority of independents and a sizable number of moderate Republicans joined the traditional Democratic base to sweep Democrats to commanding majorities in Congress and to bring Barack Obama to the White House.
These independents and Republicans supported Democrats based on a message indicating that the party would be a true Big Tent — that we would welcome a diversity of views even on tough issues such as abortion, gun rights and the role of government in the economy.
This call was answered not just by voters but by a surge of smart, talented candidates who came forward to run and win under the Democratic banner in districts dominated by Republicans for a generation. These centrists swelled the party’s ranks in Congress and contributed to Obama’s victories in states such as Indiana, North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado and other Republican bastions.
But now they face a grim political fate. On the one hand, centrist Democrats are being vilified by left-wing bloggers, pundits and partisan news outlets for not being sufficiently liberal, “true” Democrats. On the other, Republicans are pounding them for their association with a party that seems to be advancing an agenda far to the left of most voters.

The political dangers of this situation could not be clearer.
Witness the losses in New Jersey and Virginia in this year’s off-year elections. In those gubernatorial contests, the margin of victory was provided to Republicans by independents — many of whom had voted for Obama. Just one year later, they had crossed back to the Republicans by 2-to-1 margins.
Witness the drumbeat of ominous poll results. Obama’s approval rating has fallen below 49 percent overall and is even lower — 41 percent — among independents. On the question of which party is best suited to manage the economy, there has been a 30-point swing toward Republicans since November 2008, according to Ipsos. Gallup’s generic congressional ballot shows Republicans leading Democrats. There is not a hint of silver lining in these numbers. They are the quantitative expression of the swing bloc of American politics slipping away.”

Read more:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/23/AR2009122302439_pf.html