---
MORE LAWYERING BEHIND THE SCENE REGARDING THE BIRTHER ISSUE!
This from a family member and fellow memo reader.(SEE 1 BELOW.)
---
This from a close and distraught friend, fellow memo reader. (See 2 below.)
---
Where's Walter? (See 3 below.)
---
First GSA personnel entertained themselves at tax payer expense and now members of the military and Secret Service ( not so secret now) have done likewise. It's all in a day's work for those who live and love in Disney East. (See 5 below.)
---
Buffet reveals he has early prostate cancer. I wish him a full and speedy recovery and glad he detected it in time and before 'Obamascare' goes into full swing and some panel has to sit in judgement on whether he should be treated considering his advanced age and usefulness to society
Something both sad but yet, perversely ironic about the entire matter. (See 6 below.)
---
Axelrod flubs according to John Podhoretz. (See 7 below.)
---
DICK
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)
Obama Lawyer Admits In Court Birth Certificate On White House Website Is A Forgery
Normally, I have stayed away from commenting on the controversy surrounding President Obama’s eligibility or the legitimacy of his long form birth certificate posted on the White House website; however, because this is now a matter of court record and has been captured on court house video as well, I feel compelled to present the information as yet more evidence of the massive corruption in our country’s government. I also feel compelled to post this because the mainstream media has made it pretty clear it isn’t going to – because this happened 4 days ago and I have yet to see it even mentioned.
What is important here is what is admitted during the hearing, not the outcome of the hearing itself. The first article is by Dan Crosby of the Daily Pen and reproduced over at The Obama Hustle. Obama Lawyer Adits Forgery But Disregards “Image” As Indication Of Obama’s Ineligibility
DAMAGE CONTROL: A recent ballot challenge hearing in New Jersey exposes a desperate strategy by Obama to distance himself from his forged certificate and induce the contrived value of his transient political popularity as the only “legitimate qualification” needed to hold the office of the presidency. By Dan Crosby of THE DAILY PEN
NEW YORK, NY – After a Maricopa County law enforcement agency conducted a six-month forensic examination which determined that the image of Obama’s alleged 1961 Certificate of Live Birth posted to a government website in April, 2011 is a digital fabrication and that it did not originate from a genuine paper document, arguments from an Obama eligibility lawyer during a recent New Jersey ballot challenge hearing reveals the image was not only a fabrication, but that it was likely part of a contrived plot by counterfeiters to endow Obama with mere political support while simultaneously making the image intentionally appear absurd and, therefore, invalid as evidence toward proving Obama’s ineligibility in a court of law.
Taking an audacious and shocking angle against the constitutional eligibility mandate, Obama’s lawyer, Alexandra Hill, admitted that the image of Obama’s birth certificate was a forgery and made the absurd claim that, therefore, it cannot be used as evidence to confirm his lack of natural born citizenship status. Therefore, she argued, it is “irrelevant to his placement on the ballot”.
Hill went on to contort reasoning by implying that Obama needs only invoke his political popularity, not legal qualifications, in order to be a candidate [emphasis added]. At the hearing, attorney for the plaintiffs, Mario Apuzzo, correctly argued that Obama, under the Constitution, has to be a “natural born Citizen” and that he has not met his burden of showing that he is eligible to be on the New Jersey primary ballot by showing that he is indeed a “natural born Citizen.”
He argued that Obama has shown no authenticate evidence to the New Jersey Secretary of State demonstrating who he is and that he was born in the United States. Apuzzo also argued that as a matter of law, Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” because he was born to a father who was not a U.S. citizen.
As Obama’s legal argument becomes more contorted, he is being forced to avoid an ever shrinking legal space, and an increasing weight, of his failure to meet constitutional eligibility requirements. Hill, of Genova, Burn & Giantomasi Attorneys in Newark, made a desperate motion to dismiss the ballot objection arguing that Obama’s lack of natural-born citizenship status was not relevant to being placed on the New Jersey presidential ballot because no law exists in New Jersey which says that a candidate’s appearance on the ballot must be supported by evidence of natural born citizenship status. Only the U.S. constitution restricts eligibility to hold the office of president to natural born citizens.
Judge Masin denied the motion to dismiss and the case proceeded to trial.
“Sadly, regardless of her moral deficiency, Hill is legally justified,” says TDP Editor, Penbrook Johannson, “Obama’s eligibility is a separate matter than the charges of forgery and fraud. Of course, we have evidence that he is not eligible. But, evidence of forgery by as yet unidentified counterfeiters working on behalf of Obama is not what legally excludes Obama from appearing on a ballot, by itself, until some authority is willing to consider this as evidence of forgery on its merit as an indication of actual ineligibility in a court of legal authority. Until some court of competent jurisdiction is willing to hear evidence of forgery and fraud, you can’t legally punish a political candidate for that crime which has not been proven that they committed. However, since Obama is not eligible because of a lack of authenticated evidence to the contrary, he could be held off the ballot for that reason.”
According to Johannson, there is an overwhelming level of moral certainty that Obama is a usurper, but until a court with jurisdiction considers this case, Obama’s status as a legitimate president is in limbo.
“He does not exist as a president except in the imagination of those who blindly support him. Whereas he is politically desired by a transient consensus, his legality is unresolved until a responsible court makes a determination. This is the essence of our crisis. Our nation exists in a state of non-authorized identity. Obama is just some guy calling himself a president and living in the White House without the confirmative authority to do so.”
Obama’s document forgery and fraudulent presidency have now forced him to flee to a “strange twilight zone” between political popularity and legal legitimacy where poorly counterfeited records are apparently allowed to be published by Obama using government media resources for political purposes, yet those same records are held by the courts as irrelevant for determining Obama’s legal eligibility status because they are, according to judges, “so poorly forged” they are obviously meant to be satirical and not to be taken seriously as evidence.
Shockingly, parting from widespread public ignorance, Hill actually acknowledged two of the three necessary components of determining natural born citizenship as being place of birth and citizenship status of both parents. However, she argued that, “No law in New Jersey obligated him (Obama) to produce any such evidence in order to get on the primary ballot.”
The third component of natural born eligibility is maintenance of natural born citizenship status from birth to election without interruption, involuntarily or voluntarily, due to expatriation, extradition, renouncement or foreign adoption.
“Obama is mocking our constitution,” says Johannson, “His position is that he never claimed the image was an indication of his natural born status, just that it was information about his birth. Whether it is forged or authentic is irrelevant to Obama because plausible deniability affords him the security in knowing that no legal authority is willing to hang him with it.”
Of course, Johannson adds that it makes Obama look like a willing accomplice and a liar, but, he says, “…show me a politician who cares about being seen as a liar by the public. If people who support him want to vote for a person like that, it reveals more about the reprobate character of Obama supporters than competency of any legal determination about his lack of constitutional eligibility. Degenerates will vote for a degenerate while patriots will exhaust all civil means to remove him…until those civil means are exhausted. Then things get ugly for government.” “However, Hill is also essentially admitting that Obama is not a legitimate president and that Obama believes that his illegitimacy does not matter to his legal ability to hold the office. Obama holds to a political tenet, not a legal one with respect to his views on his eligibility. That’s what corrupt, criminal politicians do. When the law convicts them, they run to public favorability for shelter with the hope that their supporters will apply pressure to disregard law in their case.” Obama is now arguing that because he is politically popular, as he points to as being indicated by his so-called ‘election’, despite accusations of eligibility fraud and election fraud, the constitutional eligibility mandate is not relevant, in his view. Until a courageous authority is willing to disagree and hold Obama to an equally weighted legal standard, civil remedies for the Obama problem are limited.
Johannson adds that Obama is making the same argument on behalf of Obamacare. “If he had the gall to actually tell the Supreme Court that they have no authority to determine the unconstitutionality of his illegitimate policies, what makes anyone think he believes they have the authority to disqualify him due to his lack of constitutional eligibility? Obama believes he holds preeminent power over all branches of government because of his delusions of political grandeur.”
He correctly points to a lifetime pattern of behavior and testimony by Obama which indicates a complete lack of regard for the U.S. Constitution when it restricts Obama’s political agenda and lust for power.
“This is a guy who illegally defaced public property when he scribed his aspirations to be ‘king’ in a concrete sidewalk at the age of ten, for God’s sake. Now, his ‘majesty’ wants to put his illegal ‘graffiti’ into American law books. However, his problem is that he has to face the fact that he is an abject failure in his capacity to meet any standard required by the 250-year-old U.S. Constitution, in everything he tries to do. The Constitution owns him and he can’t stand it. He hates it. Therefore, instead of admitting his lack of constitutionality, he simply breaks the rules and proceeds to illegally scribe his fake authority on everything until someone is willing to physically stop him. Obama is not just an illegitimate politician, he is a rogue outlaw without regard for the divine providence of American law.”
Apuzzo submitted that New Jersey law requires Obama to show evidence that he is qualified for the office he wishes to occupy and that includes showing that he is a “natural born Citizen,” which includes presenting evidence of who he is, where he was born, and that he was born to two U.S. citizen parents. Apuzzo added that the Secretary of State has a constitutional obligation not to place any ineligible candidates on the election ballot.
The following is from Mario Apuzzo, Esq.’s own Blog: Update on the Purpura and Moran New Jersey Obama Ballot Access Objection By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Today, April 10, 2012, Nicholas E. Purpura and Theodore T. Moran had their Barack Obama primary ballot objection heard by Deputy Director and Administrative Law Judge, Jeff S. Masin, at the Office of Administrative Law, 9 Quakerbridge Plaza, Mercerville (Hamilton Twp.), New Jersey 08619. The case started about 9:30 a.m. and lasted to about 1:00 p.m. I represented the Objectors. Mr. Obama was represented by Alexandra Hill of the firm of Genova, Burn & Giantomasi of Newark, New Jersey.
We argued that Mr. Obama has not met his burden of showing that he is eligible to be on the New Jersey primary ballot by showing that he is a “natural born Citizen.” We argued that he has not presented any evidence to the New Jersey Secretary of State showing who he is and that he was born in the United States. We also argued that as a matter of law, Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” because he was born to a father who was not a U.S. citizen.
Obama’s attorney made a motion to dismiss the Objection in its entirety. She argued that it was not relevant to being placed on the ballot whether Mr. Obama is a “natural born Citizen,” where he was born, and whether he was born to U.S. citizen parents. She said that no law in New Jersey obligated him to produce any such evidence in order to get on the primary ballot. We argued that Mr. Obama under the Constitution has to be a “natural born Citizen.” We argued that under New Jersey law (the state constitution, statutes, and case law), Mr. Obama must show that he is qualified for the office he wishes to occupy and that includes showing that he is a “natural born Citizen,” which includes presenting evidence of who he is, where he was born, and that he was born to two U.S. citizen parents. We argued that the Secretary of State has a constitutional obligation not to place any ineligible candidates on the election ballot. Judge Masin denied Obama’s motion to dismiss and the case proceeded to trial.
After calling to the witness stand Mr. Moran and Mr. Purpura, who gave testimony as to why they brought the ballot challenge, and introducing documents showing there is a question as to Mr. Obama’s identity, I called Brian Wilcox to testify as an internet image expert. Mr. Wilcox was going to testify on how the Obama April 27, 2011, long-form birth certificate has been altered and manipulated either by computer software or by a human or both, producing a forged documents, and that since the image is not reliable, we need to see the original paper version. Obama’s lawyer objected to my proffered testimony. I then offered that I would not need to have Mr. Wilcox testify, provided that Obama stipulated that the internet image of his birth certificate could not be used as evidence by either Judge Masin or the New Jersey Secretary of States and that he presented to the court or the Secretary of State no other evidence of his identity or place of birth. Judge Masin also asked Obama’s attorney whether she would so stipulate. She did so stipulate, agreeing that both the court and the Secretary of State cannot rely on the internet birth certificate as evidence of Obama’s place of birth and that Obama has produced no other evidence to the court regarding his place of birth. She also argued that Obama has no legal obligation to produce any such evidence to get on the primary ballot. Judge Masin then took the issue under advisement. Having produced absolutely no evidence of his eligibility for the Office of President, Judge Masin will decide whether as a matter of law Obama has a legal duty to produce such evidence before he may be placed on the New Jersey ballot in light of the pending objection filed against him. If he decides that he does, then the Objection will be successful. If he decides that Obama has no such legal obligation, the Objection would fail on the first issue.
The second issue that Judge Masin addressed was whether the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” includes the requirement that the child be born to two U.S. citizen parents. Judge Masin relied heavily upon the fact that no court in the nation has yet ruled that Mr. Obama had to have two U.S. citizen parents at the time of his birth. I explained that most cases regarding Mr. Obama have been ruled in his favor on procedural grounds rather than on the merits of the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” He relied heavily upon U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and its use of the English common law to define U.S. citizenship. We also discussed the Indiana Ankeny decision and the Georgia ballot access cases. I explained how Wong did not hold that Wong was a “natural born Citizen,” but only a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment which does not define an Article II “natural born Citizen.” I explained that Wong distinguished between a “citizen” and a “natural born Citizen,” explaining how Justice Gray used Horace Binney’s distinction between both classes of citizens. I argued that it is error to rely upon Wong as though it held Wong to be a “natural born Citizen.”
I argued that the Founders and Framers did not adopt the English common law to define the term, but rather natural law and the law of nations which under Article III became part of the “Laws of the United States.” I explained that the definition of a “natural born Citizen” comes from natural law and the law of nations as commented upon by Emer de Vattel in Section 212 of The Law of Nations (1758), which definition was recognized as American “common-law” in Minor v. Happersett (1875). I also explained that Wong Kim Ark confirmed Minor’s definition (a child born in a country to citizen parents) and did not change it.
I explained that Congress through the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855 abrogated the English common law as the law to define U.S. citizenship and that through those acts it told us that a child born in the United States to alien parents was an alien and not a “citizen of the United States.” I went through the historical evidence, including but not limited to Emer de Vattel and St. George Tucker, which shows that the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” as a child born in the country to citizen parents and not as the English common law defined a “natural born subject.” I explained how Madison wrote to Washington that at the constitutional convention, the delegates did not adopt the English common law for the new republic. I explained that the English common law continued to have effect in the states, even being included in their constitutions and statutes, but not on the federal level where both the Constitution and Acts of Congress did not do the same as the states did. I explained that there is a constitutional distinction between a “citizen” and a “natural born Citizen,” and that the two terms cannot be conflated and confounded as per Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, who told us that each clause of the Constitution must be given its own meaning. Judge Masin also reserved decision on the question of whether a “natural born Citizen” must be born to two U.S. citizen parents.
Judge Masin will be contacting counsel today or tomorrow morning either by telephone or email as to his decision, stating “yes” or “no” on both issues. He will then provide his written decision to the Secretary of State no later than Wednesday, April 11, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. Counsel will be able to object to Judge Masin’s initial decision. The Secretary of State will make the final decision. After her decision, the parties can then appeal to the New Jersey Appellate Division and then to the New Jersey Supreme Court. After that, the parties can appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. April 10, 2011 Update ####
The following are videos from the actual Court Hearing
To summarize what happened here: Barack Obama’s attorney admitted in open court that the document currently posted on the White House website is, indeed, a forgery. Yet she asserts that this is irrelevant to the case. Unfortunately, her latter assertion would appear to be correct, as can be seen in the last video posted above, wherein the judge explains that New Jersey has no requirement for a candidate to present their birth certificate to be on the ballot.
It also could not be established whether or not Obama ever presented a birth certificate, any birth certificate, the forged document on the White House website, or any other one, to the New Jersey Secretary of State. Therefore, if none was presented, the claim of fraud could not be argued. The judge even goes on to allude to the idea that if this case where in another jurisdiction, one that requires a birth certificate for placement on a ballot for office, this would be an entirely different situation. The bottom line here is two-fold: (1) The birth certificate currently on the White House website is admitted to be a forgery, and (2) The judge in this matter could not hold Obama to a standard that the State of New Jersey does not have. The question is: What state(s) do have the requirement?
One also has to ask, what has this country come to when the Executive Branch of our government can literally post a forged document, with the President of the United States asserting that it is ‘a legitimate and true copy’ of his birth certificate, and get a free pass from the media? Moreover, how can that fraud be let to stand? If the fraud and corruption is that pervasive, as to literally begin at the top, how do we have any hope of addressing the fraud and corruption from there down?
The implications of this are enormous, and well beyond any question of whether or not we have a ‘legitimate’ president. For those who may think I’m playing partisan politics here, you’re wrong. This isn’t about partisanship and it isn’t even about Obama. Paul Craig Roberts wrote a wonderful piece about the rule of law in 2009. You can read it hereand I will state unequivocally that I agree with his piece wholeheartedly.
The Founding Fathers established this country with the idea of a First Principle – that principle being The Rule of Law – and its application to everyone equally. I don’t know about you, but I’m not feeling very ‘equal’ at the moment. I’d doubt either you or I could get away with passing off a forgery of a government-issued document and not be sitting in jail. This gives an all new perspective as to why, for instance, banks have no problem getting away with passing off forged documents claiming they can foreclose on homes to which they have no valid claim. I mean, if I’m a bank, I just point at the White House and say, ‘Hey, they did it!’ How long before everyone else realizes there really is no more rule of law?
I suspect that time is much shorter than anyone thinks. When you’ve lost the rule of law from the top down, you’ve literally lost your country. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2)
|
Amerika?
Today I spent a good deal of time looking over responses to what I believe is one of the most significant things ever said by a President of the United States . Here is the statement...
"America's source of economic strength has been her historical embrace of collective action, wealth redistribution, and government policies that have protected workers from the ravages of the wealthy. Prosperity grows outward from the middle class" and that it "never trickles down from the success of the wealthy."
When I first saw that quote, and this is the God's honest truth, I asked if it was a joke and someone had super imposed " America 's" over " Russia 's" or " Cuba 's". But no.. it was indeed Obama talking about his view of America .
I am thoroughly disgusted. Our economic strength has been an embrace of wealth redistribution, and Government policies? Prosperity never trickles down from the success of the wealthy? Oh my.
Over the past few years, I've caught some real hell when I mention the idea that our current President is a socialist. Yet here we have this man talking as if he was reading the pages out of the communist manifesto. Collective action? Protection from the ravages of the wealthy?
I have never in my life been offered a job by a poor person. I have never seen a poor person open a manufacturing plant and hire folks. I've also not seen very many middle class folks become middle class folks, because the "ravaging wealthy" abused them. In fact, the wealthy that provided the plant/office/refinery/whathaveyou... provided these middle class folks with a wage and insurance and a life.
This is simply class warfare mongering and I find it detestable. America was built on a lot of things.. but redistributing wealth is not one of them. Telling poor folks that their situation is all because the "evil rich man" put them there.. is disgusting. The unfortunate part for the President is that wealth must first be produced before it can be redistributed. But redistribution always creates disincentives that result in less wealth being created. All the societies that have attempted to create wealth through redistribution have failed miserably. Don't people find it odd that Russia tried all this, failed, and has gone onto a more capitalist approach?
I talk to a lot of folks. When you send out thousands of newsletters, you can bet you get a good amount of "feedback". One of the most common themes I continue to get is "I've lost the America I knew and loved". I couldn't agree more. Why isn't our President marching into schools and telling children how hard work and studying hard can reward you with a career in medicine or law or engineering? Instead he preaches... what? He preaches that people that "make it" are evil. They make "too much" and he's going to take it and give to everyone else.
I think the worst part of all this, is the fact that because the media is controlled by the same socialist thinking lefties, the typical American has no clue what's really being done right under their noses. They're caught up in daily life, work, soccer, American Idol, and when they do find time to watch the news, it's full of incredibly slanted baloney that is designed to lead them by the nose.
I see it all the time. My mom's 83. She watches a lot of tv now that she's slowing down, and every few days she'll hit me with something she heard on the news and my synapses explode. She's a bright old gal, seen a lot of things. But put her in front of the news channel for a few days and she comes out with stuff that's just nuts.
In the past few months, I've seen and heard more bizarre things out of our President, some of our Supreme court, the TSA, Eric Holder, etc that my head can hardly contain it. Ginsberg sits on the Supreme court to defend the Constitution. But then says she wouldn't use it for a new country, it's outdated. ?? Obama says we were made great by wealth redistribution??? Eric Holder gives guns to drug runners, people get shot with them, and no one's accountable??? The TSA finds more child molesters on their roles. Over and over, almost daily the amount of things that should outrage a good old American Citizen, is enormous. Maybe that's the issue.. there's so much coming at us so quickly and from so many areas.. everyone's overwhelmed?
I too feel I've lost the America I used to know. I also don't know if it's possible to ever get it back. I liked it just the way it was, growing, prosperous... the beacon for the world to aspire to. Now it's very President mocks the successful. Hates the rich.
If he can get re elected despite spewing things like this ahead of the election, then I cannot imagine the things he's got planned for us in his last 4 years. But I can tell you, I'm awful concerned. You should be too. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
3)Obama goes to a primary school to talk to the kids. After his talk he offers question time. |
One little boy puts up his hand, and Obama asks him his name.
"Walter," responds the little boy.
"And what is your question, Walter?"
"I have four questions:
First, why did the U.S. bomb Libya without the support of the Congress?
Second, why do you keep saying you fixed the economy when it's actually gotten worse?
Third, why did you say that Jeremiah Wright was your mentor, then said that you
knew nothing about his preaching and beliefs?
Fourth, why are we lending money to Brazil to drill for oil, but
America is not allowed to drill for oil?"
Just then, the bell rings for recess. Obama informs the kiddies that they will continue after recess.
When they resume Obama says, "OK, where were we? Oh, that's right:
question time.. Who has a question?"
Another little boy puts up his hand and Obama asks him his name.
"Steve," he responds.
"And what is your question, Steve?"
Actually, I have two questions.
First, Why did the recess bell ring 20 minutes early?
Second, What in the world happened to Walter?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Secret Service Agents: 'We Work For Obama'
Secret Service officials accused of misconduct in the Colombian prostitute scandal revealed their identities and bragged at a Cartagena brothel that they worked for President Barack Obama, ABC News is reporting.
Eleven members of the Secret Service team, sent to Colombia in advance of the president’s visit for the Summit of the Americas last weekend, partied at the “Pley Club” and boasted “we work for Obama” and “we’re here to protect him."
Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he's embarrassed by the incident — even though he's not sure yet exactly what transpired.
"We let the boss down," Dempsey told CBS News, "because nobody's talking about what went on in Colombia other than this incident."
Several of the agents paid up to $200 each for high-price prostitutes at the well-known Cartegena brothel and downed expensive whiskey, sources told ABC News.
The news of the scandal broke Friday night, and was first reported by Newsmax Chief Washington Correspondent Ronald Kessler, and since has overshadowed Obama's trip to Latin America.
Twenty or 21 women were brought back to the hotel by the Secret Service and military personnel, U.S. Sen. Susan Collins said Tuesday.
Collins was briefed by the director of the Secret Service, Mark Sullivan, on Monday evening. "There are 11 agents involved. Twenty or 21 women foreign nationals were brought to the hotel, but allegedly Marines were involved with the rest," the Republican senator said in comments emailed to Reuters.
All 11 Secret Service members under investigation had taken women to their rooms, Rep. Peter King, chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, said Tuesday, The New York Times reported.
The Washington Post said agents brought at least two of the women back to the hotel, according to CBS News. Although the agents paid in advance for the prostitutes' services, when it came time to settle the bill, one woman demanded an additional $170, both networks reported. Her demand sparked a noisy argument that spilled into the street, and drew the attention of hotel workers who called police, CBS News reported, citing the Post as its source.
People in Cartagena familiar with the matter, meanwhile, told the Post that some agents paid $60 each to the Pleyclub to bring at least two of the women back to the Hotel Caribe, where Obama’s advance team was staying.
CBS News said it has learned that 10 military personnel were involved — double the original reports — including at least one from every military branch. All were sent back to the U.S. on Monday. The Washington Post, citing congressional sources familiar with the case, is reporting that a preliminary Defense Department investigation, which included video from hotel security cameras, put the number at nine military personnel.
Secret Service investigators have been sent to Colombia to interview the women involved, King said, according to the Times. King said the agency had copies of the women's identification cards, which they were required to leave with the hotel before going into the rooms.
“The 11 agents are having different recollections about what happened or are not telling the truth,” King said.
U.S. authorities ordered the police not to discuss the scandal, a senior police official told ABC News.
The 11 Secret Service agents, including two senior-level supervisors at the top of the government's pay scale and several members of the counter-assault unit, were sent back to the U.S. before Obama arrived for the summit Friday.
The agents' security clearances were revoked, and they have been barred from all Secret Service facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6)
Berkshire Hathaway Inc Chief Executive Warren Buffett disclosed on Tuesday that he has stage 1 prostate cancer but said his condition "is not remotely life-threatening or even debilitating in any meaningful way."
Buffett said in a statement he will begin a two-month treatment consisting of daily radiation treatments starting in mid-July. This will limit his ability to travel during that time, he added.
The news from the 81-year-old "Oracle of Omaha" is likely to intensify the already brewing debate about the succession plan at Berkshire Hathaway, a conglomerate that employs more than 270,000 people in more than 70 businesses around the world.
Buffett told investors in late February that Berkshire had identified his successor, but in typically circumspect fashion, declined to say who it was - and ultimately admitted that even the chosen one does not know, himself.
The news comes one day after Republicans in the U.S. Senate blocked the "Buffett rule," a tax on millionaires whose idea was born of a now-famous editorial Buffett wrote in the New York Times last year, saying the rich had an obligation to pay more income tax.
That debate ensnared Buffett's secretary as well. After Buffett said she paid more taxes than he did, President Barack Obama invited Debbie Bosanek to attend this year's State of the Union address.
Berkshire shares fell 1.5 percent in after-hours trading following Buffett's announcement. The widely held Class B shares are up 5.9 percent year-to-date, half the gains of the broader S&P 500.
Stifel Nicolaus analyst Meyer Shields, in a note to clients, said he expected some weakness in the stock on Wednesday but added the news did not necessarily make the succession worries behind his "hold" rating any more imminent.
PANIC EXPECTED, NOT NEEDED
One Berkshire investor said it was reasonable to assume people would panic at the news of Buffett's illness, but that nothing had actually changed in the case for the stock.
"Despite the news, this is not a reason to sell (Berkshire). Fundamentals are still good at the company and the clear succession plan does give clarity about the future path of the firm," said Michael Yoshikami, chief executive of Destination Wealth Management in California.
Another Berkshire investor who has written books about Buffett's investment strategies said the news could have been much worse and was, ultimately, not a surprise.
"He's mortal, we knew that," said Jeff Matthews, author of the book "Secrets in Plain Sight." "I think it means zero for Berkshire investors. He's been getting the company ready for the day he dies."
One skeptic, though, said the news could at least put a cap on the stock, which has underperformed in recent years.
"The uncertainty will diminish the upside to this company,"
said Doug Kass of Seabreeze Partners in Palm Beach, Florida, which owns B shares.
GOOD PROGNOSIS
The situation may not be that uncertain, though - medical professionals said Buffett faces good odds, even at his age.
Any man diagnosed with stage 1 prostate cancer "has an excellent long-term prognosis," said Jonathan Wright, a urological oncologist at the University of Washington and the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance.
"The cancer is in a very curable stage."
Buffett's radiation therapy is standard care. Since the beam is extremely focused, there should be minimal side effects, though mild fatigue and a temporary worsening of urinary and bowel function are not uncommon, according to Mark Litwin, a researcher at UCLA's Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer
Center and chairman of the Department of Urology.
"Those dissipate quickly," said Litwin. "A patient is usually able to work while receiving radiation treatment."
One in six American men will get prostate cancer, but only one in 36 will die of it, according to the American Cancer Society. Some doctors even questioned why Buffett was even receiving treatment, given his age and since 'active surveillance' is often an option.
"A good number of men with low risk cancer of the prostate can be observed without needing to be treated," said Louis Potters, chairman of radiation medicine at North Shore-LIJ in New York.
ANNUAL MEETING SCALED BACK
Buffett's condition will now be center stage at Berkshire's annual meeting on May 5. The festival-like event draws more than 40,000 shareholders to the company's headquarters in Omaha, Nebraska.
This year's meeting was expected to focus to some degree on succession, as well as the investment case for Berkshire. For the first time ever, Buffett is expected to take questions from sell-side analysts at the meeting.
Even before the news of Buffett's illness, Berkshire was already scaling back this year's festivities, however.
Among other changes, the company canceled the Sunday press conference Buffett and Vice Chairman Charlie Munger used to hold with international press.
To some degree, he is not slowing down. Fortune writer Carol Loomis, a long-time friend of Buffett's who helps edit his annual letter, reported on Tuesday that Buffett was out on the town one day after his diagnosis, having dinner with the (unrelated) entertainer Jimmy Buffett.
The only major change in his schedule? He skipped his regular Monday night online bridge game, Loomis said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7)
Giving away the game
By John Podhoretz
On Sunday, the most important person in the Obama campaign aside from President Obama himself inadvertently gave the 2012 game away in one of the more revealing political moments of our lifetimes.
David Axelrod, Obama’s chief strategist, deserves enormous credit for having fashioned one of the most brilliant national campaigns in American history in 2008. But that was then, and this is now — and now Axelrod has gone on “Fox News Sunday” and offered the best and most succinct case for a Romney presidency yet.
“The choice in this election,” said Axelrod, “is between an economy that produces a growing middle class and that gives people a chance to get ahead and their kids a chance to get ahead and an economy that continues down the road we are on.”
AP
Oops, did I say that? David Axelrod admitted that we aren’t better off than four years ago.
Of course, the overseer of the “road we are on,” the man whose policy it has been to intervene directly and repeatedly in the economic affairs of the American people, is Obama.
If the election in November is a referendum on “an economy that continues down the road we are on,” with 66 percent of the American people telling pollsters they think the country is on the wrong track, Obama will lose. This isn’t a line of argument Obama and his people want to pursue. So why did Axelrod say it?
I’d guess it was a moment of weakness. As Shakespeare’s Henry IV said, “The wish is father to the thought.”
Axelrod’s mind-boggling description of the current reality — in which, he said, “A fewer and fewer number of people do very well, and everybody else is running faster and faster just to keep pace” — suggests he desperately wishes he and Obama were back in 2008.
That was the year of “Yes, we can,” and “We are the change we have been looking for,” not a year in which he’ll have to ask for a second term after nearly four years of his own national stewardship.
Axelrod knows how to run Obama as the candidate of change. His words suggest he doesn’t know how to run Obama as the candidate of the status quo.
Who can blame him? He’s been dealt a difficult hand.
Axelrod’s nostalgia for the recent past is understandable. He helped achieve something revolutionary in 2008 that literally changed the world. Every great political campaign rewrites the rules; devising a new way to win is what gives campaigns a comparative advantage against their foes. Axelrod & Co. did that in both the primary and the general election with stunning success.
In the Democratic primary in 2008, the Obama team devised a strategy to use the caucuses and a complicated system of awarding delegates in the state primaries to sneak up on Hillary Clinton and establish a lead Obama never surrendered.
In the national election, Axelrod and his people made it feel as though Obama had already been elected president by the time the Democratic convention had wrapped up with a rock-star tour of Europe, a podium designed to look like the presidential seal and a speech delivered among papier-mâché Greek columns in a football stadium.
Obama’s victory in November 2008 was a historic political accomplishment.
Obama’s re-election will have to be historic as well, given the current portents — with recent economic news suggesting there won’t be a full-blooded recovery under way when he faces voters in November.
Obama will have to win with an unemployment rate conventionally considered a re-election death knell and, in ObamaCare, a signature piece of legislation that is rather startlingly unpopular — and that will either be allowed to stand by the Supreme Court or overturned. Both possible futures present serious hazards for Obama.
To be sure, he has the benefit of a problematic opponent in Mitt Romney. But one thing Romney has going for him is that he doesn’t have to run as the guy who managed the country from 2009 until the present. Barack Obama does, even though David Axelrod wishes it were otherwise
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment