Floyd Reports

One of the attorneys who challenged Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court says he fears that even if the justices declared Obama constitutionally unqualified, he’d simply ignore the ruling and continue issuing orders.

The comments came today from Leo Donofrio, who led the pack in filing lawsuits over Obama’s 2008 election and his subsequent occupancy of the White House.

He was commenting on today’s hearing before a Georgia administrative law judge on complaints raised by several state residents that Obama is not eligible to run for the office in 2012. That hearing went on after Obama and his lawyer decided to snub the court system and refuse to participate.

A decision from the judge, Michael Malihi, is expected soon.

The Georgia residents delivered sworn testimony to a court that, among other things, Obama is forever disqualified from having his name on the 2012 presidential ballot in the state because his father never was a U.S. citizen. Because the Constitution’s requirement presidents be a “natural born citizen,” which widely regarded as the offspring of two citizen parents, he is prevented from qualifying, they say.

The historic hearing was the first time that a court has accepted arguments on the merits of the controversy over Obama’s status. His critics say he never met the constitutional requirements to occupy the Oval Office, and the states and Congress failed in their obligations to make sure only a qualified president is inaugurated. His supporters argue he won the 2008 election and therefore was “vetted.”

In Georgia, the law requires “every candidate for federal” office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy “shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”

State law also grants the secretary of state and any “elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate” in the state the authority to raise a challenge to a candidate’s qualifications, the judge determined.

Citizens bringing the complaints include David Farrar, Leah Lax, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by Taitz; David Weldon represented by attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation;and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, represented by J. Mark Hatfield. Cody Judy is raising a challenge because he also wants to be on the ballot.

Donofrio’s case – like the others that have reached the Supreme Court – was refused recognition.

“That President Obama’s attorneys didn’t show respect for the court, the citizens, the secretary of state, and the statutes of Georgia reveals the true character of the administration as being completely and utterly against state’s rights,” Donofrio said. “The federal government is growing out of control with every administration and this action today is a loud announcement that this administration is going to do what it likes, and you can imagine that their response to this judiciary would be exactly the same if this had been the U.S. Supreme Court.”

He said if Georgia does decide to keep Obama off its state election ballots, he won’t appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, “because if he were to lose there, his entire administration would be void, including his appointments to the Supreme Court.”

“If Obama were to appeal in Georgia, only this election is in play, and only as to Georgia’s ballots, but if he loses in Georgia, appealing to the SCOTUS brings in his entire eligibility, and the legitimacy of his current administration,” Donofrio warned.

“My personal belief is that if the U.S. Supreme Court held that he was ineligible, he might simply ignore the ruling, and test the will of the nation, just as he is testing the will of the state of Georgia,” he said.

The White House today was silent about the issue. The Georgia case is far different from the lawsuits over the 2008 election, in which judges virtually unanimously ruled that they could not make a decision that would remove a sitting president, no matter the circumstances.

This hearing was about concerns being raised, as allowed by Georgia state law, that Obama is not eligible for the office of president and therefore should not be allowed on the 2012 election ballot.

“If the judge’s recommendation – and I’ve been told that it’s going to be to disqualify Mr. Obama as a candidate – is followed by the secretary of state, Mr. Obama has got a real problem,” said Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation.

Read more at: http://www.westernjournalism.com/?p=31358&preview=true

At a town hall meeting in Lady Lake, Florida, a woman said Barack Obama is a Muslim, ineligible to be president, violates the Constitution, and should be kicked out of office — and Rick Santorum did not correct her. The woman began:

I never refer to Obama as President Obama because legally he is not. He constantly says that our Constitution is passé, and he ignores it as you know and does what he darn well pleases.He is an avowed Muslim and my question is, why isn’t something being done to get him out of government? He has no legal right to be calling himself president

Santorum responded that Obama’s “recess” appointments would cause him to “draw the line.” He said he may name that woman his first czar.

That’s much different than John McCain, who called Obama “a family man” on the campaign trail in 2008. For some reason, the compliment did not get McCain elected president.

Yesterday was a good day when you consider that my wife Karen and I spent seven hours flying, coupled with a one hour layover, traveling from Dallas to Sacramento.  As usual, we flew Southwest Airlines.  And as usual, we were greeted by one of their curbside baggage staff who shared a smile, some quick stories regarding past travels to New Orleans and a few laughs.

But today, we were flying commercially to Sacramento for the Folsom Jazz Festival.  In order to do that, you must pass the scrutiny of TSA.  It’s the law.  Luckily, our next encounter was with another cheerful employee who stood at a velvet roped entrance.  I think it was velvet, but perhaps it was a stainless steel chain.  That seems to be a more appropriate ambiance when you consider it was the gateway to the new full body security scanners recently installed at Dallas Love airport.  Our TSA ambassador looked carefully at Karen’s Texas drivers license while asking her if she knew her middle name.  I smiled and commented that his question really wasn’t that hard.  So he smiled back with the humorous challenge that I don’t think he took very seriously.  “Okay sir, do you know your California drivers license number?”  I rattled it off immediately and then offered to recite my FAA private pilot’s license number as well.  The velvet rope was opened, I mean the steel chain was opened and I was allowed to pass.  So far, I had encountered two airport employees with excellent work ethic and attitudes.  But the ugly reality of statistics was soon to be demonstrated.  I informed the gentleman by the scanner that I was exercising my right to “opt out” of the full body radiation tanning booth.  The gentleman standing in line behind me did this as well, although I’m not sure whether or not I influenced his decision.  So we were led to separate area and asked if we wanted a private screening.  I said no, I didn’t mind being patted down in public.  So an older gentleman put on his rubber gloves and began his speech regarding what was about to transpire.  As he recited his litany of agonizing detail and explanation, I briefly interrupted him, explaining that I have been through the procedure before.  Then he looked at me and said the following words verbatim -

“That doesn’t matter.  I have to go through this sales pitch because You Opted Out and Are Putting Me Through This”.

Yes, the TSA employee was irritated that I did not want to be subjected to radiation throughout my entire body as part of a government screening process.  He was annoyed that he had to take the time to pat me down.  I was putting HIM through something unpleasant.  The context of the situation brings several words and phrases to mind.

Government narcissism
Irony
Bureaucratic arrogance
Poor work ethic
Stupidity
Disrespect

To be fair, this gentleman was more respectful for the remainder of the intimate moments we shared in accordance with TSA rules and regulations.  But I couldn’t help hearing his words echo.  “Because you’re putting me through this”.  It reinforced a belief that I’ve held for quite some time.  Once you surrender your constitutional rights to a government bureaucracy, including the right of unreasonable search and seizure, the frame of reference regarding your relationship with the government changes.  It is no longer serving you.  It exists to serve itself.  To become larger.  To consume more.  To demand more.  To control more.

And that’s exactly what’s happening in our country right now.  Today.  And a reasonable person would just have to stop and ask themselves where this will all end, regardless of who wins the presidential election in November.  Because what seems somewhat reasonable today would have seemed totally unreasonable just four years ago.  I’ll let you make your own projections.

By the way, there was a news crew from a Dallas television station doing a story on the new scanners.  A gentleman named Bud approached me just after my TSA pat down.  We spent about five minutes in an interview in which I articulated several observations, including

• The TSA has a virtually impossible job screening every single traveler of every single flight in the United States every single day.
• The tremendous money and resources dedicated to this effort are excessive and perhaps there is a smarter way of approaching the problem which involves less political theater and more intelligent profile gathering. 
• Perhaps United States citizens who have earned a reputation of lawfulness should be considered innocent and allowed to pass.  Perhaps the foreign traveler with no luggage should be questioned.  It doesn’t make sense that persons known to the government as low risk are subjected to this screening process.  Those include FAA licensed private pilots, such as myself, airline maintenance staff and even off-duty TSA employees. 
• I really don’t trust the federal government when it tells me that a technology is safe.  The trustworthiness and track record of the bureaucratic machine has not exactly been stellar.  The government also told us just a few short years ago that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were financially sound, didn’t it?  I also remember San Francisco city officials telling us that the Irwin Memorial Blood Bank was safe in the early 1980′s, just after the AIDs story became front page news.

Unfortunately, most of my observations didn’t make it past the news editor, but they did air this 30 second clip  -

Craig Covello on CBS DFW News 11 

Why do I have these views?  Why do I express these views?  It’s not because I’m concerned for my safety, it’s because I felt bad that “opting out” was putting a TSA employee “through this”.   Remember the words of John F. Kennedy – “Ask not what your country can do for you.  Ask what you can do for your country.”  Then again, perhaps this isn’t exactly what he meant.

Al Gore’s climate alarmism is debunked in this two-hour documentary!

“An Inconsistent Truth,” a two-hour documentary by Shayne Edwards and featuring talk show host Phil Valentine, premieres in Nashville today. It is clear that Al Gore’s climate change agenda is being defeated. Check your local movie listings for when it will air in your community.

Here’s a synopsis of the film:

From director Shayne Edwards and award-winning radio host Phil Valentine, An Inconsistent Truth takes you along for the ride on one man’s quest for the truth. Many people believe in man-made global warming, but they don’t know why. This is one of the most important issues of our day; yet the average American knows so very little about what’s really going on. Is that by design? Who stands to make billions off cap-and-trade legislation? Why do those who raise their voices the loudest lead the most wasteful lifestyles? Is carbon dioxide really a pollutant or is it a harmless gas that’s essential to life here on Earth?

This movie is an entertaining, fact-filled odyssey that will have you thinking, cheering, and laughing. Phil Valentine goes straight to the experts and so-called experts and demands to know the truth. And the truth just may change your life.

Join Phil as he climbs aboard Bennie the “BioBenz”, a car that runs on biodiesel that Phil makes from used vegetable oil. Phil talks with scientists and politicians and relentlessly pursues an audience with the poster boy of global warming, the man who brought the world An Inconvenient Truth – Al Gore. Phil takes the punches and throws a few himself. He sifts through all the data and hyperbole and distills it down to one easy to understand and fun-filled motion picture.

Al Gore and his one-world allies are beginning to lose the battle to destroy industrialized civilization. Go see this film!

Read More and Comment: ‘An Inconsistent Truth’ Premieres In Nashville Today – Climate Change Agenda Is Toast

In his State of the Union Address, Obama proposed job training programs to end unemployment. There’s just one problem It’s been tried and failed miserably. Here’s what one of the scholars at the Heritage Foundation had to say about the matter:

More Job Training Programs on Top of All the Other Redundant and Ineffective Programs –David B. Muhlhausen, Ph.D.

Tonight, President Obama called for the federal government to engage in new job training and employment initiatives, especially for the hard to employ.

Before Congress signs off on any new initiatives, we must recognize that President Obama wants to add several new programs on top of the 47 job-training programs already operated by the federal government. Further complicating the matter, the U.S. Government Accountability Office has concluded that there is little evidence that these programs are effective.

When federal job training programs have been evaluated using random assignment to job training and control groups, these scientifically rigorous evaluations overwhelmingly find that these programs are ineffective. For example, Job Corps, the federal government’s flagship program for hard-to-employ youth, has been found to be ineffective on several measures:

• Compared to non-participants, Job Corps participants were less likely to earn a high school diploma (7.5 percent versus 5.3 percent);
• Compared to non-participants, Job Corps participants were no more likely to attend or complete college;
• Four years after participating in the evaluation, the average weekly earnings of Job Corps participants was only $22 more than the average weekly earnings of the control group; and
• Employed Job Corps participants earned $0.22 more in hourly wages compared to employed control group members.

Instead of adding new programs to an already bloated job training system, the President and Congress should stop wasting taxpayer dollars by terminating these programs.

You can read all the reactions of Heritage Foundation scholars to the 2012 State of the Union speech here.