Money is a lot like blood. Blood spilled in the jungle is easy to track. Money spilled in the pursuit of avarice and greed can be easy to follow, too, sometimes even to Pennsylvania Avenue.
Lawyers for Goldman Sachs, the big Wall Street investment banking house, have been negotiating with the Securities and Exchange Commission to make some, if not all, of the civil-fraud charges against the firm go away, and President Obama has been entertaining the chairman of Goldman Sachs at the White House.
Nothing has surfaced to suggest that Mr. Obama and the chairman talked about Goldman Sachs' troubles, and the chairman of the SEC issued the usual boilerplate that the commission "doesn't co-ordinate enforcement actions with the White House or other political bodies." Of course. But influence, like money, is fungible, and it's always possible that clever lawyers and compliant regulators can take a little here and put a little over there, and pretty soon serious troubles go away. It happens.
The calendar and the White House visitors log offer a clue to what was really going on between Mr. Obama and the chairman of Goldman Sachs. The White House meetings occurred in late February and March, toward the end of the collegiate basketball season, and we know the president was having trouble picking the winners in the national tournament. March Madness is no doubt what they talked about.
Nevertheless, Mr. Obama is learning what every politician eventually learns, that money, and the pursuit of it, is dangerous and risky business in Washington. What happens in Chicago stays in Chicago. What happens in Washington eventually goes everywhere. Discretion is not always widely practiced in the shadow of the national monuments.
Mr. Obama himself makes it difficult to imagine that his motives are unalloyed and incorruptible. Just when we're trying to believe that, he cites a visit that Sen. Mitch McConnell, the leader of the Republican minority in the Senate, paid to Wall Street. It's true Mr. McConnell probably didn't go to Wall Street to talk about basketball. The president, in a speech in California, let us in on what these Washington-Wall Street tete-a-tetes might be about:
"[The minority leader] paid a visit to Wall Street a week or two ago," he said, "and met with some of the movers and shakers up there. I don't know exactly what was discussed. All I can tell you is when he came back, he promptly announced he would oppose the financial-regulatory reform."
Mr. Obama's slashing personal attacks on his opponents, accusing them of cynicism for doing what he does, demonstrate the community activist at work. His constant running off to make another speech, together with his toxic vitriol aimed at his opponents, is the homage he pays to Saul Alinsky and the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., his Chicago tutors in how to demonize anyone who gets in the way of his scheme to remake America as it never was.
The Securities and Exchange Commission is making Goldman Sachs the poster boys for Wall Street chicanery and greed just as Mr. Obama sets out to impose new regulations on Wall Street. This is, of course, only a coincidence. Some people with no tender mercy in their hearts note that Gregory Craig, the president's lawyer in the White House, has just taken a job at Goldman Sachs. A spokesman for the SEC assures us that this is only a coincidence, too: "We do not co-ordinate our enforcement actions with the White House." Of course not. Mr. Craig, says Goldman Sachs, was hired only for his "wisdom and insight." Of course he was. Insight is the grease that makes wheels turn without a squeak. "I am a lawyer, not a lobbyist," Mr. Craig says he's only a lawyer for the firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagre and Flom, and who could make up a name like that?
It's mostly Democrats who are cashing in on their connections now, since Republicans have no connections to cash in on. But they're inspired by the conviction that their day is coming. Cashing in is the point of getting to Washington; otherwise, you might as well stay in Chicago.
Once upon a time Washington pols worried about "perceptions," the idea that if something looked bad and smelled bad it probably was bad. Perceptions are not so important now, with Washington awash in slush the color of money.
FEAR AND LOATHING ON THE MONEY TRAIL
by Wesley Pruden
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Friday, 23 April 10
• Wesley Pruden is editor emeritus of The Washington Times.
BARRY SOETORO aka BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
He is not eligible to be
President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five of the United States Constitution.
This is a fact REGARDLESS of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, Mecca or Mars).
He is not eligible
because he was not born of
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH
as required by the Constitution.
Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is not eligible to be President of the United States because – according to public admissions made by him – his “birth status was governed” by the United Kingdom. Obama further admits he was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at birth.
Since Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was, if born in the state of Hawaii, a dual citizen, who – according to his own State Department – owed allegiance to the Queen of England and United Kingdom at the time of his birth – he cannot therefore be a “natural born” citizen of the US according to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution.
His father, who did not live in the United States for more than a couple of years, was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of Barack’s birth and afterwards, AND further, as Barack himself admitted on his website during the 2008 campaign, Barack was therefore born SUBJECT TO THE GOVERNANCE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
Here is a direct quote from Obama's "Fight the Smears/Fact Check" 2008 website:
‘When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…’ “
The FACT that he was not born of TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS is all that matters. The question of his birth certificate is a distraction (a distraction fostered by Obama’s supporters?) that ought not to occupy our time and resources. BUT if you are really convinced of the value of the COLB (certificate of live birth) that Obama posted on his website, see this:
Also, it is possible that he is not a United States
citizen at all through his mother if he was born in Kenya, as three witnesses have testified. The reason is because his mother could not pass her US citizenship on to her son because she did not live continuously in the United States for five full years after her fourteenth birthday as required by the US immigration law in effect during that period of time.
Check it out:
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:
His usurpation can only be corrected (1) by Congress through his Impeachment and Removal [something which will never happen in a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid], or (2) it can be
corrected by his resignation, which could happen if the public presssure on him to resign becomes great enough, or (3) by his removal by the United States Supreme Court affirming a Quo Warranto decision of the United States Federal District Court for the District of Columbia [which process Attorney General Eric Holder would never allow to even begin] or (4) by an amendment to the Constitution,
which will never happen because that again would require the agreement of a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid.
HERE IS THE QUESTION WHICH EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN SHOULD BE ASKING HIS OR HER CONGRESSMAN AND SENATORS
“During the 2008 election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was ‘governed’ by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell me, and the American people, how a person governed - at birth - by British law, can be a natural born citizen of the United States and thus constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States?”
If you really want to understand the difference between the technical terms natural born citizen, native born citizen, naturalized citizen and just plain citizen, go to:
And if you really want to understand why it is necessary for a man to be a natural born citizen of the United States in order to be President of the United States, read the essay by Leo Donofrio at:
- Leo Rugiens