Mississippi Democrat Party Gets Obama Birth Verification (Open Thread)

Onaka Verifies Obama’s LFCOLB for Mississippi

OKAY! SO WHAT’S UP WITH THIS? It was submitted in the Mississippi ballot challenge. To head off Sheriff Joe’s next presser? You be the judge. Have at it. Pick it apart, folks. I haven’t had time to read the entire motion yet.


244 responses to “Mississippi Democrat Party Gets Obama Birth Verification (Open Thread)

  1. Well, I have to say I can find nothing wrong with that as an official verification. There is no parsing of words that I can detect, no avoidance of the document presented by the whitehouse….it is stamped and even initialled (which I’ve never seen before). I don’t know what it means for the “big picture” regarding the birth records, but it is a much less ambigous statement than the HDOH has ever made (IMO).

    • I haven’t had time yet to read the entire motion to see how this was submitted, to whom, how it was requested. As in, did they use the actual FORM to request this? Is it an OFFICIAL “letter of verification in lieu of a certified copy?” Onaka SIGNED it, or so it seems. It doesn’t look like a stamp to me. Or is it? Another unidentified person initialing the signature, or does that say ATO, which means he certified his own signature? It’s the same form number, which I couldn’t find anywhere in their policies. It uses the same language that the information “matches” but no wording about the LFCOLB being a TRUE and ACCURATE representation of that “vital record”. I think this is still parsed. It could “verify”, once again, that what’s CLAIMED on that original “Certificate of Live Birth” matches what he put out there, BUT that “original” Certificate of Live Birth could represent:

      (1) an adoption
      (2) a registration that initiated an as-yet-not-accepted Certificate of Live Birth (maybe, depending upon how global his use of the word “information” is–the data items to be verified were not specified, so far as I know. I was in a hurry to get the post up, so didn’t read everything yet. I will update as I have time.)
      (3) the original COLB could have been completed in 2007 or 2008 based upon an affidavit by the now-conveniently-deceased Madelyn.

      So the question remaind: IF this is legitimate and IF he has always had a legitimate, original, UNAMENDED Certificate of Live Birth dating to 1961, then WHY did he spend millions and refuse to submit it? Why did he send LTC Lakin to PRISON rather than present it? WHY DOES HE STILL REFUSE TO SUBMIT THE ACTUAL DOCUMENT INSTEAD OF A LETTER FROM THE HDOH?

      Salon reports that this puts the legitimacy of the birth certificate beyond doubt. Why, no it doesn’t because the HDOH can present this affirmation that they have a “matching” record NOW but it still doesn’t mean that that image on the WH blog is NOT FORGED. We know it was forged. Oddly, Salon admits:

      “But the verification obtained by the Mississippi Democrats goes further. Bennett asked to verify only a few pieces of information — he forgot to ask about Obama’s birth date, ironically — and it lacks a seal from the state and a signature from the state registrar.”

      They report that the ORIGINAL of this letter was submitted to the court. Nice to have all this inside information, huh?

      This is another interesting admission:
      “In over 130 legal challenges against Obama’s birth certificate, this is the first time a document of this nature has been submitted to a court, a lawyer who tracks birther litigation told Salon. She asked us not to publish her name because she’s been harassed by birthers in the past.”

      So what took him 4 plus years and why NOW? What is the “embarrassing information” that had to be cauterized and hidden and why did LTC LAKIN GO TO PRISON when Barry could have released this all along? Do they NOT CARE at all about the mendacity of a person who would do this? Since they BELIEVE he really has a birth certificate as he claims. What did his REAL “initial” pre-adoption birth certificate say? That’s what the court needs to know. Did they now open it up for Orly to present evidence that shows the likelihood of an adoption and how the only way to determine natural born citizenship is to know the entire set of facts?

      • http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=100051

        This is the only post at Orly’s site so far that I find referencing this issue. If you don’t want to go there, I’ll summarize.

        When she got a heads up about Salon planning this article, she wrote the writer at Salon and sent him a DVD with Arpaio’s information and the video of the GA case in it, so he wouldn’t commit “journalistic malpractice.” Looks like he didn’t take her advice.

        A commenter said that she herself contacted the Salon writer and he says he didn’t get the DVDs, so didn’t watch them. Apparently, something is happening to the DVDs Orly sends to people to alert them to the issues. They’re messing with her site again and another post mentions that she can’t post PDFs.

        Ok. I just found another post: http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=98986

        Orly says “in response to my request for sanctions against DNC attorneys for submitting forgeries, they got a letter from Hawaii, saying that there is a doc on file, but no one can see it.” Then her post reports this quote from correspondence she received: “Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer.”

        So it looks to me as if the letter was filed with the court electronically and yet the motion itself says the court has the original and it’s being kept in court “custody”.

        An interesting comment on that post:

        June 7th, 2012 @ 6:24 pm
        If I remember correctly, the Hawaiian Public Health Act of 1958 describes and “Un-Official” 5th way of getting birth certification for a new born when the child and birth mother are unaccounted for, out of state, country…etc. It could be applied for by phone or mail by a relative or a “person with a vested interest” in the child. If I remember correctly, it states, this certification would then be “vaulted until time of need, at which time it would be adjudicated. Mrs. (?) Fukino has stated she did see it (LFBC) and it is locked away in a vault! That tells us right there they don’t want it adjudicated. Really….why would they hide something that’s all ready been released? Just a thought and another angle.”

        btw, Orly apparently lost her primary to run for a Senate seat from CA. She’s also reporting irregularities, such as people being prevented from voting for her and apparent messing with the vote counts. No surprise. It’s what they do. Orly surely knows this, with her experiences in SOVIET RUSSIA.

        Soviet California. Same difference. DemoncRATS ruling.

  2. This could be:
    – a flat-out lie.
    – verification that Onaka printed up a copy of the Whitehouse.org pdf, put it in the file folder, and then said, “Yep. What you sent with your request and what’s on the Whitehouse.org web site matches what I see here.”
    – verification that the pdf file at Whitehouse.org is an abstract (“…matches the information contained…” rather than “…is an electronic copy of…”).
    – indication that the forged hard copy Certification OLB promised has been delivered.

    Whatever the case, HI DOH has grown bullet-proof and they know it.

    • You’re right! Salon also says this:

      ““You can actually touch the document and feel the raised paper surface,” he added.

      Still, he acknowledged that it’s not likely to quiet the hardcore birthers, who have been able to find new avenues of attack no matter how much evidence is presented against them.”

      Count me among the hardcore birthers. After following this travesty for over 4 years, I disbelieve ANYTHING coming from DemoncRATS, Obama’s campaign, Obama himself, and tools in the lamestream media like Salon. We find “new avenues of attack no matter how much evidence is presented” for certain? Why? Just look within their own story when they ADMIT that the previous so-called final nail in the coffin, that being Bennett’s letter, was NOT the final nail because even they admit there were loopholes big enough to drive a truck through–no state seal, no official signature or initial of the State Registrar. So THAT letter wasn’t sufficient. But it was presented as if it were by the lamestream media. This is a ploy to prime the pump, once again, so nobody covers or pays attention to Arpaio’s presser. I still have to read the entire motion.

    • Did you see that revised video from CNN where they had Fukino allegedly showing what looks like a photostatic copy of an original BC that looks very much like the Nordyke twins’ birth certificates? They implied it was Barry’s original. But, as usual, it was blurry and certain parts of it definitely didn’t match what he’s put out there. So that could be the forgery, all ready for presentation.
      I do believe that at this point, ALL hands on deck and that includes the Republicans, will go along with this forgery to protect the “legacy” of the “first African-American potus”. There’s just too much there and too much blame to go around. They’re going to fix it by making him lose a “close” race and then give him some kind of position as a statesman, like Carter and Clinton. But they WILL cover this up forever more. We know it’s all a lie. As you said, HDOH knows they will be protected. Maybe the deal has been struck already with the next administration, if you get my drift. Part and parcel of gracefully bowing out. I do think it’s likely that Onaka printed out the LFCOLB and stuck it in the file, as THE ONLY “original Certificate of Live Birth” in there. Riddle me this: Why was the first document he presented a CERTIFICATION of Live Birth, which indicate, according to the policies in effect in 2007, that there was no Certificate of Live Birth?

  3. All good questions (and points). It doesn’t change any of the doubts I have about the ACTUAL circumstances/place of his birth, it just changes (in my opinion, again) the claim that the Hawaii DOH has never verified that the information in the document put out by the whitehouse “matches” the “vital records” they have…which could themselves be based on eroneous information provided by a family member.
    I think the initials are Onaka’s.

  4. In other words, like you, I don’t think that the official vital record is necessarily a true representation of the facts of his birth.

  5. As usual, I wish that I were a lawyer. I have a question for any lawyers lurking:

    Since Onaka is a party to this suit–Orly sued HIM by name, too,


    Don’t they take into consideration the self-interest of the person supplying the “evidence”? Fuddy is a party to it, too.

  6. Ok, reading the motion BY THE DEMOCRATS.

    They spell Nancy Pelosi’s name wrong: Nanci

    They spell Barry’s name wrong: Barak (this is his own party’s lawyers)

    They are attempting to use the letter to authenticate the previously submitted copy of the LFCOLB that they printed off the WH website INSTEAD of just having a certified copy sent to the judge. Orly had argued that by submitting it, they were asking the judge to take judicial notice of it. They claimed that instead they were asking the judge to take note that the HDOH made statements to the effect that Barry was born in Hawaii.

    They claim that Hawaiian law prohibits revealing the birth certificate to anybody who doesn’t have “compelling circumstances affecting the health or safety of any individual.” (I’d argue that we all have our health and safety at risk in this case. Andrew RIP.)

    They report that a private attorney is eligible to receive a letter in lieu of a certified copy. However, they don’t report that being so situated, they could also receive an actual certified copy. So why didn’t they?

    They say that they sent a written request for a verification and that Onaka returned a “verification of birth”. (But a verification of birth is NOT a letter of verification in LIEU of a certified copy.)

    In a footnote, they allege that the letter is “self-authenticating” and not subject to “hearsay rule.” Interesting that they resort to this footnote ploy again, which, iirc, jbjd says, has no weight equivalent with what’s said in the actual motion. So, again, implying things in a footnote that may or may not be true.

    Oh, wow. They include a definition of “to verify” but exclude the part about “by affidavit” and just say it’s the same as “to authenticate” or “confirm” as “true”. Leaving out the part about oaths, or affirmation, by affidavit! So they must read the blogs, fo shizzle.

    They affirm that they DID NOT ask the court to take judicial notice of the LFCOLB. Things that make you go, “Hmmmm.”

    They assert that the letter of verification proves that the LFCOLB on the WH Blog is TRUE. So they put the onus on Onaka and not on themselves. Nice for them.

    Tepper, the attorney, did NOT fill out the official HDOH form requesting that OFFICIAL letter of verification IN LIEU OF A CERTIFIED copy. Unless he didn’t provide it to the court. He sent a long letter, repeating Orly’s claims and asking them to verify the enclosed copy of the WH LFCOLB. Why would they not use the form from the HDOH?

    Any lawyers care to weigh in?

  7. metta world war

    As some have stated elsewhere, this “verification” does not verify anything important.

    It doesn’t say either:

    a. that it is EVERYTHING in the file (you know, like maybe the word ‘amended’ on the form, or

    b. that the haw doh vouches for the accuracy of what is on the form. they only say that it is what is on the form.

    In short, the letter is a parsing of words and it does not verify what we want to know.

  8. When was the “original Certificate of Live Birth” created and what was the source of the information?

    • Exactly. We’ll never know. It could have been when he visited very ill Granny, but the wife and kids didn’t, and he was seen throwing something in the trash and sneaking out the back, through the alley–when everybody figured he was on his way to the HDOH to file an amendment.

      I’m thinking about the law they cite and the part about only if an individual’s life and health is at risk. I can imagine a case SUCH AS AN ADOPTION, where the law would allow inspection of a SEALED original birth certificate. Does that law and exception apply to the normal birth certificate that most people have? It seems that MIGHT apply ONLY to sealed records, as in ADOPTION.

  9. Grrrrrreat….. Dr Ron…. God speed… WTPOTUS…. are with U 100%

  10. Apparently the severe attack against Sheriff Joe is beginning big time:

    Please make an urgent contribution to Americans for Sheriff Joe campaign right away.


  11. Dr. P., I don’t know what Orly knows and what she doesn’t know. This is the Democrat lawyers requesting that verification, not Orly. If they didn’t do it properly, by the book, then it would be well to advise her. Sure, Onaka can sign anything he sends out and he can put the embossed seal on it, too. But does that make it an OFFICIAL, by-the-book “letter of verification in lieu of a CERTIFIED birth certificate?” I don’t think so because I don’t believe he HAD a certified birth certificate UNLESS it’s a new “original” issued after an adoption with the INITIAL version SEALED by the court and the HDOH, never to be seen unless some individual’s health or life depends upon it. In any case, in a case of FEDERAL IMPORTANCE, ANY JUDGE can get those records unsealed, IF the judge wants to. Of course we need to know (1) upon what basis this “original certificate of birth” was created and (2) HOW it was authenticated, if it was. In order to determine whether or not a person is a natural born citizen, we must know beyond a shadow of a doubt (not “reasonable doubt” as Salon is saying):

    (1) WHEN he was born,

    (2) WHERE he was born, and

    (3) THE citizenship at the time of his birth of BOTH of his biological parents.

    There is something on the birth certificate that WOULD BE SEEN IF THE HDOH WERE EVER TO HAVE TO RELEASE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE TO A COURT. It’s that “embarrassing information” that was cauterized from his passport file. It’s what he doesn’t want to be known so badly that he spends millions and sends a man to PRISON to keep from revealing it. This we KNOW for fact.


  12. I am no longer sure it matters whether we can prove or not prove if Obama is not a Natural Born American.
    What is obvious is that he does not act as if he is American.
    He acts as if he is the ultimate Manchurian candidate, the kisser of the king of Saudi,
    the obedient slave of Putin, the planner of the destruction of the free world.
    And what is this nonsense about Syria? Yes the horrible atrocities! They are disgusting.
    All the enemedia are reporting it.
    Look here! Don’t look there.
    What is the distraction?
    Iran about to finish their 5 nukes. Now look they already have some Russian nukes, ready to go, the proxy warriors, but they can’t use them until they can say they made some of their own.
    After that?
    New York, DC, Tel Aviv, London, Paris, and probably San Diego will vanish on the same day.
    Sure, our military will turn Iran into a glass parking lot, but that is also Putin’s plan.
    Big laugh, the economy of the West is destroyed for a decade, maybe never to recover.
    Just Chinese war fighting theory.
    The red and black inauguration.
    The death of the West.
    Let’s argue about unprovable BCs.

    • Very scary scenario, Dave. I hope it’s not true or, if it is, there is SOME savior in DC. SOME HONEST person with his or her eyes open and a PLAN.

    • Here’s why I still think it matters (but I no longer think the truth will EVER be found at the HDOH).
      If it cannot be proven that his whole background/life was a lie and that he was NOT an eligible candidate, he will just go down in history as a bad president, but one ‘we’ knowingly chose.

      On the other hand, if the truth were exposed, preferably while he is STILL in office, I think the majority of people would be shocked and horrified and MUCH MORE vigilant with future candidates. Maybe NBC would mean something again.

  13. I figured so I fixed them for you! Not to worry. 🙂

  14. Miri,
    I hope I am wrong and I stand in awe before the detective abilities of the site…
    but if you can’t close the case, for whatever reason,
    just be prepared


  15. http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/06/ice-agent-explains-obamas-social.html

    About 8 minutes into this audio, Samson, ex-ICE agent, explains about the CT SS#. How it’s not Ludwig’s and how Barry uses it but the chances of him having it as a result of a “mistake” by a clerk is virtually nil.

  16. I hear…. Gary T saying O’s… birthday as Aug.5th on that tape…??
    dm….I hear you man…. loud & clear… very possible… very evil….
    boy scout motto… be prepared!

  17. How can we even KNOW that that so-called verification is real? HOW can the lawyers for his own party spell his name “wrong”? HOW can they spell Pelosi’s name wrong? Aren’t legal documents supposed to be accurate?

    How can they have defendant “Barak Hussein Obama” (no II) but then they claim that the verification that calls him “Barack Hussein Obama II” proves he’s eligible to be potus? ARE we even talking about the same person?

    WHICH person named Barack Hussein Obama II was born in Hawaii and WHERE IS HE NOW?

  18. I think that the names are supposed to be spelled correctly, Miri. That’s from me working on depositions and stuff. But I know that they make mistakes, and then later I think it’s corrected.

    • How is it possible, though, that this happens with the names repeatedly? I can’t think how many times we’ve had the same question. HOW can lawyers be so sloppy and make mistakes with his first name ALL THE TIME? I can’t even figure how they get Nanci out of Nancy. MOST everybody would default to Nancy. And most people don’t make a typo of “i” instead of “y”.

  19. It’s been my experience that the gals or guys in the office, when they type up stuff, they’re either not paying attention or possibly they have the wrong spellings on documents in the first place. When I’m working on jobs, it’s not unusual for the title page to have misspellings on it. Then when the depo starts, it’s usually corrected, and especially when the attorney that’s questioning starts then asks for a name spell-out. But I never correct the title pages.

    So that’s about it. That’s all that I can tell you, and I can only speak for this side of it. Why it happens, I do not know, but it happens pretty often.

  20. Sorry, messed this up myself: Then when the depo starts, it’s usually corrected, and especially when the attorney that’s questioning starts then asks for a name spell-out.

    Meant to say, Then when the depo starts, it’s usually corrected, and especially when the questioning attorney asks for a name spell-out.

    • Thanks, KC. I guess I’m old-fashioned to expect accuracy, especially with legal documents. In these cases, it seems then send them out with the “errors” because by the time Orly or another lawyer publishes them on the Web, shouldn’t they be perfect?

      • Yeah, I know, and I do believe they are supposed to be correct. Even when I’ve had to type the title page for a depo, I have a copy sent to me and have to type it as is even though it’s incorrect. Again, like I said, they correct the name when they do a spell-out. Most attorneys do this. Maybe if that person has to come back and have a continuation, which happens pretty often, it’s corrected.

  21. Diana West:

    “Spineless elite ignore Obama fraud”

    “As I’ve previously noted, some media outlets that subscribe to this column have informed me they won’t run anything I write on the eligibility subject.

    No doubt other writers are similarly censored – sometimes even after publication. For example, on March 5, 2012, Floyd and Mary Beth Brown’s syndicated column, “Sheriff Joe Exposes Forgery of Obama’s Selective Service Registration,” appeared at Townhall.com. Then it was taken down. On March 24, 2012, John Mariotti published a piece at Forbes.com called “Is There an Impostor in the White House?” That was taken down, too. As WND noted, Geraldo Rivera’s May 24, 2012, WABC radio interview with “birther Lord Christopher Monckton” is still listed in the WABC archive, but the audio file of the show is no longer there.”


  22. Isn’t it curious that they made the AZ Secretary of State wait so long and jump through so many hoops, but they give these DemoncRAT lawyers a “verification” so fast? Request made 5/26/12 and response made 5/31/12. About five days. Fast turnaround, huh? Bennett waited weeks.

  23. Miri,
    I don’t know how the law offices handle those, or the court reporter firm. Beats me. It’s not my end of things. It may be the court reporter firm gets it direct from the law office and doesn’t confirm spellings.

  24. You know what else is curious? Of course, since the judge allegedly has the original, it ought to be kosher. But look at the EMBOSSED seal. Which came first, the signature or the seal? The seal doesn’t even break the lines of the signature stamp (or original signature, can’t tell which it is), if embossed after being signed, nor does the signature look spotty, as it seems it would if placed there AFTER the embossing. But nothing to see here folks. Move along. Malihi has already shown the caliber of judges we expect. What’s that part in the motion about the court keeping the “original Hawaiian verification in its custody for the duration of the proceedings?” Is that a warning that NOBODY but the judge will ever see that item? Maybe not even Orly? In a footnote, they even repeat this, asking Judge Anderson, a she, to ORDER that it be kept in the court’s custody. Is this to prevent ANYONE from analyzing it forensically?

    • I take that back. If you look closely, the embossing APPEARS to break the lines of some words in the certification and Onaka’s signature. There are little parts of typed words and parts of his signature missing. How could that happen? If stamped first, the embossing would distort the information but how would it totally remove parts of the words and signature? If embossed before being stamped or signed, I’d expect the words and signature to be kind of distorted or smeared, but not parts of them missing. Any photoshop/image experts care to analyze this? There are whole blocks of it that look pixelated. Other parts not. Could this be a forged document, too? Anything’s possible these days. It appears that Orly is not getting access to anything but a digital image. But if they gave the court an electronic version AND a paper version, wouldn’t all the lawyers have access to both?

  25. I wouldn’t put much, if any, trust at what Hawaii does. They seem to be criminals anyway. They could put out a gold BC for BO, and I wouldn’t put any trust in it.

  26. Miri,
    I’m thinking about this because I know about the depositions and the mistakes on the style sheet, or what’s also called the title page. It could be corrected by the time it gets to court, if a case goes to court. If that is so, I wonder why it wasn’t corrected????
    Well, I don’t know enough about court to tell you that. I haven’t done much court at all, only a little, and I don’t normally work on those pages anyway. I usually just handle the testimony and the rest of the transcript.

  27. Miri,
    I’ve written to a friend that works like I do, and she’s a paralegal and her stepfather is an attorney. I’ll see what she has to say about it.

    • TY. That’s going the extra step for us! Appreciate it. I know nothing about court paperwork. I would love to have a lawyer around to bounce these technicalities off. The more I think about this, the more bogus it seems. The misspellings. And then there was nothing at ORYR yesterday. Anybody can put things on SCRIBD, so what’s the provenance of this stuff? Why was a complicit obot at Salon tipped off first? The embossed seal and signature look odd and SO DIFFERENT from what AZ got. Why? Then the text in there about the definition of “to verify”. Then the fact that the “form” listed on the bottom of the verification, first of all, isn’t any “form” and second, I can find NO REFERENCE to that form in their rules and policies. Other forms are spelled out. Since they stopped giving out these letters of verification a few years ago, right about the time people who WERE eligible to get them asked for one for Barry, we don’t have anything to compare to. But the policy does say that the director has the power to decide the method (mail, email, etc.) so who knows? I wouldn’t be surprised AT ALL if that embossed seal is a copy and paste job into a layered document, just like with the LFCOLB. It looks bogus to me. And the “Court” has “custody” of the “original” letter. Does that mean even ORLY can’t see it?

      I think the REASON why they were adamant that the copy of the LFCOLB THE DEMS sent to the court was not a request by them to “take judicial notice of” it is BECAUSE if they submit anything, that gives ORLY the right to ask to VIEW the original document.

      I wonder if even this letter gives her that legal power? To see the UNDERLYING DOCUMENTS? They said TWICE in that motion that they’re not asking the Court to “take judicial notice” of the WH LFCOLB. There’s a reason why that’s so important.

      It may be because they KNOW it’s bogus OR it may be because they know it opens the door to her getting to view the source, which is the BEST evidence to determine this issue. I still wonder if the letter of verification gives her the power to ask the judge for the right to view the BEST EVIDENCE, which would be all the original documents? I’d love to have a lawyer answer THAT question.

      I wonder who Judge Anderson is. And the other players in this farce.

  28. is there any relation between O’s Dunhams and this Chester G. that you guys know off? from chicago, worked for the state department from 49-64.

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Joseph WITTJE, Defendant.
    United States District Court, N.D. Illinois,
    Name of Expert: Chester G. Dunham

    I, Chester G. Dunham, hereby declare that the following is true:
    I was born on XX/XX/1923 in Chicago, Illinois. …
    From June 1949 to June 1964, I was employed by the United States Department of State….
    I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
    Executed on this 20th day of April, 2004.
    Chester G. Dunham

    • I don’t recall hearing about any Chester Dunham. Sorry.

    • Hayden, you have my curiosity….is there more to read about this? What is he an expert in?

      • visa applications and issuance . . . interesting huh? haven’t found a connection to stanley though.

        Affidavit of Chester G. Dunham
        Case Type: Immigration >> N/A
        Jurisdiction: N.D.Ill.
        Name of Expert: Chester G. Dunham
        Area of Expertise: Law Enforcement & Private Security >> Other Law Enforcement & Private Security
        Representing: Unknown
        I, Chester G. Dunham, hereby declare that the following is true:
        1. I was born on XX/XX/1923 in Chicago, Illinois. I am a citizen of the United States and I reside at 202 G Street, S.W. Washington, D.C.
        2. I served in the United States Army from May 1943 to July 1946, and again from 1948 to 1949.
        3. I received a Bachelor of Arts degree in history from Oberlin College in 1948, and a Masters degree and Ph. D. in history from Ohio State University in 1965 and 1968, respectively.
        4. From June 1949 to June 1964, I was employed by the United States Department of State.
        5. I served as a Vice Consul at the United States Consulate in Salzburg, Austria, from June 194 9 through June 1950.
        6. When I arrived in Salzburg, there was a backlog of applications by ethnic Germans (in German: ”“Volksdeutsche‘’ or ”“Volksdeutscher‘’) for visas to immigrate to the United States. I was assigned to work exclusively on processing those ethnic German visa applications. During my service in Salzburg I processed several hundred such applications.
        7. The other Vice Consul in Salzburg assigned to process ethnic German visa applications was Ralph McMahon. I worked closely with Mr. McMahon during this period. He and I divided the ethnic German applications alphabetically: I processed applications of persons whose last names began with letters in the first half of the alphabet, and Mr. McMahon worked on applications bearing names from the second half of the alphabet. To my knowledge, Mr. McMahon also processed only visa – applications of ethnic Germans.
        8. I have been shown an Application for Immigration Visa and Alien Registration of Joseph Wittje, dated February 2, 1950, bearing the signature and name stamp of Mr. McMahon. I recognize this as the form that visa applicants were required to submit during my service in Salzburg. It was consistent with our practice of dividing the alphabet that Mr. McMahon processed this applicant, whose last name starts with a ”“W.‘’
        9. During this period ethnic Germans were not eligible for visas under the standard displaced persons program, and visa applications of ethnic Germans were not processed by or through the Displaced Persons Commission. However, there was a provision in the displaced persons law that allowed part of the visa quotas for Germany and Austria to be reallocated to ethnic Germans from certain countries (among them Romania), subject to certain exclusions. Visa applications by ethnic Germans who wished to immigrate to the U.S. were submitted directly to the U.S. Consulate.
        10. The Application for Immigration Visa and Alien Registration of Joseph Wittje was submitted and processed under this ethnic German provision. The first page of the application identifies Mr. Wittje as a ”“Volksdeutscher‘’ (ethnic German), ”“born in Rumania,‘’ and lists his nationality as ” “Stateless.‘’ The second page, which is the actual visa, states that Mr. Wittje received a ”“Nonpreference‘’ quota visa as an ”“Ethnic German.‘’ U.S. immigration quotas were drawn according to nationality, and quota visas were charged against the quota allotted to each country. ”“Ethnic German‘’ was not a country, and there was no ”“ethnic German‘’ quota as such. Nor was there a separately recognized quota category titled ”“Stateless.‘’ The quota visa issued to Mr. Wittje could only have been issued through the ethnic German provision.
        11. Visa applicants were required to complete an Application for Immigration Visa and Alien Registration. An applicant provided the required information to a local German- speaking employee of the consulate, who typed the applicant’s answers in English onto the visa application. Each applicant also underwent a medical examination, and was required to submit a form certifying that he or she did not have a police record in that locale. A background investigation was conducted for each applicant, though I no longer recall by whom.
        12. Every visa applicant had to submit to an interview with the vice consul. No visa could be issued without such an interview. At the time, I spoke German fluently, and I interviewed hundreds of ethnic German visa applicants in German. On average, the interviews I conducted each lasted around 15 minutes.
        13. Mr. McMahon also spoke German fluently, and I am certain that he likewise followed the required procedure of directly interviewing ethnic German visa applicants, in German.
        14. As part of the mandatory interview, it was standard procedure for vice consuls in Salzburg to review the applicant’s visa application with him or her. During this interview, the vice consul would go over all the information in the application and note any changes or corrections. At the end of the
        interview, the applicant was required to sign the visa application and swear to the truth of his or her statements.
        15. If the vice consul determined that the applicant was eligible for admission to the United States based on the information in the file and his interview of the applicant, he was authorized to issue the visa. A visa was to be denied if the vice consul had reason to believe that the applicant was not truthful, or was otherwise inadmissible to the United States.
        16. I have been advised that Mr. Wittje served from 1943 through 1945 in the Waffen SS, and was assigned to the SS Totenkopf Sturmbann (Death’s Head Battalion) at the Sachsenhausen Concentration Camp.
        17. At the time Mr. Wittje’s visa application was submitted, an ethnic German who served in the Waffen SS would have been ineligible for a visa. I am certain that if, in the course of reviewing his visa application, Mr. McMahon (or any vice consul) learned that Mr. Wittje had served in the Waffen SS, his visa application would have been denied.
        18. At the time Mr. Wittje’s visa application was submitted, an ethnic German who served in the SS Totenkopf Sturmbann at a Nazi concentration camp would have been ineligible for a visa. I am certain that if, in the course of reviewing his visa application, Mr. McMahon (or any vice consul) learned that
        Mr. Wittje had served in the SS Totenkopf Sturmbann at a Nazi concentration camp, his visa application would have been denied.

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Joseph WITTJE, Defendant., 2004 WL 3674589 (N.D.Ill.)

        • http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1203907.html

          UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph WITTJE, Defendant-Appellant.
          No. 04-3517.
          Argued April 1, 2005. — September 01, 2005
          Before EASTERBROOK, MANION, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

          Jeffrey L. Menkin (argued), Department of Justice Office of Special Investigations, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellee.Joseph T. McGinness (argued), Cleveland, OH, for Defendant-Appellant.

          During World War II Joseph Wittje was a member of the Waffen SS, the paramilitary component of the Nazi Party.   In 1950 he obtained a visa and entered this country.   He became a citizen in 1959.   He now appeals from a decision of the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois revoking his United States citizenship.   We affirm.

          I.Joseph Wittje, an ethnic German, was born in 1920 and grew up in Deutsch St. Michael, an ethnic German enclave in Romania.1  Prior to World War II, Wittje attended school until he was fourteen and then worked as a bricklayer.

          Romania began World War II as a neutral state.2  A period of political unrest in 1939 and 1940 that included the forced cession of Romanian territory to Hungary, Bulgaria, and the Soviet Union brought about political leaders who were strongly sympathetic to the Axis powers.   By October 1940, several hundred thousand German troops had crossed into Romania.   A month later, Romania joined the Tripartite Pact and became a member of the Axis.

          In 1942, Wittje was drafted into the Romanian Army and took part in the invasion of Russia (Romania contributed a significant number of troops to the invasion of Russia).   Wittje was wounded near Stalingrad and was eventually returned to his home in Romania.   After recuperating from his wounds, in July 1943, Wittje was drafted by Germany pursuant to an agreement between Germany and Romania that permitted Germany to draft ethnic Germans living in Romania.

          Wittje was not assigned to the German Army, the “Wehrmacht”, but was instead assigned to the militarized branch of the Schutzstaffel (the “SS”), the Waffen SS (literally, the “armed SS”).  The SS was the paramilitary component of the Nazi Party and was distinct from the Wehrmacht-it had its own command (including, for the bulk of its existence, one of the principal architects of the Holocaust, Heinrich Himmler).   It also had a separate organizational structure, discipline, insignia, and uniforms.   Originally conceived of as a cadre of bodyguards for Hitler (Schutzstaffel translates to “protection guard”), by the onset of World War II, the SS virtually controlled German state security (one of its principal offices was the Gestapo) and, most infamously, was responsible for the operation of the concentration camps.   The SS was, therefore, ultimately charged with the responsibility for carrying out the “final solution”-the murder of the vast majority of European Jewry.3

          Wittje’s principal assignment during his service in the Waffen SS was to the 9th Company SS Death’s Head Guard Battalion (Totenkopf-Wachbataillon) at the Sachsenhausen Concentration Camp (“Sachsenhausen”).4  Sachsenhausen, located approximately twenty miles from Berlin, was one of the original Nazi concentration camps.   From the mid-1930’s (when the camp was constructed) to 1945 (when the camp was liberated by the Soviet Army), 200,000 people were imprisoned at the camp.

          Prisoners at Sachsenhausen were forced to engage in slave labor including heavy construction and excavation work.   Some prisoners were forced to test the durability of combat boots used by the Wehrmacht by wearing the boots on forced marches of thirty to forty miles in all weather.   Prisoners at the camp were also farmed out to sub-camps, often near armaments plants to work in factories as part of the German war effort.   The death of a prisoner at labor was of no consequence-prisoners were simply worked until they died (“annihilation through labor”).

          Conditions at the camp were hellish.   Food was scarce and malnourishment and disease, including cholera and typhus, swept through the (often overcrowded) camp weakening and killing many.   To the extent there was medical care, it often included ghoulish medical experiments subjecting the “patient” to extreme pain and often death.

          Tens of thousands of prisoners were killed during the camp’s operation.   The life span for a prisoner was approximately three months.   In addition to the death toll attributable to disease, exhaustion, starvation, and medical experiments, arbitrary executions were common.   Guards would often beat or kill a prisoner for sport, sometimes using dogs turned loose on the prisoner.   The camp also had a special facility for executing prisoners.   Prisoners were taken one at a time to a room and told to undress for a medical examination.   A “doctor” examined the prisoner’s mouth under this pretense but really for the purpose of determining if the prisoner had any gold teeth that would be removed and melted down.   Once the examination was over, prisoners were shot.   The body was removed and the room was cleaned to remove all traces of the execution-and another “patient” was brought in.

          Wittje was assigned to Sachsenhausen from 1943 to 1945.   At all stages of this litigation, Wittje has acknowledged that he was stationed for this period of time at the SS barracks near Sachsenhausen and that this barracks is where camp guards lived.   The parties differ, however, on Wittje’s role at the camp.   The United States claims he was a guard at the camp, while Wittje claims he was a member of a “track and field sports competition unit” stationed near the camp for part of the time he was stationed in the 9th Company.   Wittje also claims that he was later assigned work as a bricklayer and helped construct air raid shelters and bunkers.   Wittje claims he never set foot in the prison camp proper.

          In February 1945, Wittje was transferred from the Death’s Head Guard Battalion to the 32nd SS Armored Division, a recently formed combat unit sent to the Eastern Front as part of an attempt to stern the Russian advance.   Wittje’s service in this unit was brief.   He was wounded in combat on March 2, 1945, and sent to a military hospital where he remained for the rest of March.   He was discharged from the hospital on March 31, 1945, but apparently did not return to his unit or take further part in what little remained of the German war effort.   Sometime after the conclusion of the war in 1945, Wittje traveled with his family to Wels, Austria where he worked for a construction company until 1950.

          In February 1950, Wittje applied for a “nonpreference” immigrant quota visa to enter the United States at the United States consulate in Salzburg, Austria.   Wittje based his claim for this type of visa on the fact that he was a “Volksdeutscher [an ethnic German];  born in Rumania.”   He listed his nationality as “stateless” and stated that he resided in Wels, Austria.   In an area of the application that required the applicant to list his residences since turning fourteen years old, Wittje stated that he was in St. Michael, Rumania in 1943-1944, Haindorf, Germany in 1944-1945, and Wels, Austria from 1945 to the date of the application.   Wittje did not mention his membership in the SS or his assignment to Sachsenhausen from 1943-1945.

          Wittje’s application was processed by Ralph McMahon, one of the two vice consuls in the Salzburg consulate assigned to review visa applications of ethnic Germans.   McMahon approved Wittje’s application the same day it was filed and Wittje, with his wife and son, traveled to, and arrived in, this country shortly thereafter.

          Wittje settled in Chicago, and in 1959 applied for United States citizenship.   The petition for naturalization Wittje completed required a petitioner to list his membership in any “organizations, clubs, or societies in the United States or in any other country ․ before the last 10 years.”   Wittje listed membership in a Roman Catholic youth organization.   He did not mention his membership in Waffen SS. Wittje’s petition was granted and he became a United States citizen on August 18, 1959.

          On September 10, 2003, the United States filed a four-count complaint seeking to revoke Wittje’s citizenship.   The first count (and the only count at issue here) alleged that Wittje unlawfully procured a visa by failing to disclose his membership in a movement hostile to the United States-the Waffen SS.

          At the conclusion of significant discovery (including the deposition testimony of Wittje), on June 18, 2004, the United States moved for summary judgment as to count one.   Three days later, on June 21, Wittje moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and on the ground that the United States’s efforts to revoke his citizenship constituted a violation of his rights to due process and equal protection.   The district court denied the motion and subsequently granted the United States’s motion for summary judgment and revoked Wittje’s Certificate of Naturalization.   This appeal followed.


          Wittje raises three issues on appeal.   First, he argues that the district court lacked the jurisdiction to reconsider a visa eligibility determination by consular officers.   Second, he argues that denaturalization violates his constitutional right to equal protection.   Third, he argues that the United States was not entitled to summary judgment because it was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law and there are genuine issues as to material facts.

          A. Statutory Background

           Section 340(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (the “INA”) directs the United States (acting through the United States Attorney in the appropriate district) to seek the revocation of a certificate of naturalization when that certificate was “ illegally procured ․” 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a).   In order to be eligible for a certificate of naturalization, a person must have been “lawfully admitted [into the United States] for permanent residence.”  8 U.S.C. § 1427(a)(1).   Lawful admission into the United States in turn requires entry pursuant to a valid visa.  8 U.S.C. § 1181(a)(1).   Read together, these provisions make it clear that a person cannot become a citizen by naturalization if his visa was illegally obtained and that a district court must revoke the citizenship of a person who illegally obtained a visa.  Fedorenko v. United States, 449 U.S. 490, 514, 101 S.Ct. 737, 66 L.Ed.2d 686 (1981) (“[O]ur cases have established that a naturalized citizen’s failure to comply with the statutory prerequisites for naturalization renders his certificate of citizenship revocable as ‘illegally procured’ under 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a).”);  United States v. Tittjung, 235 F.3d 330, 337 (7th Cir.2000);  see also United States v. Stelmokas, 100 F.3d 302, 306 (3d Cir.1996);  United States v. Koziy, 728 F.2d 1314, 1318 (11th Cir.1984).

          The principal immigration law in place in 1950 (when Wittje was issued a visa) was the Immigration Act of 1924, Pub. L. No. 60-139, ch. 190, 43 Stat. 153 (1924) (the “1924 Act”).   The 1924 Act contained quotas on the number of aliens of any one nationality that were admissible to this country. § 11, 43 Stat. At 159-60.

          Following World War II and in light of the upheaval in Europe, Congress amended the 1924 Act with the Displaced Persons Act of 1948, Pub. L. No. 80-774, ch. 647, 62 Stat. 1009 (1948) (the “DPA”).   The DPA suspended the 1924 Act quotas for “eligible displaced persons.” § 3, 62 Stat. at 1010-11.   The DPA adopted the definition of “displaced person” from Annex I to the Constitution of the International Refugee Organization of the United Nations (the “IRO”).5 § 2(b), 62 Stat. at 1009.   That definition excluded many ethnic Germans.   IRO const., Annex I, Part II, § 4 (reprinted at S.Rep. No. 80-950, at 68 (1948)).

          The DPA contained two provisions of critical importance in this case.   First, § 12 of the DPA amended the 1924 Act to require 50% of the quota for German immigrants to be made available to ethnic Germans born in “Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania or Yugoslavia and who, on the effective date of this Act, reside in Germany or Austria.” § 12, 62 Stat. at 1013-14.   This quota-shifting provision had the effect of allowing ethnic Germans, who would otherwise not be eligible for visas to enter the United States because they were not covered by the IRO Constitution, to take advantage of the quotas available to those born in Germany.

          The second important provision is § 13.   Section 13 provides that “[n]o visas shall be issued under the provisions of this Act to any person who is or has been a member of, or participated in, any movement which is or has been hostile to the United States or the form of government of the United States.” § 13, 62 Stat. at 1014.

          B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

           Wittje’s first argument concerns the jurisdiction of the district court to revisit a decision by a consular officer that an immigrant is eligible for a visa.   Wittje argues that a district court does not have such jurisdiction.

          Wittje is asking this court to reconsider and overrule our decision in Tittjung.6  In that case we were faced with the precise argument raised here.  Tittjung, 235 F.3d at 338 (“Tittjung puts forth that Article III courts are without jurisdiction to proceed in reviewing visas and cancelling certificates of naturalization based on their findings of visa ineligibility.”).   We rejected that argument as without merit.  Id. Nothing has changed.

          The district court had all the jurisdiction necessary to consider whether Wittje was eligible for a visa.   The district court had (and has) jurisdiction to hear all civil claims brought by the United States, 28 U.S.C. § 1345, and the district court had specific jurisdiction to consider a claim by the United States that Wittje’s certificate of naturalization should be revoked, 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a).

          As we have explained above, a prerequisite to such a certificate is lawful admission into this country.   Lawful admission requires, in turn, a valid visa.   The determination that a person’s citizenship should be revoked necessitates, therefore, a review of the visa process.   See United States v. Dailide, 316 F.3d 611, 618 (6th Cir.2003).   We stand by what we wrote in Tittjung:

          While Tittjung is correct that our system does delegate specific powers to specific branches of government, he fails to acknowledge that ours is a system of checks and balances.   Under Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, Congress is empowered to establish standards for immigration.   The 1952 Act delegates to the Executive Branch, and specifically the Attorney General, the powers of administration and enforcement.   In such a situation, “[t]he courts, when a case or controversy arises, can always ‘ascertain whether the will of Congress has been obeyed’ and can enforce adherence to statutory standards.”   See Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 954, 103 S.Ct. 2764, 77 L.Ed.2d 317 (1983) (citing Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414, 425, 64 S.Ct. 660, 88 L.Ed. 834 (1944) and Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 585, 72 S.Ct. 863, 96 L.Ed. 1153 (1952)).

          Tittjung, 235 F.3d at 338.   As it was in Tittjung, Wittje’s argument that we do not have subject matter jurisdiction is without merit.

          C. Equal Protection

           Wittje’s next argument is that his denaturalization violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.   His argument is premised on the fact that he was naturalized pursuant to § 1427(a) of the INA. Wittje posits that the INA, unlike the DPA, had no hostile movement restriction for immigrants.   Wittje then asks us to explore the hypothetical situation where two former members of the Waffen SS were both naturalized in 1959.   One of these men entered the country in 1950 while the other entered the country after the effective date of the INA. Wittje first notes that the determination of whether an immigrant has been lawfully admitted is based on the laws in place at the time an immigrant enters the country.  Fedorenko, 449 U.S. at 514, 101 S.Ct. 737;  Tittjung, 235 F.3d at 339 (“[L]awful admission is based on the circumstances as they existed at the time of initial entry.”);   see also Dailide, 316 F.3d at 619 (“The question of whether an alien was lawfully admitted is answered, not by the law at the time of naturalization, but by the law at the time of entry.”).   Because they arrived at different times, the two men in his hypothetical would be treated differently:  the immigrant who entered the country in 1950 would be subject to denaturalization, while the immigrant who entered after the effective date of the INA would not.   Wittje suggests that such a situation would be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause because it would treat similarly situated persons (two former members of the Waffen SS applying for citizenship at the same time) differently.

          We disagree.   At the time Wittje entered this country, he was not eligible for a visa as a former member of a group hostile to the United States.   It cannot be seriously disputed that Congress had a rational basis (all that is needed in this case) for such a restriction when it enacted the DPA or even now.   Immigration to this country is a privilege, not a right, and certainly there can be no class of persons less deserving of that privilege than those who are, or were, a member of a group hostile to this country, particularly a well-armed and organized group that had helped oversee a reign of terror and murder on a then-unprecedented scale.   That Congress let this restriction expire with the DPA or enacted new legislation (the INA) that did not contain such a restriction or significantly modified the restriction does not make the original restriction any less rational.

          D. Summary Judgment

          Wittje’s final series of arguments is that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the United States.   Our review is de novo.  McPherson v. City of Waukegan, 379 F.3d 430, 437 (7th Cir.2004).   A party is entitled to summary judgment in its favor when “there is no genuine issue of material fact and that he or she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”  Id.;  Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c);  Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).

          1. Wittje’s admission statute.

           Wittje first takes issue with the district court’s conclusion that he was admitted to this country pursuant to the 1924 Act and the DPA. Wittje argues that he was admitted pursuant only to the 1924 Act, and consequently, there was no hostile movement restriction on his admission.   Recall that it is the DPA (and not the 1924 Act) that contains the hostile movement restriction that forms the basis for the district court’s ultimate conclusion that Wittje was not issued a valid visa.   Wittje’s argument is premised on the fact that his application for a visa states that he is applying for a visa pursuant to the 1924 Act and does not reference the DPA.

          Wittje’s argument is without merit.   He received his visa pursuant to the DPA and the 1924 Act. The 1924 Act established quotas by nationality.   As mentioned above, however, in the area for listing an applicant’s nationality, Wittje’s application for a visa states that he was “stateless.”   The salient fact in Wittje’s application was his claim that he was entitled to a visa because he was a “Volksdeutscher;  born in Romania.”   It was the DPA with its quota-shifting provision in § 12, and no other immigration statute in force in 1950 that Wittje can cite to, that would have made his ethnicity-a Volksdeutscher-relevant.

          This conclusion is supported by the affidavit of Chester G. Dunham.   Dunham was, along with McMahon,7 one of the two vice-consuls responsible for processing visa applications for ethnic Germans at the Salzburg consulate.   Dunham was responsible for processing the first half of the alphabet, McMahon the second.   Dunham testified that ethnic Germans from countries such as Romania were processed pursuant to the DPA and described the quota-shifting regime of § 12.   Dunham’s affidavit confirms what the statutes in effect at the time made clear-Wittje was admitted to this country pursuant to the 1924 Act and the DPA.

          2. Wittje’s membership in the Waffen SS.

           As we have noted, Wittje concedes he was a member of the Waffen SS. He raises two arguments, however, as to why his membership did not render him ineligible for a visa.   First, Wittje argues that the Waffen SS was not, as of 1950, considered a movement that had been hostile to the United States.   In other words, according to Wittje, a member of the Waffen SS, by virtue of such membership, was not ineligible for a visa pursuant to § 13 of the DPA.

          There is no doubt that the Waffen SS was a movement hostile to the United States.   Wittje’s argument to the contrary is frivolous.   In a March 1949 opinion letter, the chief of the State Department’s Visa Division categorized the Waffen SS as a criminal organization and stated that its members were “definitely excluded” from receiving a visa pursuant to § 13 of the DPA. A State Department memorandum to the American Consul in Stuttgart, Germany dated August 3, 1949, reached the same conclusion using substantively identical language.

          Also instructive is the position of the United States Displaced Persons Commission (the “DPC”).  The DPC was established by the DPA and was charged with, among other things, “formulat[ing] and issu[ing] regulations, necessary under the provisions of this Act, and in compliance therewith, for the admission into the United States of ․ eligible displaced persons.”

          The Waffen SS was among those groups on the “Inimical List,” a list of organizations, prepared by the DPC, that, as the name implies, were considered inimical to the United States.   A memorandum circulated to “Senior Officers and Staff” of the DPC by the DPC Coordinator for Europe dated November 28, 1950, noted that the “[p]olicy of the [DPC] has been to consider either voluntary or involuntary membership in the Waffen SS ․ as a bar per se under Section 13 [of the DPA].” Another memorandum to the Chairman and Commissioners of the DPC cited approvingly the August 3, 1949, State Department memorandum as well as a September 23, 1949, decision of the State Department rejecting a consular recommendation that an SS officer be granted a visa to join his family in the United States.   The Department rejection noted that “[t]he current policy of the Department is to recommend refusal of visas to aliens who were members of the SS at any time, regardless of whatever mitigating circumstances they may now try to offer in explanation of such membership ․”

          In response to this contemporaneous evidence of § 13’s applicability to the Waffen SS, Wittje cites to an April 1949 State Department telegram from Secretary of State Dean Acheson to the Chairman of the DPC. In that telegram, Acheson stated that § 13 was intended to cover “political or subversive groups of an ideological character” and “not considered as embracing military, naval, or air forces nor local constabularies ․” Wittje argues that statement supports his conclusion that § 13 was not intended to cover “a private drafted into the Waffen SS.” In effect, Wittje seeks to have this court view the Waffen SS as a military force akin to the Wehrmacht.

          The problem for Wittje, however, is that, as pointed out above, the Waffen SS was not considered a part of, or akin to, the Wehrmacht, but was a paramilitary component of the Nazi party.   The State Department’s August 3, 1949 memorandum referenced above makes this distinction clear.   The memorandum begins by noting that “[t]he Department has taken the view that service in the Wehrmacht or other regular branches of the armed forces of the enemy powers ․ would not serve as a bar to eligibility of person of German ethnic origin to receive a visa.”   The memorandum then goes on to note, however, that “members of such other military organizations as the Waffen [SS], proscribed as a criminal organization, are definitely excluded under the [DPA].” Wittje himself, in his “Amended Statement of Undisputed Material Facts and Counterstatement to [the] Government’s Statement of Material Facts” admits that the Waffen SS was a “Nazi party organization.”

           Wittje’s second argument is that, assuming the Waffen SS was considered a movement hostile to the United States, a person was a member of the Waffen SS for the purposes of the DPA only if they voluntarily joined the organization.   Thus, Wittje, who claims he was drafted into the Waffen SS, argues he was not covered by § 13.

          We disagree.   In Fedorenko, the Supreme Court held that there was no “involuntariness” exception to the exclusion from visa eligibility in the DPA of persons who had “assisted the enemy in persecuting civil[ians].”  449 U.S. at 512, 101 S.Ct. 737.   This exclusion arose as a result of the DPA’s incorporation of the definition of displaced persons contained in Annex I to the IRO Constitution, specifically § 2(a) of Part II of Annex I. The Court compared the absence of an involuntariness exception in § 2(a) to § 2(b).  That section excluded from displaced person status those who had “voluntarily assisted the enemy forces since the outbreak of the second world war in their operations against the United Nations.”   IRO const.   Annex I, § 2(b).  The Court concluded that the use of the word “voluntarily” in § 2(b) and its absence from § 2(a) demonstrated “[t]hat Congress was perfectly capable of adopting a ‘voluntariness’ limitation where it felt that one was necessary.”   Fedorenko, 449 U.S. at 512, 101 S.Ct. 737.   Thus, according to the Court, “the deliberate omission of the word ‘voluntary’ from § 2(a) compels the conclusion that the statute made all those who assisted in the persecution of civilians ineligible for visas.”  Id.

          Like § 2(a) of Annex I, there is no voluntariness requirement in the plain language of § 13 of the DPA. Section 13 prohibits the issuance of a visa to “any person who is or has been a member of, or participated in, any movement which is or has been hostile to the United States or the form of government of the United States.” (emphasis added).   This language does not condition such participation or membership on whether the person was a volunteer or a conscript.

          Other courts that addressed the issue have reached the same conclusion.   See United States v. Negele, No. 4:97CV01810, slip op. at 59 (E.D.Mo. July 20, 1999) (“The [DPA] made no distinction between voluntary or involuntary membership in a hostile movement.   Any membership or participation in any such hostile movement was a cause for mandatory disqualification.”);  United States v. Schiffer, 831 F.Supp. 1166, 1182 (E.D.Pa.1993), aff’d, 31 F.3d 1175 (3d Cir.1994) (table) (holding that prior to 1951, “all members of the Waffen SS were precluded from receiving visas”) (emphasis added).

          State Department and DPC policy at the time Wittje applied for a visa also make it clear that all members of the Waffen SS were covered by § 13 regardless of whether such membership was voluntary.   The State Department memorandum dated August 3, 1949, referenced above instructed the American Consul in Stuttgart, Germany to reject the visa application of a former member of the Waffen SS, “his contention that such membership was compulsory notwithstanding.”8  A November 28, 1950, DPC memorandum (also referenced above) noted that the “[p]olicy of the [DPC] has been to consider either voluntary or involuntary membership in the Waffen SS ․ as a bar per se under Section 13.” (emphasis added).

          In response, Wittje cites to a March, 1951, act of Congress, Pub. L. No. 82-14, ch. 23, 65 Stat. 28 (1951), and a 1951 DPC regulation.   These documents, Wittje insists, retrospectively appended a voluntariness requirement to § 13.   We disagree.   As we have pointed out, the lawfulness of Wittje’s entry into the United States must be determined under the law in effect at the time he entered.   Any subsequent change (as the act of Congress and the DPC regulation were) has no bearing on the lawfulness of Wittje’s entry into this country.   In 1950, when Wittje applied for a visa and entered this country, a member of the Waffen SS was ineligible to receive a visa, regardless of the voluntariness of that membership.

          3. Disputes as to material facts.

          This conclusion forecloses Wittje’s argument that there are disputes as to material facts.   The dispute between the parties as to the voluntariness of Wittje’s service and whether Wittje served as a camp guard is immaterial.   Wittje’s service in the Death’s Head Battalion of the Waffen SS, a fact he concedes, regardless of whether that service was voluntary and regardless of whether that service included time as a camp guard or was limited to participating in sports competitions, rendered Wittje ineligible for a visa at the time of his application.


           Joseph Wittje served during World War II as a member of the Waffen SS. That service, regardless of its nature or voluntariness, rendered Wittje ineligible for a visa at the time he applied for one. Summary judgment was, therefore, appropriate in favor of the United States.   Wittje’s arguments concerning the jurisdiction of the district court and this court, as well as his claim that his right to equal protection was violated, are meritless.   The decision of the district court is



          1.  Ethnic Germans were a significant part of Romania’s population prior to World War II. In 1939 approximately 500,000 ethnic Germans lived in Romania.  United States v. Negele, No. 4:97CV01810 ERW, slip op. at 13 (E.D.Mo. July 20, 1999).

          2.  The background information on the history of Romania, the Waffen SS, and Sachsenhausen (all facts that are not in dispute) in Part I of this opinion is drawn from the affidavit of Dr. Johannes Tuchel, a government expert witness;  Negele, slip op. at 8-32;  and the Library of Congress’s Country Study on Romania, http:// lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/cshome.html (search for “Romania”).

          3.  The Third Reich’s victims included other groups as well-Slavs, the disabled, political dissidents, labor leaders, homosexuals, Roma and Sinti (also known as Gypsies), Jehovah’s Witnesses, clergymen, and others the Nazis found objectionable.

          4.  Sachsenhausen was also known as “Oranienburg.”   This is not our first case involving Sachsenhausen.   See United States v. Schmidt, 923 F.2d 1253, 1255 (7th Cir.1991).

          5.  “The IRO was established in 1946 as a temporary specialized agency of the United Nations to deal with all aspects of the refugee problem in postwar Europe.   The IRO established and administered a network of camps and resettlement centers where the refugees were registered, housed, fed, and provided with medical care.   Where possible, the IRO provided for the refugees’ rehabilitation and training, arranged legal protection for as long as they were stateless, and negotiated agreements for resettlement.”  Fedorenko, 449 U.S. at 495 n. 5, 101 S.Ct. 737

          6.  Counsel for Wittje may be persistent but he is certainly redundant in the face of the legal precedent he helped to establish.   He was counsel to the defendant in Tittjung.   He was also counsel to defendants in United States v. Dailide, 316 F.3d 611 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 876, 124 S.Ct. 263, 157 L.Ed.2d 138 (2003);  United States v. Negele, 222 F.3d 443 (8th Cir.2000);  United States v. Leprich, No. 86-CV-72531 (E.D.Mich. Dec. 10, 2003);  United States v. Krysa, No. 1:99CV2736 (N.D.Ohio Nov. 16, 2000);  and United States v. Milius, No. 96-2534-CIV-T-25A (M.D.Fla. Aug. 17, 1998).   In each of these cases the court rejected precisely the argument counsel raises again here.

          7.  McMahon, who processed Wittje’s visa, is deceased.

          8.  As we have noted, a DPC memorandum dated March 14, 1950, quoted approvingly this conclusion of the State Department.

          MANION, Circuit Judge.

  29. Hawaii official now swears: No Obama birth certificate – Signs affidavit declaring long-form, hospital-generated document absent – Jerome Corsi –
    Former Hawaii elections clerk Tim Adams has signed an affidavit swearing he was told by his supervisors in Hawaii that no long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate existed for Barack Obama Jr. in Hawaii and that neither Queens Medical Center nor Kapi’olani Medical Center in Honolulu had any record of Obama having been born in their medical facilities


    Does this not mean anything??

  30. http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/01/former-hawaii-election-official-tim.html
    Former Hawaii elections clerk Tim Adams has signed an affidavit swearing he was told by his supervisors in Hawaii that no long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate existed for Barack Obama Jr. in Hawaii and that neither Queens Medical Center nor Kapi’olani Medical Center in Honolulu had any record of Obama having been born in their medical facilities.

    (and the news from Sheriff Joe and his investigative team is to be revealed this month)

    • Welcome, jayjay (and all of our other new readers. I sometimes forget who’s new and who’s not.)

      jayjay, you went into moderation because this is apparently the first time you commented here.

      We do know about Tim Adams. Bridgette wrote an exclusive post about him and there are links to other posts at the bottom of the Adams exclusive. We also know about the discrepancy with the hospitals. These issues always bear repeating.

      This election, many more people are aware of these controversies and are looking for information and background, so we appreciate any opportunity to get the word out again.

      • I just think Adams has all his marbles; he ‘ain’t uninformed of the deaths of many that needed quieting during the last 4 years.
        His affidavit speaks volumes to me. Makes any doubters of the constitutional crisis taking plalce, or sheeples, and even Obots go hmmmm.

  31. metta world war

    It just seems to look more and more with each new development that it is an amended bc and the haw doh is making quite sure that the only thing they will verify is that the stuff obama says is also in their file. They won’t say if it is correct or if there is anything else in the file and if it was amended.

    The original, if there is one, will never be seen because there isn’t one single person that has the power to order it that will do so.

    Something to ponder: When obama won his senate seat, it was by a court unsealing docs about his opponents divorce because “the people had a right to know who they are electing”. But we don’t have that same right. Only democrats have the right to know and unseal. Republicans don’t have it. See?

    • Sadly, you are correct, I fear. Yes, they have the power but refuse to do so. I’ve said it before that a decision has been made to continue to fake out We the People and to rescue his “legacy” for the good of all the African-Americans in the USA. The thing is: I truly suspect he’s not even AA. It’s as likely that he’s Papuan, which is NOT African. Well, not any more than the rest of us are. They diverged from Africans even longer ago than most “whites” and even “native” Americans. I also believe it’s amended. Either he was adopted by Lolo and there was a lot of stuff on the original and on the reissued bc, after the adoption (like maybe Lolo’s his real father), or he was born out of the country and in 2007 or so, Granny signed an affidavit to “complete” the bc she tried to file back when SAD first brought him into the country. They didn’t scrub the port of entry records for the first week of August 1961 for no reason at all!

      The Mississippi letter repeats that strange sentence about the information itself being used to verify the “facts” of the event.

      I could register my own birth in Hawaii, claiming that I’m Tinkerbell. They would “register” my birth, pending proof of the facts. I’d be announced in the papers (or would have been, if it were 1961.) But I never give them proof, so they keep that paper “on file”. Maybe years later, I get my grandmother to sign an affidavit saying it’s true and so, because I’m politically congruent with them, they accept it as proof and create my very FIRST ORIGINAL Certificate of Live Birth in 2008. Then I go around claiming that I’m Tinkerbell, born in Hawaii, and ask them for a letter of verification to prove it. They come back with a letter saying that the information on the original paper in their file matches what I said and that that information alone was used to verify the “facts” about the vital event of my birth. It’s like saying, “We have the claim on file. She makes the claim on the Internet. Yes, what she claims today matches what she claimed on the paper in our files. We used ONLY the paper in our files to verify the “fact” of the event she’s making a claim about.” Self-authenticating, indeed!

  32. They didn’t scrub the port of entry records for the first week of August 1961 for no reason at all!
    For sure. 👿

  33. Unmasking The Media’s Birth Certificate Hypocrisy; Least Vetted Leader
    June 8, 2012


    Jeff Kuhner at the Washington Times website on how the media vets Romney but, of course, not Obama. Drip, drip, drip. The more stories, the better our chances that everybody in America will know about this “charlatan” before November rolls around. My most serious concern lately is the media going out of their way to hype the Clintons again. Today, it’s Blitzer saying Chelsea has the best mother in the world. An insult to ALL of our mothers. Hillary Clinton is as much a charlatan and threat to our Republic as Barry. She’s complicit in this entire charade. Guilty as charged. If Barry goes down because his fraud is exposed, she’s AS GUILTY as he is. They are linked in this. No way out.

    • Even if the stories of death threats to her daughter and husband are true?
      And we’ve seen they mean business with these threats–list the unusual, unexplained deaths??

      • If the death threats are true, more reason to speak out. With POWER like the Clintons had and still have, they could get action.

    • “Also, for years, liberal journalists have claimed that Mr. Obama was a lifelong loyal Democrat; that the charges he associated with Marxist militants and hard-core leftists were simply vicious conservative smears. They allege that he is — and always has been — a pragmatic, moderate liberal in the New Deal-Fair Deal tradition. This is another lie. In a recent post on National Review Online, Stanley Kurtz presents conclusive documents that reveal Mr. Obama was a member of the New Party — a far-left third party devoted to imposing secular socialism on America. According to Mr. Kurtz, Mr. Obama was part of the New Party during much of the 1990s.

      Mr. Obama is the most radical president in U.S. history. But he is something else: the least vetted leader in modern memory. The media are coddling him. It’s time to finally unmask him.

      • Here’s the link Bridgette – (May have already been posted?)

        Obama’s Third-Party History – New documents shed new light on his ties to a leftist party

        National Review
        Stanley Kurtz


        FROM 2008 and the Media ignored Obama’s New Party [Communist Party] affiliation back then then also!

        By: Erick Erickson
        6/10/2008 03:01 AM

        Two weeks ago at RedState, we documented Obama’s 1996 endorsement by the New Party. A review of the New Party establishes
        that not only was the party an amalgamation of far left groups, but Barack Obama knew that when he sought the party’s endorsement.


          • TU I did not realize the link had already been posted, but figured it had. Sad day in American history to have PROOF the Communist have accomplished their goal and we have a Communist in the White House ruling/dictating to we the people. Even sadder? is that Hawaii, Congress, and all our new’s media HELPED in achieving that goal, and are complicit on helping maintain it.

            Very scarey times we are living in, indeed! Time is now to either purge the communist critters, if it isn’t done, and soon, ALL our freedoms will be lost forever, if they haven’t been already at this point.

            Speaking of freedoms and freedoms lost under a communist rule – have you heard the latest on Obama’s Drone’s?

            A plan is now in the works by Obama to harness even the tiny-est of drones the size of gulf ball’s to spy on U.S. citizens!

            They will watch your every move, take photo’s of all your movement’s and listen to every word you speak, if you do anything THEY don’t like the photos, and other information that the drones collect may be retained, used or even distributed to other branches of the government to be used against you!

            NAPOLITANO: Big Brother’s all-seeing eye
            Use of military surveillance drones overhead would be un-American

            Thursday, June 7, 2012

            Snip ~

            Nevertheless, what Jeffersonians are among us today? When drones take pictures of us on our private property and in our homes and the government uses the photos as it wishes, what will we do about it? Jefferson understood that when the government assaults our privacy and dignity, it is the moral equivalent of violence against us. Folks who hear about this, who either laugh or groan, cannot find it humorous or boring that their every move will be monitored and photographed by the government.

            Don’t believe me that this is coming? The photos that the drones will take may be retained and used or even distributed to others in the government so long as the “recipient is reasonably perceived to have a specific, lawful governmental function” in requiring them. And for the first time since the Civil War, the federal government will deploy military personnel insidetheUnitedStates and publicly acknowledge that it is deploying them “to collect information about U.S. persons.”

            It gets worse. If the military personnel see something of interest from a drone, they may apply to a military judge or “military commander” for permission to conduct a physical search of the private property that intrigues them. Any “incidentally acquired information” can be retained or turned over to local law enforcement. What’s next? Prosecutions before military tribunals in the United States?


            • You said a mouthful there! I read over the weekend in the paper that the EPA DENIED that they are using drones in the Midwest. It’s been reported just about everywhere but the lamestream. People report seeing them. How brazen to out and out lie to congresspersons who ask about these reports? From that story:

              “Asked about the use of drones, the agency responded in a statement: “Any reports of EPA using unmanned aircraft, or drones, are wrong.””

              Does it all depend upon what the meaning of “unmanned” is? Or are they being clever? The drones were over Nebraska and Iowa, but not Missouri (yet)? http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/11607-epa-defends-use-of-spy-planes-over-iowa-neb-cattle-ranches?tmpl=component Why would the EPA “defend the use of spy planes” that aren’t being used?

              Concerns that the drones would add to privacy violations were vindicated when a newly discovered Air Force intelligence brief revealed that surveillance data of American citizens captured by drones “accidentally” can be stored and analyzed by the Pentagon.

              “Collected imagery may incidentally include US persons or private property without consent,” the instruction states.”

              I asked last week how long before somebody shoots one of these things down? Then will they still lie or will they have the audacity to try to make the citizen pay billions to replace their illegal, unconstitutional crap? That would at least bring them to everybody’s attention. (Oh, and like the judge, just to be clear for any obots reading: I’m NOT advocating anybody do this. Heaven forbid! This is the Obamanation now. There IS NO LONGER free speech and the presumption of innocence for any utterance. Worst case scenario will RULE if you happen to be a constitutional conservative.)

              Since Barry’s got a 150-MAN strong group of TECHNObots spying on us and our families, collecting dossiers on all of us to use to intimidate persuade us to vote his way, how long before his CAMPAIGN starts using drones against us? They can merge their databases.

              Notice how Judge Napolitano, even he, now has to be sure to add that he’s not advocating anybody use violence against these drones. Since when do Americans ALL have to self-censor lest they be taken out of context or lest our GOVERNMENT think the WORST about anything said and comes after the citizen? Since Napolitano is talking about these drones, does that mean he’s some crazed conspiracy theorist who’s imagining things, too?

              This is outrageous. Since when did they repeal the Posse Comitatus Act? I love the military and I love our troops but when they illegally operate within the USA and SPY on law-abiding citizens, they can all kiss my bum!

              “The government cannot be trusted to restrain itself in the face of individual choices to pursue happiness. That’s why we have a Constitution and a life-tenured judiciary: to protect the minority from the liberty-stealing impulses of the majority. And that’s why the Air Force memo has its priorities reversed – intelligence-gathering first, protecting freedom second – and the mechanism of reconciling the two – balancing them – constitutionally incorrect.

              Everyone who works for the government swears to uphold the Constitution. It was written to define and restrain the government. According to the Declaration of Independence, the government’s powers come from the consent of the governed. The government in America was not created by a powerful king reluctantly granting liberty to his subjects. It was created by free people willingly granting limited power to their government – and retaining that which they did not delegate.

              The Declaration also defines our liberties as coming from our Creator, as integral to our humanity and inseparable from us, unless we give them up by violating someone else’s liberties. Hence, the Jeffersonian and constitutional beef with the word “balancing” when it comes to government power versus individual liberty.

              The Judeo-Christian and constitutionally mandated relationship between government power and individual liberty is not balance. It is bias – a bias in favor of liberty. All presumptions should favor the natural rights of individuals, not the delegated and seized powers of the government. Individual liberty, not government power, is the default position because persons are immortal and created in God’s image, and governments are temporary and based on force.”

              The judge knows of only a few people complaining about this because, as usual, the media is complicit in HIDING THESE FACTS FROM THE PUBLIC. They treat these reports of drones the same way they treat questions about Obama’s ineligibility–with ridicule. In other words, they CANNOT argue logically with the facts because the facts are against them, and so they resort to ad hominem attacks designed to intimidate and shut up their opponents and to distract from the real issues.

              The Judge says, “If we remain silent when our popularly elected government violates the laws it has sworn to uphold and steals the freedoms we elected it to protect, we will have only ourselves to blame when Big Brother is everywhere. Somehow, I doubt my father’s generation fought the Nazis in World War II only to permit a totalitarian government to flourish here.

              Is President Obama prepared to defend this? Is Mitt Romney prepared to challenge it? Are you prepared for its consequences?”

              THIS IS EXACTLY WHY We the People blog has been screaming for the past four years about the UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF OBAMA BEING IN THE WHITE HOUSE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

              “Everyone who works for the government swears to uphold the Constitution. It was written to define and restrain the government.” So sayeth Judge Napolitano.

              Where was he on the issue of Obama’s eligibility under the Constitution? Did he “remain silent when our popularly elected government violate[d] the laws it has sworn to uphold and [stole] the freedoms we elected it to protect?” Give an inch, Judge, and they take a mile.

  34. Miri,
    My paralegal friend said that she’s never encountered the problem that I have with misspellings. I have many times, and I’ve even had attorneys make comments about the misspellings. She said those names are supposed to be correct.

    • TY. So what can we take from the fact that they always spell Barry’s name wrong? Is it NOT really Barack? In legal documents, they have to use the legal name. Right?

      • My friend said that they are supposed to be correct in legal docs. Also someone said that they spelled Pelosi’s name incorrectly. Nanci?

        • Yes, it’s spelled Nanci where she’s listed as one of the defendants, right at the start of the pages at that link to the entire motion at SCRIBD. I’m still puzzled that I haven’t seen this news reported anywhere else but here (and Salon and Orly’s). I wonder what this will mean to dualer’s case in Florida? The one that seems more bullet proof than all the others. Now we have a Court accepting a document from Hawaii that the DemoncRAT lawyers claim is self-authenticating and accepted into “evidence” by the Court, I assume. So how long before they turn around and use this to argue to the FL judge that there’s no reason to pursue subpoenas for the originals? This is either a fix to preempt Sheriff Arpaio or the Florida case. I read somewhere that Arpaio and Zullo will unveil evidence of a big conspiracy to hide Barry’s true identity. A conspiracy that involved politicians and the media. Big wow! As if we didn’t know that already. I hope he has a smoking gun, though. God bless and keep Sheriff Joe.

      • yes. it should be the correct spelling. the party named in the caption (the caption is the name v. name part where it’s spelled Barak) is the party that is legally joined in the case.
        if for some reason, the party named in the caption is incorrect there is a simple amendment you submit to correct it (state courts usually have a one page form you fill out) or the judge i think can also just say, if it comes up in oral, that [correct name of person] is the party named in the suit.

        • So why do they habitually spell his name wrong?

          • I’ll tell you that when my ex used to do eviction paperwork for tenets, if the forms were not filled out correctly – meaning perfectly – no mistakes were allowed on the spelling of names, address or dates, they were rejected. Any mistakes invalidated the paperwork. Had to start from square one, fill new forms, file them, etc. He only made that sort of mistake a couple of times because it cost time, money, more lost rent. So, my experiences have been that at the very least the names MUST be correct as long as that information is reasonably available.

          • maybe it’s not wrong.
            what was the case where the judge issued something with name barack then reissued with Barak?

  35. More about those leaks from the WH, which put our national security at risk just so Barry can strut his stuff and act like a terror warrior:

    “The New York Times revealed today in a major news article that the well-known Stuxnet malware attack on the Iranian nuclear program was, in fact, an American operation. Most experts had felt that was the most logical conclusion, but it had never been confirmed. The Times report is based on interviews with anonymous sources “because the effort remains highly classified, and parts of it continue to this day,” reporter David Sanger wrote. While this is an acknowledgement of U.S. prowess in cyberwarfare, the revelation is an inexcusable breach of security that seems to be a part of a disturbing trend.” [NOTE: I cannot find this quote, attributed to Sanger in the online story at the NY Times. Either the administration thugs have forced them to edit that critique out OR the online version differs from the print version quoted in the GP article.]

    His entire administration has been a “disturbing trend” from start to finish. More at the link. It’s pretty bad when even Feinstein is criticizing Barry. Note: The NY Times piece is fawning and is based upon the release of yet another fawning book about Barry. There’s NO criticism by the Times of his administration leaking this stuff to them. They’re making money off it and he’s hoping it props him up, despite the threat to our national security. The program was a joint project by BUSH and the ISRAELIS. Barry used it and is now taking credit for it, publicly, while at the same time backstabbing the Israelis and probably putting THEIR operatives at risk for their lives. How likely is it they will continue to cooperate when his administration can’t help but to blow their own horns?

    • http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/measures-would-limit-access-to-secrets/article_7309e191-6917-5aff-ac9a-43c5c647b6cd.html

      Leaders of the Senate and House intelligence committees said Thursday they were drafting legislation to further limit who can access highly classified information and possibly impose new penalties for revealing it.

      The head of the House intelligence committee said he will investigate recent leaks, but the CIA and the Justice Department national security division said they would not cooperate. [CAN YOU IMAGINE THIS? THE DEPT. OF JUSTICE AND THE CIA REFUSE TO COOPERATE WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR EMPLOYERS.]

      The action comes after recent leaks of sensitive information about the covert drone and cyber wars against terrorism.

      “There has been just a cascade of leaks coming out of the intelligence community in the last several weeks and months,” the vice chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., told reporters. “It’s our clear intention to put a stop to this.”

      The bipartisan news conference of the four top lawmakers was spurred by a series of media reports detailing everything from White House policy on the highly classified targeting of al-Qaida militants by drones and raids, to the White House reportedly deploying the cyber weapon known as Stuxnet, a malicious computer code that knocked Iranian nuclear processing centrifuges offline.

      The House Intelligence Committee chairman, Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., said his committee would formally investigate the leaks, though he said the process would be hampered because two critical government agencies said they would not participate.

      Just today the CIA informed the (committee) that it cannot respond to our request for information regarding the leaks, a very troubling event indeed,” Rogers said. [DEFUND THEM. Then they will decide to talk.]

      The CIA has come under fire for allegedly sharing with Hollywood filmmakers classified details of last year’s U.S. raid into Pakistan that killed Osama bin Laden.

      Rogers said the Justice Department’s National Security Division also withdrew itself “with respect to at least one investigation regarding disclosures.” [Let me guess: The HOUSE investigation? Led by Republicans?]

      Rogers initially indicated the leaks may have come from the FBI or Justice Department, but later clarified that it showed “the serious complications facing the department in investigating these matters.””

      • Dianne Feinstein vents ire over ‘avalanche of leaks’ (Sen. Feinstein compares Obama to Hitler)


        Dianne Feinstein vents ire over ‘avalanche of leaks’

        In a televised interview Wednesday, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein repeatedly vented her ire over leaks of classified information and she signaled that she favors a more aggressive crackdown on those who are passing national security secrets to the press.

        “What we’re seeing…is an Anschluss, an avalanche of leaks. And it’s very, very disturbing. You know, it’s dismayed our allies. It puts American lives in jeopardy. It puts our nation’s security in jeopardy,” Feinstein (D-Calif.) said on CNN’s “Situation Room” program. She said the Senate Intelligence Committee plans to meet Thursday morning with Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to discuss the issue.


        Comment from FR –
        “Anschluss” does not mean “an avalanche of ideas”–it has a very
        specific meaning, ie uniting or the annexation of Austria to Germany in 1938. One of Hitler’s first acts.
        Now why would waaay to the left Feinstein use the word “Anschluss” to describe the leak’s?

        Maybe be she’s saying to the Barry voting zombie’s, hey STUPID 2+2 actually doe’s =4! Feinstein painted the SIGN, now read it!

        On second thought I doubt Barry voter’s / supporter’s even own a dictionary to look up the word “Anschluss”.

        • But….is Feinstein herself leaking something with the word “Anschluss”? How do they connect — security leaks and our Allies not trusting us to the seizing (annexation, I mean) of Austria to Germany? On the surface there is no connect; not an apple to oranges comparison; makes little sense having the two in the same phrase. So is her throwing this “randomly” out there a leak and what is the leak. Who is planning to “annex” who? Was it leaks from the Austrian Government that allowed things go happen? (I am history illiterate on this) Has she just leaked Barry’s goal? Who would he be compared to in the Austrian government of the 1930’s? Note: Spellcheck keeps correcting word to “Aeschylus”

          • Was it a malapropism? Did she mean “onslaught”? Or could it have been a Freudian slip? She meant onslaught but Anschluss came out instead, because (I hope) even some Dems are concerned about his totalitarian regime-in-the-making?

            They’re worried about this issue because already the lamestream are writing articles to downplay the situation. Haven’t they been crying out for nonpartisanship? Now that they’re finally seeing some (with the DemoncRATS actually appearing to break from goosestepping with Barry) they’re upset. Nobody is allowed to go off the reservation. Notice how WORRIED Blitzer is about the possibility of a special prosecutor who can “go anywhere”. Oh, yeah. That WOULD BE A REAL CONCERN, Wolf. For Barry.

            Today, my local paper had a long treatise on the Catholic Church and how it tries to police thought and free speech, by criticizing a recent book by some “nun” who promotes homosexuality and masturbation in the book under the big tent of “love”. Would that they would spend one-half the time analyzing how the Obama administration tries to control thoughts and free speech. There’s a HUGE DIFFERENCE: The Catholic Church is an organization that anyone is FREE to join or to leave. The USA, under Obama, is an entity that we ALL must suffer under until the next election. And if he manages to steal another four years, we will all be under his thumb again, with no way out. So why do they spend their time writing about the Catholic Church suppressing thought? (I know the answer. It’s because communist/Marxists identify the Catholic Church as enemy number one.)

            As an aside, isn’t it interesting that this nun’s book promotes masturbation as a type of “self love” that should be lauded by a Christian church? WWJD? Where did Jesus EVER promote SELF love instead of SELFLESS love?

  36. http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2012/06/former-acorn-director-gets-445-mil-from-u-s-treasury/

    This might be old news but it’s a new story about how Barry is giving $445 million of OUR tax dollars to an ex-ACORN guy.

  37. Another by Gateway Pundit (actually a hat trick because I got the tip about the ACORN story from GP, too): http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2012/06/former-acorn-director-gets-445-mil-from-u-s-treasury/

    About how a ring of crooks in NM, in conjunction with state laws passed by the usual suspects, make FAKE IDS AND DRIVER’S LICENSES FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS FROM ACROSS THE COUNTRY. Now, you know, that the reason the DemoncRATS enable this is BECAUSE THEY THEN USE THE IDS AND DRIVER’S LICENSES TO VOTE illegally in our elections. How many illegal votes put Barry into the WH? Illegal alien votes for a likely illegal alien potus.

  38. h/t Renee. I’m glad to know that at least one state is standing up to the UN and its unconstitutional Agenda 21: http://www.independentamericanparty.org/2012/06/tell-congress-to-stop-epas-implementation-of-the-uns-agenda-21/

    I just might have to move to Alabama! Does anyone know if there’s a list of other states who have passed such legislation or are contemplating it?

  39. Miri,
    This may be a funny question, but have we seen any legal documents directly from BO himself? If we have some that are supposedly from him, let’s see how he’s spelling his own name.

    • Not legal but we’ve seen signatures. Unreadable ones! I guess when he signs legislation that’s (arguably) legal.

  40. Try to see if you can find more than one time that he’s signed his name and compare spellings, that is, if you can read it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s