Thursday, October 29, 2009


by John Charlton

(Oct. 29, 2009) — In a ruling that has stunned none but those who love this Nation, Judge David O. Carter has granted the Motion to Dismiss presented by the Department of Justice, in the case Captain Pamela Barnett et al. vs. Obama et al..

The case involved the massive election fraud which occurred in 2008 General Election, when Barack Hussein Obama, though not an eligible candidate, was admitted to the ballot in California, and thus harmed and disadvantaged candidates running on third-party tickets, such as Wiley S. Drake, Alan Keyes, Gail Lightfoot, and Markham Robinson.

The ridiculous ruling was characterized by Dr. Orly Taitz, lead counsel for the Plaintiffs as something “written by the Defense,” according to the World Net Daily report.

The Post & Email will highlight the most vicious and erroneous statements in the ruling.

What Judge Carter did was not only deny justice, he viciously insulted and baited patriotic Military personnel everywhere, by his outrageous statement regarding the military plaintiff, Jason Freese in the case:

This Court will not interfere in internal military affairs nor be used as a tool by military officers to avoid deployment. The Court has a word for such a refusal to follow the orders of the President of the United States, but it will leave the issue to the military to resolve.

Just prior to this outrageous insult, the Carter shows himself to be a true supporter of dictatorship over law, when he claims that U.S. Military must serve even if their chief commander has no lawful authority to command them:

Furthermore, Lieutenant Freese’s claims are based upon the notion that his duty to serve is based upon who is in office. The duty to defend is not dependent upon a political or personal view regarding the individual who serves as President and Commander-in-Chief. It is an unequivocal duty to defend our country.

He then ridiculously claims that those who participate in the reception of funds taken unlawfully from the national treasury are not capable of being found guilty of crime, so long as they claim a reasonable doubt as to the legitimacy of the theft. For a Judge famed for his opposition to Mexican Mafia, he seems to have entire support for the Chicago Mob. Isn’t that a racist attitude, from the liberal point of view?

Carter’s laughable ruling also claims that you have a duty to pay taxes to the IRS, but you have no rights to ask whether the President who signs the spending bills for those taxes is legitimate: or in other words, you are a feudal serf, and must pay no matter how illegitimate or corrupt the Federal Government becomes, because, in the Judge’s words, the Supreme Court says so!

Then, while Carter begrudgingly admits that third-party candidate suffered injury by being opposed by a potential ineligible candidate, he finds that his court cannot remedy the crime, and therefore he will not take action on the complaint! His argument ignores completely the question of eligibility of office, and presumes the fact that Obama is eligible, contrary to the fact of the case! He even implies that Congress can change the definition of what a Natural Born Citizen is, by its choice of a presidential candidate in Joint Session!

On quo warrento, Carter makes the bold face lie of claiming the D.C. code gives exclusive jurisdiction over quo warrento proceedings regarding the President to the D.C. courts!

Carter closes by personally attacking Dr. Orly Taitz
Finally, if there is anyone who thought that Judge Carter was impartial, his closing remarks, in which he devotes a very long paragraph insulting Dr. Orly Taitz should be read in full:

The hearings have been interesting to say the least. Plaintiffs’ arguments through Taitz have generally failed to aid the Court. Instead, Plaintiffs’ counsel has favored rhetoric seeking to arouse the emotions and prejudices of her followers rather than the language of a lawyer seeking to present arguments through cogent legal reasoning.

Imagine that! Taitz’s supporters are “followers” and “prejudiced”! My my, what bigots we patriots are!

Judge Carter continues his diatribe thus:

While the Court has no desire to chill Plaintiffs’ enthusiastic presentation, Taitz’s argument often hampered the efforts of her cocounsel (sic) Gary Kreep (“Kreep”), counsel for Plaintiffs Drake and Robinson, to bring serious issues before the Court

Any objective listener will remember, however, that it was Attorney Kreep who often criticized Taitz’s arguments in court, and not the other way around.

The Court has attempted to give Plaintiffs a voice and a chance to be heard by respecting their choice of counsel and by making every effort to discern the legal arguments of Plaintiffs’ counsel amongst the rhetoric. This Court exercised extreme patience when Taitz endangered this case being heard at all by failing to properly file and serve the complaint upon Defendants and held multiple hearings to ensure that the case would not be dismissed on the technicality of failure to effect service.

While the original complaint in this matter was filed on January 20, 2009, Defendants were not properly served until August 25, 2009. Taitz successfully served Defendants only after the Court intervened on several occasions and requested that defense counsel make significant accommodations for her to effect service.

Imagine that! When Obama and his lawyers pretended not to receive service, it is Taitz who is at fault!

Carter descends further into the house of the mad, when he writes:

Taitz also continually refused to comply with court rules and procedure. Taitz even asked this Court to recuse Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato on the basis that he required her to comply with the Local Rules. See Order Denying Pls.’ Mot. For Modification of Mag. J. Nakazato’s Aug. 6, 2009, Order; Denying Pls.’ Mot. to Recuse Mag. J. Nakazato; and Granting Ex Parte App. for Order Vacating Voluntary Dismissal (Sep. 8, 2009).

Taitz also attempted to dismiss two of her clients against their wishes because she did not want to work with their new counsel. See id.

Then Judge Carter gives a tantrum, because citizens wrote him letters encouraging him to be a patriot — clearly an offense that this usurper supporter will not pardon!

Taitz encouraged her supporters to contact this Court, both via letters and phone calls. It was improper and unethical for her as an attorney to encourage her supporters to attempt to influence this Court’s decision. Despite these attempts to manipulate this Court, the Court has not considered any outside pleas to influence the Court’s decision.

Then Judge Carter defames Attorney Taitz:

Additionally, the Court has received several sworn affidavits that Taitz asked potential witnesses that she planned to call before this Court to perjure themselves. This Court is deeply concerned that Taitz may have suborned perjury through witnesses she intended to bring before this Court.

While the Court seeks to ensure that all interested parties have had the opportunity to be heard, the Court cannot condone the conduct of Plaintiffs’ counsel in her efforts to influence this Court.

If Carter — he obviously does not deserve the title of “Judge” — showed his ethics by hiring Siddhart Velarmoor as law clerk, it is clear tha he has shown himself a traitor to the Nation, by his ruling in Barnett vs. Obama.

Finally, Carter closes with the most exquisite piece of pharisaical self-defense in the history of the American judiciary:

Respecting the constitutional role and jurisdiction of this Court is not unpatriotic. Quite the contrary, this Court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism.

Monday, October 26, 2009


When will the American people wake up to what is happening?

Now I feel safe!

Well, boys and girls, today we are letting the Oba-Hussein fox guard the henhouse.

Tomorrow, the Oba-Hussein wolves can herd the sheep! Some already are as Czars.

Obama Appoints TWO devout Muslims to Homeland Security Posts. Doesn ' t this make you feel safer already?

Arif Alikhan

Obama and Janet Napolitano appoint devout Muslims to Homeland Security post.
Arif Alikhan as Assistant Secretary for Policy Development Source for announcement:
Homeland Security Press Room:

Kareem Shora, who was born in Damascus , Syria .

Kareem Shora Appointed by DHS Secretary Napolitano on Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC). Washington , DC

June 5, 2009

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) is proud to announce that earlier today at a ceremony held in Albuquerque , New Mexico , DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano swore-in ADC National Executive Director Kareem Shora as a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC).



Saturday, October 24, 2009


You have got to be kidding me:

During consideration of H.R. 3126, legislation to establish a Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA), Democrats on the House Financial Services Committee voted to pass an amendment offered by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) that will make ACORN eligible to play a role in setting regulations for financial institutions.

The Waters amendment adds to the CFPA Oversight Board 5 representatives from the fields of “consumer protection, fair lending and civil rights, representatives of depository institutions that primarily serve underserved communities, or representatives of communities that have been significantly impacted by higher-priced mortgages” to join Federal banking regulators in advising the Director on the consistency of proposed regulations, and strategies and policies that the Director should undertake to enforce its rules.

By making representatives of ACORN and other consumer activist organizations eligible to serve on the Oversight Board, the amendment creates a potentially enormous government sanctioned conflict of interest. ACORN-type organizations will have an advisory role on regulating the very financial institutions from which they receive millions of dollars annually in direct corporate contributions and benefit from other financial partnerships and arrangements. These are the same organizations that pressured banks to make subprime mortgage loans and thus bear a major responsibility for the collapse of the housing market.

Oh, Maxine and Barney will argue that they didn't specifically SAY members of ACORN could serve on the board but the fact remains that with this amendment it doesn't exclude them either. It allows ACORN to jump aboard and give them power they should never have.

Thursday, October 15, 2009


What is a Natural Born Citizen?

In order to be a Natural Born Citizen, one must have parents - two parents, that are citizens of the Nation, and must be born on the soil of the Nation. It does not get any simpler than this.

By Dianna Cotter

For well over a year now, we have been hearing this question in regards to Barack Obama. It’s a good question, and one that is relevant only when discussing the President, Vice President, and anyone else who may assume the Presidency in the line of succession. This the only time that such a distinction matters.

It will help in this very important discussion to understand the differing types of Citizenship that the United States recognizes and what defines them.

A Naturalized Citizen is one who has applied for and has qualified for American Citizenship. Someone applying for and being granted US Citizenship must meet the following qualifications according to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services website.

To be eligible for Naturalization one must:

• Be at least 18 years old at the time of filing the Application for Naturalization, Form N-400
• Have been lawfully admitted to the United States
• Have resided as a permanent resident in the United States for at least 5 years or 3 years if you meet all eligibility requirements to file as a spouse of a U.S. citizen
• Have demonstrated continuous permanent residence
• Have demonstrated physical presence
• Have lived for 3 months in the USCIS district or state where the Application for Naturalization, Form N-400 is filed
• Demonstrate good moral character
• Show an attachment to the U.S. Constitution
• Be able to read, write, speak, and understand basic English
• Demonstrate a knowledge of U.S. civics (history and government)
• Take the oath of allegiance to the United States

The next type of citizen is that of a standard citizen. The USICS website describes a citizen thusly:

“A citizen of the United States is a native-born, foreign-born, or naturalized person who owes allegiance to the United States and who is entitled to its protection. In addition to the naturalization process, the United States recognizes the U.S. citizenship of individuals according to two fundamental principles: jus soli, or right of birthplace, and jus sanguinis, or right of blood (deriving citizenship through parent’s citizenship).
Whether someone born outside the U.S. to a U.S. citizen parent is a U.S. citizen depends on the law in effect when the person was born. These laws have changed over the years, but usually require a combination of at least one parent being a U.S. citizen when the child was born and having lived in the U.S. or its possessions for a period of time”

This passage from the USICS is important for two reasons. First, it makes the distinction clear that the United States uses two different means by which it derives citizenship; one by blood, and the other by place of birth.

Second, it makes clear that citizenship is completely dependent on that laws that were in effect at the time a person was born.

Today’s laws do not in any way effect or change the citizenship standing of a person who was born in 1961.

This statement tells us that it is a person’s standing at the time of his or her birth that is the determining instant which dictates that person’s citizenship status. It is only at birth or upon naturalization that a person can become an American Citizen. Barack Obama’s citizenship status was determined at his birth just as with all American citizens who were born inside the territory of the United States.

This brings us to the third type of citizenship, the one most hotly debated, and the one least understood. Because of the infrequency of its relevance, few people will ever be in the position to become President, it simply doesn’t come up very often.

What is a Natural Born Citizen?

Thursday, October 8, 2009


“Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted....

Give us the child for 8 years and it will be a Bolshevik forever.”

Vladimir Lenin

The Obama adoration choir in the major media have been assigning the "racist" and "extremist" labels to critics of the new president since before he was elected. No matter how controversial, unconstitutional, expensive, or expansive any Obama program proposal may be, you can be sure his supporters (both in and out of the media) will divine a bigoted, malicious motive lurking beneath the surface of even the most reasoned voice of opposition.

Consider the liberal-left choir's response to concerns that President Barack Obama would use his speech to the country's schoolchildren to indoctrinate children in support of his big-government, socialistic agenda. For example, on September 8, the day of the speech, blogger Mario Almonte wrote in a column entitled, "Republican Critics of Obama's School Speech Stoke the Fires of Bigotry in America":

... within this immense pool of 60 million who voted Republican thrives a disturbing core of religious fundamentalists, ultra conservatives, and all-purpose extremists whose true motivation — when you strip away their often irrational and contradictory rhetoric — is a hatred of everyone and everything that is different from them. They are the true Ugly Americans, who hate the Jews, the Blacks, the Latinos, the homosexuals — and anybody who believes in anything they do not.... These are the same people who Republicans now support when they publicly validate the dubious argument that Obama's true motive, in addressing school children, was to brainwash them into following his "socialist" agenda.

The following day, CNN anchor Campbell Brown intoned: "Can we have a rational conversation on health care, education and the economy?... It's time to get real and get at the facts. I want to take a minute to talk about some of the insanity we have witnessed over the past few days; the ridiculous charge that the president of the United States addressing American children is a dangerous thing.... Can we all take a deep breath and admit this whole episode was just nutty?"

It doesn't seem to matter that the Obama program thus far has already nationalized the auto industry as well as the banking and financial industry, or that he has appointed upwards of 40 "czars" (by recent count) who are exercising authority over vast swaths of our economy and society — without Senate confirmation, which is to say without any constitutional authority. Nor does it seem to matter that President Obama is pushing relentlessly for nationalized healthcare, a vast National Service program, and a national CO2 "cap and trade" program that will fasten draconian federal regulatory controls on virtually every human activity. Characterizing these socialistic programs as, well, socialistic, is verboten, according to the liberal-left Big Media thought cartel.

But, let's take CNN's Campbell Brown's advice (even though she didn't, herself) to "get real and get at the facts." The facts are that in advance of the address, Arne Duncan, Secretary of the federal Department of Education sent letters to educators throughout the nation suggesting lesson plans to coincide with Obama's message. Teachers in pre-kindergarten through 6th grade, for example, were encouraged to have their pupils "write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals." Is it the job of the schools to instruct our children to "help the president" — even if that means helping him institute programs, policies, and legislation of which their parents strongly disapprove or even find morally reprehensible?

The federal Education Dept. guidelines also suggested that teachers tell students to "build background knowledge about the president of the United States by reading books about presidents and Barack Obama." As if our children have not already been saturated with Obamamania. The media adulation saturation for Barack Obama has far exceeded that for any previous President, including media darlings FDR and JFK. The public backlash to the plan caused the Obama Educrats to realize they'd gone too far too fast; they replaced the manipulative "classroom activities" on the Department website with more innocuous fare. Even Salon's very pro-Obama Joan Walsh admitted on MSNBC with Chris Matthews on September 4 that the administration was indeed "overreaching" with this scheme and that "there sometimes is a tin ear in the people around Obama. They do play into this cult of personality." (That did not prevent Walsh, seconds later, from joining Matthews in denouncing parents opposed to Obama's overreaching cult.)

It is this very real and disturbing cult of personality, combined with Obama's militant "change" agenda that understandably has many parents concerned - and rightfully so. The term "cult of personality" is something we associate with totalitarian dictators: Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Tito, Fidel Castro, Robert Mugabe, Ayatollah Khomeini, Pol Pot, Kim Il-Sung. Americans, we smugly tell ourselves, would never succumb to such demeaning sycophancy and servitude; we're much too sophisticated and independent for that. However, many parents have viewed some of the videos on the Internet of fresh-faced children and youth singing and chanting their praises to Obama in scenes that look eerily, creepily similar to video clips of children in communist North Korea singing to the "Dear Leader," or to the scene from the movie "Cabaret" where the misguided, idealistic Hitler Youth sing the stirring "Tomorrow Belongs to Me."

The "Sing for Change" campaign video features a roomful of winsome children in UN-powder blue T-shirts emblazoned with "HOPE" earnestly hymning to the new savior: "We're gonna spread happiness, we're gonna spread freedom. Obama's gonna change it, Obama's gonna lead 'em. We're gonna change it, and rearrange it; we're gonna change the world."

Equally, if not more disturbing, is the "Obama Youth — Junior Fraternity Regiment" video of the black male teens, dressed in military camouflage fatigues, who march into a Kansas City, Missouri, classroom and chant their support for Obama and his healthcare plan. (HITLER JUGEND = youth BRAINWASH)

Here's another example from a school in Burlington, New Jersey:

(scrubbed/yanked from youtube)

This is indoctrination, not education. Ditto for the Fayetteville, North Carolina, teacher Diatha Harris, who asks her young students whether they're "pulling for" Obama or McCain and then browbeats to tears a young girl (whose father is a soldier in Iraq) for saying she supports McCain. This cruel child abuse and unethical exploitation of classroom authority was caught on video by a Swedish documentary crew (and then went viral over the Internet).

Parents know that these are not isolated incidents. They know the national teacher unions (the 3.2 million-member NEA and the 856,000-member AFT) comprise many of Team Obama's staunchest "change" cadres and provided the Obama campaign with some of its largest campaign contributions. Many of these teachers-cum-propagandists need no prodding from FedEd Secretary Duncan to turn every "teachable moment" into a programmatic push for every Big Government proposal imaginable, from Obamacare to Law of the Sea Treaty to Cap and Trade to National Service.

Many critics of Obama's education program are also aware that the President's speech to the schools was not happening in a vacuum, but was (and is) part of a concerted effort by the Obama administration, along with its Hollywood allies and billionaire politco-philanthropists to further nationalize and centralize American education. On the same day that his speech was broadcast to the nation's schools, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Viacom, the mega-media giant, launched their five-year "Get Schooled" National Education Initiative at the Paramount Pictures studio lot.

Serving as a launch pad for the venture is a "Get Schooled" video featuring President Obama with American Idol pop diva Kelley Clarkson and NBA superstar Lebron James that aired on the same day as the president's school speech over Viacom's massive network, which includes MTV, BET, CMT, COMEDY CENTRAL, Nickelodeon, Nick @ Nite, Spike TV, and VH1 (to name but a few channels). These Viacom "entertainment" vehicles have been some of the top villains in the ongoing corporate media culture war aimed at dumbing down, bumming down, and scumming down our society. Viacom has also distinguished itself by unfailingly pushing a leftward political agenda, from enlisting youth in Al Gore's battle to save the universe from the global warming non-crisis, to a global "Safe Sex" campaign that prescribes condom use ("Rubber Rocks!" is the MTV slogan) while engaging in the promiscuous sex promoted by the Viacom's lewd, crude, raunchy programming.

Of course, there is also the incredible pro-Obama "I Pledge" video produced by Oprah Winfrey's Harpo Productions, in which sundry self-important Hollywood narcissists pledge their fealty to Barack Obama. A slew of shallow celebrities, including Demi Moore, Ashton Kutcher, Eva Mendez, Cameron Diaz, and P Diddy, tell viewers: "I pledge to reduce my use of plastic ... to sell my obnoxious car and buy a hybrid ... to be more green ... to turn the lights off ... to flush only after a deuce, never a single ... to go to ... to be of service to Barack Obama ... to be the change ... to be a servant to our president."

This "serve Obama" propaganda video also has been shown to captive school audiences.

In our 24/7 pop culture of celebrity idolatry, Barack Obama is constantly presented to young people as the epitome of cool, hip, smart, and sexy — and he is all but worshipped by Hollywood demigods whom our youth are taught to idolize. This engenders a mindset that is conducive to tyrants and fatal to freedom, limited government and our constitutional safeguards. The charges of Fidel Castro and his like-minded comrades in the Big Media punditocracy notwithstanding, parents are not "racist" or "insane" for suspecting that President Obama and/or his fanatical followers would exploit his speech to the schools to further his Big Government political agenda.

Wednesday, October 7, 2009


NOW WATCH THIS "TRAP A TERRORIST TIPS" and see how ridiculous the new director of Homeland Security video sounds to normal people.

Friday, October 2, 2009


Finance Committee Democrat Won’t Read Text of Health Bill (text of bill will not be published)

By Nicholas Ballasy

Finance Committee Democrat Won’t Read Text of Health Bill, Says Anyone Who Claims They’ll Understand It ‘Is Trying to Pull the Wool Over Our Eyes’

( - Sen. Thomas Carper (D.-Del.), a member of the Senate Finance Committee, told that he does not “expect” to read the actual legislative language of the committee’s health care bill because it is “confusing” and that anyone who claims they are going to read it and understand it is fooling people.

“I don’t expect to actually read the legislative language because reading the legislative language is among the more confusing things I’ve ever read in my life,” Carper told

Carper described the type of language the actual text of the bill would finally be drafted in as "arcane," "confusing," "hard stuff to understand," and "incomprehensible." He likened it to the "gibberish" used in credit card disclosure forms.

Last week, the Finance Committee considered an amendment offered by Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) that would have required the committee to post the full actual language of the proposed legislation online for at least 72 hours before holding a final committee vote on it. The committee defeated the amendment 13-10.

Sometime in the wee hours of this morning, according to the Associated Press, the Finance Committee finished work on its health-care bill. "It was past 2 a.m. in the East--and Obama's top health care adviser, Nancy-Ann DeParle in attendance--when Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the committee chairman, announced that work had been completed on all sections of the legislation," said the AP.

Thus far, however, the committee has not produced the actual legislative text of the bill. Instead the senators have been working with “conceptual language”—or what some committee members call a “plain English” summary or description of the bill.

Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), who sits on the committee, told on Thursday that the panel was just following its standard practice in working with a “plain language description” of the bill rather than an actual legislative text.

“It’s not just conceptual, it’s a plain language description of the various provisions of the bill is what the Senate Finance Committee has always done when it passes legislation and that is turned into legislative language which is what is presented to the full Senate for consideration,” said Bingaman.

But Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who also serves on the committee, said the descriptive language the committee is working with is not good enough because things can get slipped into the legislation unseen.

“The conceptual language is not good enough,” said Cornyn. “We’ve seen that there are side deals that have been cut, for example, with some special interest groups like the hospital association to hold them harmless from certain cuts that would impact how the CBO scores the bill or determines cost. So we need to know not only the conceptual language, we need to know the detailed legislative language, and we need to know what kind of secret deals have been cut on the side which would have an impact on how much this bill is going to cost and how it will affect health care in America.”

Carper said he would "probably" read the "plain English version" of the bill as opposed to the actual text.

In a Thursday afternoon interview outside the hearing room where the Finance Committee was debating the final amendments to the still-unseen bill, Carper explained why he believes it would be useless for both members of the public and members of the Senate to read the bill’s actual text.

Committee members did not have a “clue,” he said, when one senator recently read them an example of some actual legislative language. When you look at the legislative language, he said, “it really doesn’t make much sense.”

“When you get into the legislative language, Senator Conrad actually read some of it, several pages of it, the other day and I don’t think anybody had a clue--including people who have served on this committee for decades--what he was talking about,” said Carper. “So, legislative language is so arcane, so confusing, refers to other parts of the code—‘and after the first syllable insert the word X’--and it’s just, it really doesn’t make much sense.”

Carper questioned whether anybody could read the actual legislative text and credibly claim to understand it.

If this bill became law, it would mandate dramatic changes in the U.S. health care system.

“So the idea of reading the plain English version: Yeah, I’ll probably do that,” said Carper. “The idea of reading the legislative language: It’s just anyone who says that they can do that and actually get much out of it is trying to pull the wool over our eyes.”

Carper compared the full legislative language of the bill to credit card disclosure documents that he described as “gibberish,” meaning that “you can’t read it and really know what it says.”

When asked if Republican members of the committee should have a chance to read the full text of the bill if they believe they are capable of understanding it, Carper suggested Republicans would only pretend to understand the bill when in fact they would not understand it.

“They might say that they’re reading it. They might say that they’re understanding it,” said Carper. “But that would probably be the triumph of man’s hope over experience. It’s hard stuff to understand.”

Carper said if Americans were given the chance to read the actual text of the bill he believes they would decide that it made little sense for either them—or members of Congress—to read such texts because of the difficulty in understanding them.

“I think if people had the chance to read that they’ll say you know maybe it doesn’t make much sense for either the legislators or me to read that kind of arcane language,” said Carper. “It’s just hard to decipher what it really means.” correspondent Edwin Mora contributed to this report.

Here is a full transcript of the interview with Sen. Tom Carper (D.-Del.):