Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Who's Really Managing Taxpayer's Money?

Yesterday the AP reported:
7 Accused of Bilking $375M  from Medicare, Medicaid

A Texas doctor has been charged with running a massive health fraud care scheme with thousands of fraudulent patients and intermediaries allegedly offering cash, food stamps or free groceries, to bilk Medicare and Medicaid of nearly $375 million. 

A federal indictment unsealed Tuesday charges Jacques Roy, a doctor who owned Medistat Group Associates in DeSoto, Texas, and six others in an alleged scheme to bill Medicare for home health services that were not properly billed, not medically necessary or not done.
The scheme was the largest dollar amount by a single doctor uncovered by a task force on Medicare fraud, authorities said.

U.S. Attorney Sarah Saldana accused Roy of "selling his signature" to home health agencies that rounded up thousands of patients' names and billed Medicare and Medicaid for five years.

The indictment alleged that from January 2006 through November 2011, Roy or others certified 11,000 Medicare beneficiaries for more than 500 home health service agencies — more patients than any other medical practice in the U.S. More than 75 of those agencies have had their Medicare payments suspended.

Roy, 54, is charged with several counts of health care fraud and conspiracy to commit health care fraud. He faces up to 100 years in prison if convicted on all counts. He appeared briefly in court Tuesday and is scheduled to have a detention hearing Wednesday. Authorities also moved to seize cash in Roy's bank accounts, cars and two sailboats.

His attorney, Patrick McLain, said authorities had contacted Roy months ago. McLain said it was too soon to comment on the case because prosecutors hadn't provided him with most of the evidence yet. Phone messages and emails left with Medistat, located just south of Dallas, were not immediately returned Tuesday.

The attorney for one of the home health agency owners, Cynthia Stiger, alleged to be part of the scheme called the charges and the dollar amounts listed overblown. Stiger pleaded not guilty Tuesday.

"They're not anywhere close to accurate," said Jeffrey Grass, Stiger's attorney.
Investigators for the U.S. Health and Human Services department noticed irregularities with Roy's practice about one year ago, officials said.

Roy had "recruiters" finding people to bill for home health services, said Saldana, the top federal prosecutor in Dallas. Some of those alleged patients, when approached by investigators, were found working on their cars and clearly not in need of home healthcare, she said.

Medicare patients qualify for home health care if they are confined to their homes and need care there, according to the indictment.

Saldana said Roy used the home health agencies as "his soldiers on the ground to go door to door to recruit Medicare beneficiaries."

"He was selling his signature," she said.
For example, authorities allege Charity Eleda, one of the home health agency owners charged in the scheme, visited a Dallas homeless shelter to recruit homeless beneficiaries staying at the facility, paying recruiters $50 for each person they found. A message was left Tuesday at Eleda's Dallas-based company, Charry Home Care Services, Inc.

Others indicted are accused of offering free health care and services such as food stamps to anyone who signed up and offered their Medicare number.

Food for thought:
I normally don’t post two or more blogs in one day but I couldn’t resist sharing this article because it’s a perfect caveat to my last comment regarding military defense contractors!!

Cast your vote in 2012, Vote for “A Better America!”

When was the last time you calibrated your moral compass?

As humans, it’s often difficult to admit that it doesn’t take much to convince us to either agree or disagree with something, especially if someone else or “the masses” convinces us to do so.   Like all magnetic fields, the human mind can easily be manipulated to be drawn away from its true north.

Take for example the recent Academy awards.  I wonder how many African Americans were hoping that Viola Davis would win the Oscar for “Best Actress” over Meryl Streep or Glenn Close, just because she was black or her performance was in fact deserving of winning the Oscar?

I’m not a typical movie goer and it was a few weeks after the movie “The Help” was released before I found out about it. As a 21st century African American woman quite naturally I objected to the storyline because I didn’t want to be reminded of the stories my grandmother once shared about the struggles she endured while raising her family in the “Old South.”

When I finally decided to watch the movie, I was immediately drawn to Octavia Spencer’s character because she reminded me so much of myself and her performance was well deserving of the award for “best supporting actress.”  

I was just as attracted to Meryl Streep’s role as Margaret Thatcher in the movie “Iron Lady.” I’m always inspired by other women of courage who are not afraid to stand-up against adversity, mistreatment, abuse or corruption! 

At this year’s Academy awards, the roles portrayed by the majority of the nominees were indicative of a series of historical events that modern day Americans can easily relate too.  I applaud the writers, producers and directors for being able to get across such powerful messages, to the audience, so tastefully and passionately, as well as helping us to calibrate our moral compass.

Before Americans go to the voting polls to cast their vote for the 2012 primary election, I ask you to calibrate your moral conscience, before checking the box to elect our next President.

Take a much closer look at each candidate before you decide and do your own research on the overall history and moral character of each candidate.  Don’t let the media, your family or friends or your loyalty to a particular political party convince you to vote for one candidate over the other. 

In most cases, a person’s past will reveal their true character rather than their recent political performance.

I must admit, when I first voted for President Obama I voted for him primarily because I didn’t want Sarah Palin to serve as our Vice President, so the choice was easy, and the secrets of her past has since been revealed to us.  This time around, I will vote for President Obama because I feel a kindred connection to the changes he wants for America and if given a second term in office he will be able to effectively implement those changes.

 Let’s face it; it’s extremely difficult to ignore all the media propaganda about the current administration because it’s all over the news and the internet.  Unless you have the time to lock yourself into a quiet room and read a personal biography, or two, about the background of each candidate, you most likely will be drawn to agree with the masses.  

A person’s past has a positive or negative way of resurrecting itself into the future.

Take for instance, I left home over 22 years ago and vowed that I would never return back to live in the “Old South.”  Unfortunately God had other plans for me when my mom suffered a hemorrhagic stroke, brought on by a brain aneurysm.  Through God’s grace she survived but she is now permanently disabled.

A year later (last year) I lost my father to COPD and have since settled back into my southern roots.  Every once in a while you may hear a southern twang in my voice and my devotion to helping others and standing up for righteousness is just as alive in me today as it was over 22 years ago. 

Like a friend said on facebook after Meryl Streep won the Oscar, “Meryl Streep is like fine wine in the Iron Lady…. Exquisite”

What does America means to me?

As a military veteran I’ve traveled to each continent of the world and have been exposed to many ethnic cultures.   Each one of them is now a part of who I am.  Each time I meet a Korean person I make an effort to greet them in their native language, I frequently shop at Mexican food markets, I hold conversations with Chinese restaurant owners sharing tales of my first experience of eating authentic Chinese food (in China) and climbing the “Great Wall” of China and I talk my hairstylist’s ear off with never ending questions about her home country in Africa. 

As a young Navy sailor, Hawaii was my first “so called” overseas assignment and I remember always hearing the locals calling it the rainbow state. At first I wasn’t sure if it was because of all the beautiful rainbows that appeared after the rain, which was often or because the islands were so multi-cultural. 

Isn’t that what America is… “multi-cultural?”

As America slowly evolves into the 21st century we are becoming one big melting pot of millions of people from different religious and ethnic backgrounds. We’re not going to be able to erase our past or ever change what happened to our ancestors but we can certainly erase our racial differences by coming together to make America a better life for our next generation, which is exactly what I believe President Obama also wants for all Americans, “A Better America” a country that we can all be proud of!

I’m sure President Obama could’ve easily chosen to pursue a lucrative career to become a high priced corporate lawyer, instead he chose to help bring about change for America through public service, now that’s “True Character” that you will never get from a million dollar television ad!

Cast your vote in 2012, VOTE for “A Better America!”

Monday, February 27, 2012

Could this be a Blatant Senate Ethics Violation and Violation of Federal Law?

On February 17, the Washington Exec reported:  

Northrop Grumman Corporation announced that former U.S. Navy Admiral Gary Roughead will be joining the company’s Board of Directors. 

The election of Admiral Roughead brings Northrop Grumman’s board members to 13 and 12 of the 13 members are non-employee directors.

“Gary Roughead brings to our board a deep understanding of the global security challenges our nation and its allies are facing,” said Northrop Grumman Chairman, CEO and President, Wes Bush. “He possesses outstanding leadership experience and expertise, and is an excellent addition to our board as we continue to advance our performance for our shareholders, customers and employees.”

Admiral Roughead Gary Roughead is a retired United States Navy four-star admiral
who last served as the 29th Chief of Naval Operations from September 29, 2007 to September 22, 2011. He previously served as Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command, from May 17, 2007, to September 29, 2007.

Food for thought:
During his tenure as Chief of Naval Operations, did Admiral Roughead give favor to Northrop Grumman over more competitive  defense contracting companies such as General Dynamics?   

Was this sweet-heart deal pay-pack for his efforts and to ensure he would lobby to ensure the company is awarded additional contracts and certain programs are not cut, in the wake of the DoD defense budget cuts?

You can read more about Northrop Grumman online: 

I ask that you pay particular attention to the section which discusses the companies “Political contributions and governmental ties” and “Scandal.”  

The revolving door " is the movement of personnel between roles as legislators and regulators and the industries affected by the legislation and regulation and on within lobbying companies. In some cases the roles are performed in sequence but in certain circumstances may be performed at the same time."

Political analysts claim that an unhealthy relationship can develop between the private sector and government, based on the granting of reciprocated privileges to the detriment of the nation and can lead to regulatory capture.

In his farewell address, President Eisenhower warned us of an industrialized military complex.

Lobbying in the United States:
"Under current law, government officials who make contracting decisions must either wait a year before joining a military contractor or, if they want to switch immediately, must start in an affiliate or division unrelated to their government work. " 

Admiral Roughead retired in September, less than 5 months ago!

Does federal law only apply to certain individuals and not to others, which explains why I’m the only person in U.S. military history (probably U.S. history) to be selectively prosecuted and sent to prison for “Adultery” as a non-married person!

 How ironic, Admiral Roughhead was serving as the Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command when his command was in charge of investigating my complaints of fraud and Civil Rights violations.

U.S. Fleet Forces Command is in charge of managing the budget and the Navy’s Equal Opportunity program for the entire Atlantic Fleet, including my former command’s budget and EO program, Maritime Coastal Warfare Security Group One, located in San Diego.

His successor, Admiral Jonathan Greenert took over the investigation into my EO complaints and IG complaints, but felt it was necessary to ensure I was locked up behind bars so they could ensure their dirty little secrets were kept quiet.

I assume this is why the DoD IG chose not to conduct a re-investigation into my reprisal complaints last year?  

After granting me an appeal and falsely leading me to believe I was “next in que” to have my case assigned to the be investigated by the next available IG investigator, a few weeks before Admiral Greenert was sworn in to become the next CNO, I received a certified letter from DoD IG stating my case is CLOSED!!

Sunday, February 26, 2012

Federal Law which Prohibits DoD Revolving Practices



IMPORTANT NOTICE:  This information was prepared to assist Department of Defense (DoD) personnel who receive their ethics support from the DoD Standards of Conduct Office (SOCO) and who are planning to leave Government service.  It summarizes the restrictions of the Procurement Integrity Act, and the regulations that implement it, on the activities of Government personnel while they are seeking employment and after they leave Government service.  Because restrictions are dependent on specific facts, and because this information is a summary of the rules, these DoD personnel should contact SOCO at (703) 695‑3422 or by e‑mail at to discuss their particular situations.  DoD personnel served by other ethics offices should contact their ethics counselors.  Of course, if you want, you may also consult with private counsel. 

Advice from ethics counselors with respect to these matters is advisory only, and is provided in accordance with 5 C.F.R. 2635.107 and 41 U.S.C. 423 (Procurement Integrity Act).  Ethics counselors are acting on behalf of the United States, and not as your personal representative.  There is no attorney-client relationship created by the consultation.  You may, however, rely, in good faith, on written opinions given under the Procurement Integrity Act.

WARNING:  Other restrictions, such as those that apply to all Government employees, may also affect your official activities.  Your ethics counselor should explain these rules as well.

Part 1: Restrictions While Seeking Private Employment
(BEFORE You Leave DoD)

            1.1     SIMPLIFIED RULE: Once you have started seeking employment with a bidder or offeror, you may not take any official action in a $100,000+ DoD procurement.

                        1.1.1    RULE: An agency official may not participate personally and substantially in a $100,000+ DoD procurement when seeking employment with a bidder or offeror in the procurement.  (28 C.F.R. 3.104-4(c))

                           “$100,000+ DoD procurement” - DoD acquisition, using competitive procedures and appropriated funds, for a contract in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold, currently $100,000.

                           “Personal and substantial” participation - You must be “personally and substantially” involved with the procurement to be disqualified.  This means that you are directly participating or that one or more of your subordinates, whom you are actively and directly supervising, is participating.  "Personal and substantial participation" means active and significant involvement in ANY of the following activities directly related to the procurement:
            -drafting, reviewing, or approving the specification or statement of work;                           -preparing or developing the solicitation;
            -evaluating bids or proposals;
            -selecting a source;
            -negotiating price or terms and conditions; or
            -reviewing and approving the award. 

                                    Participation solely in the following activities is NOT “personal and substantial” participation:
-Agency-level boards, panels, or advisory committees that review program milestones or evaluate and recommend alternate technologies or approaches for broad agency-level missions or objectives;
            -General, technical, engineering, or scientific effort with broad application;
            -Clerical functions; 
-A-76 management studies, preparation of in-house cost estimates, preparation of “most efficient organization” analyses, and furnishing data or technical support in developing performance standards, statements of work, or specifications; and
-Reviews conducted solely to determine compliance with regulatory, administrative, or budgetary procedures.

                                    “Personal and substantial” participation for Procurement Integrity Act purposes may be more limited in breadth than “personal and substantial” participation as defined for 18 U.S.C. 208 and 207. 

                           “Seeking employment” - If the above definitions apply to your situation, then you may not “seek” employment unless you first disqualify yourself.  “Seeking employment” is contacting or being contacted by a bidder or offeror regarding possible non-Federal employment.  For DoD purposes, there is an “employment contact” when you are “seeking employment,” as discussed in the SOCO synopsis of general employment restrictions.  See 5 C.F.R. 2635.601 - 2635.606.

                        1.1.2    Disqualification:  Disqualification is simple — Don’t do ANY work on the task!  To help you accomplish this, you are required to submit a written notice to the head to the contracting activity (HCA), with copies to the contracting officer, source selection authority, your immediate supervisor, and ethics counselor.  The written disqualification must identify the procurement, describe the nature and specific dates of your participation in the procurement, and identify the bidder or offeror and describe its interest.

                        1.1.3    Resumption of Participation:  The HCA has the discretion to authorize, in writing, your resumed participation at a future date only when one of two conditions has been met: the potential employer is no longer a bidder or offeror; or all employment discussions have terminated without an agreement.  The HCA must consider all factors that might give rise to an appearance that you may act without complete impartiality and must consult with the ethics official.  The HCA may decide not to authorize resumed participation.

            1.2       RULE: An agency official must promptly report, in writing, to his or her supervisor and ethics official, an employment contact with a bidder or offeror in a $100,000+ DoD procurement.

                        1.2.1.   This requirement applies even when you promptly reject the employment contact.

Part 2.  Employment Restrictions After Leaving DoD

            2.1       SIMPLIFIED RULE: For 1 year after a designated date, you may not accept compensation from the concerned contractor on a $10 million+ DoD contract on which you performed designated services.

                        2.1.1    RULE: For a period of 1 year after a designated date, former Government officials may not accept compensation from the concerned contractor on a $10 million+ DoD competitively awarded or non-competitively awarded contract if the former officials served or acted in any of the following capacities: (48  C.F.R. 3.104-4(d))

A.  Procuring contracting officers, source selection authorities, members of source selection evaluation boards, and chiefs of financial or technical evaluation teams
Designated date:        
If you served on the date of selection, but not the date of award - Date of selection. 
                        If you served on the date of award - Date of award of the contact.

B.  Program managers, deputy program managers, and administrative contracting officers
                        Designated date:  Last date of service in those positions.
                        For DoD purposes, concerned contractors are prime contractors.

C.  Officials who personally made any of the following decisions:
                        1) to award contracts, subcontracts, or modifications of contracts or subcontracts, or task or delivery orders in excess of $10,000,000,
                        2) to establish overhead or other rates valued in excess of $10,000,000,
                        3) to approve issuance of a contract payment in excess of $10,000,000, or
                        4) to pay or settle a claim in excess of $10,000,000.
                        Designated date - the date of decision.

                            “Compensation” - any form of compensation provided directly or indirectly for services rendered as an employee, director or consultant. 

                            “$10 million+” - determined by the following:
                                    -Contract, including all options - value or estimated value at the time of award
                        -Indefinite-delivery/indefinite quantity or requirements contract - total estimated value of all orders at the time of award
                                    -Any multiple award schedule contract, unless contracting officer documents a lower estimate
                                    -Basic Ordering Agreement - value of delivery order, task order or order
                                    -Claims - amount paid or to be paid in settlement
                                    -Negotiated overhead or other rates - estimated monetary value, when applied to the Government portion of the applicable allocation base.

                        2.1.2    EXCEPTION: You may accept compensation from any division or affiliate of the contractor that does not produce the same or similar products or services as the entity responsible for the contract.

                           “same or similar” - It is DoD guidance that a product or service must be “dissimilar enough” from that under the contract to warrant use of the exception.  It is not sufficient that the product or service is produced by a division on the commercial, as opposed to the government, side of the contractor.  Any amount of the “same or similar” product or service is sufficient to trigger the compensation ban.

                        2.1.3    If you do not know whether you may accept any compensation, you may make a written (signed and dated) request for advice, prior to accepting any compensation, from your agency ethics official.  The ethics official must issue a written opinion within 30 days after receiving complete information as to whether the compensation would be proper or a violation.  The ethics official may rely on that information, unless there is reason to believe that the information is fraudulent, misleading, or otherwise incorrect.  You and the contractor may make good faith reliance on that written opinion, i.e., that neither you nor the contractor have actual knowledge or reason to believe that the opinion is based on fraudulent, misleading, or otherwise incorrect information.
Part 3: Other Restrictions

            3.1       Other restrictions, such as those that apply to all Government employees, may also affect your activities.  Your ethics counselor should explain these rules as well.  If you believe that these Procurement Integrity restrictions are the only ones that will apply to you, you are mistaken.

Part 4:  Administrative Reminders

            4.1       QUESTIONSPLEASE CALL US:  If you have questions, even after you leave Government service, please call your ethics counselor or the DoD Standards of Conduct Office:  (703) 695-3422.  Fax:  (703) 697-1640.  E-mail:   We would much rather talk to you before you take action, than read adverse reports about you (from the IG or in the media) after you have taken the action.

            4.2       Thank you for your service to your country.

(This guidance was produced by the DoD General Counsel’s Office [Standards of Conduct Office], SOCO@OSDGC.OSD.MIL or (703)695-3422).

February 26, 2012

Saturday, February 25, 2012

Imagine a World Without Free Knowledge

Project on Government Oversight - POGO  
recently reported
New Cybersecurity Act Would Undermine FOIA and Whistleblower Protections

With all the uproar over the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA)--both of which promptedwidespread online protests--it was easy to forget that the Senate had another cybersecurity bill in the works. But on Tuesday, a group of Senate committee leaders started rushing passage of the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 (S.2105). Although this cybersecurity bill doesn’t include the SOPA/PIPA executive "kill switch"—it still threatens to undermine whistleblowers, FOIA, and open government efforts.  
Wikipedia may not be protesting yet, but POGO and its allies are definitely taking action.
Yesterday, we sent a letter to the Senators behind the bill—Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Susan Collins (R-ME), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)—pointing out that the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 “creates unnecessary, overbroad and unwise limitations to access of information, including broad exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and jeopardizes the rights of whistleblowers.”
Firstly, Section 107 of the bill includes an exceedingly broad definition of “critical infrastructure information,” which can exempt information from FOIA that is crucial for the public’s understanding of public health and safety risks (like the information about the deadly water contamination that occurred at Camp Lejeune.) The bill’s proposed exemption also conflicts with Congress’ recent “public interest balancing test,” which requires the Pentagon to weigh the interests of the public when attempting to withhold critical infrastructure security information.
Secondly, the language in Section 704(d) relating to cybersecurity threat indicators is troublingly broad. We don’t know what kind of information will be shared in the newly-created cybersecurity exchanges. With that in mind, it doesn’t make sense to blanket all public access to this information before we understand what’s covered.

Finally, POGO and allies have concerns that Section 107(e) narrowly defines free speech rights, and doesn’t align with current whistleblower protections. This could potentially limit the lawful disclosures of wrongdoing made by whistleblowers.
The Senators behind the bill are claiming that it already has broad congressional and industry support—which is why it’s being moved hastily to the Senate floor. But this bill certainly doesn’t have support from open and accountable government advocates.
“This legislation is far too complex and its reach far too extensive for fast tracking. The many implications for access to information and whistleblower protections should not have been negotiated behind closed doors,” said POGO Director of Public Policy Angela Canterbury. “We hope Majority Leader Reid and the senators advancing the bill will end the rush to pass it to avoid dangerous, unintended consequences.”
Food for thought:
Why does it seem like we are gradually evolving into a world like in the movie the "Matrix".  While the social media is busy feeding us propaganda keeping our minds preoccupied with reality TV shows and other sources of entertainment, Congress is busy wasting our tax money and voting to take away our rights.  
The sad thing is, half of America is too busy fighting with one another to even notice!!

Was this a Political move for the U.S. Navy?

African-American woman makes history as new CO of USS Mitscher
WVEC.COM ABC Channel 13 News

NORFOLK -- History was made Friday as Cmdr. Monika Washington Stoker took command of the Norfolk-based guided-missile destroyer USS Mitscher.

She's the first African-American woman serving as Commanding Officer of an Arleigh Burke-class Aegis guided missile destroyer, the Navy said.

"It says that you do whatever you want to do, whether it's in the military or not and don't let anyone tell you that you can't," Stoker said.

She relieved Cmdr. Brian Sorenson, who served as commanding officer for two years.

Stoker, a native of Greensboro, N.C., served as USS Mitscher's Executive Officer since June 2010.


Food for thought:
As "Black History Month" slowly draws to an end, the Navy wanted to go down in history to prove they are still moving at a snail’s pace on improving racial and gender equality.

I must admit, the headline of this article did immediately grab my attention. 

I was a bit disappointed after reading the last sentence; "CDR Stoker had served as the XO onboard the Mitscher since June 2010.”

Having served in the Navy for nearly 20 years, I view this as a slap in the face, not just to women of color, but to all female Surface Warfare officers. 

Instead of transferring CDR Stoker to a new ship where she could competitively test and prove her leadership skills, the Navy chose to let her “fleet up” and assume command of a ship she’d served on for over a year in a half. 

 Is this a fair or unfair advantage?!

The Navy was definitely playing it safe this time; I guess they wanted to avoid another "Holly Graf" incident.

I'm sure we all recall the infamous Holly Graf, nicknamed by journalists, "Horrible Holly".   

Captain Graf was the first white female to command an Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer, USS Winston Churchill and the first to command a Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruiser, USS Cowpens.

Unfortunately while in command of both ships the Navy's poster child failed miserably as a leader.  In early 2010 the former Commanding Officer of the USS Cowpens was relieved of command after creating an extremely hostile working environment and poisonous atmosphere for her crew.

Her story is one of the worse examples of proven failed Navy leadership, yet one of the best examples of military workplace abuse.  Even after numerous allegations of mistreatment of her crew members were substantiated by a Navy IG investigation, next month Captain Graf will be retiring from the Navy with her full pension intact.  

She will most likely be offered a handsome defense contracting position, like the rest of her fellow Navy Academy graduates.

And I’m sure there sons and daughters will continue to carry on their family traditions…

Despite the outcome of the Navy’s final IG investigation reports, indicating my chain of command did not commit reprisal acts against me, Holly’s mistreatment of her crew members will never measure up to what they did to me.  I'll save those details for a later blog and further in-depth details are outlined in my memoir.

Nevertheless, I'm still proud of Commander Stoker!

I'm sure she will continue to be an outstanding leader and prove to the Good ol' Boys, " Women don't have to be a tyrant and act like one of them to get the job."  

I wish her much success as the new Commanding of the USS Mistcher.

Friday, February 24, 2012

Lawsuit claims Obama can't be president because he's 'mulatto'

If we thought President Obama silenced all the birthers by releasing his long form birth certificate last year, think again. Apparently, some folks still have doubts and are taking it one step further: to court.
Tuesday, Gordon Warren Epperly filed a lawsuit in Alaska challenging President Obama's inclusion on the 2012 presidential ballot. What's Epperly's beef? Apparently, he feels Negroes and mulattoes can't be president because they aren't really citizens.
His lawsuit states:
Barack Hussein Obama II, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama, a.ka. Barack H. Obama has the race status of being a "mulatto." Barack Obama's father (Barack Hussein Obama I) was a full blood Negro being born Nyang'oma Kogelo, Nyanza Province, Kenya and raised in the Colony of Kenya. Barack Obama's mother (Stanley Ann Dunham) was a white Caucasian woman being born in Wichita, Kansas on November 29, 1942 and raised in the state of Washington and in the state of Hawaii.
The petition concludes:
As stated above, for an Individual to be a candidate for the office of president of the United States, the candidate must meet the qualifications set forth in the United States Constitution and one of those qualifications is that the Candidate shall be a "natural born citizen" of the United States. As Barack Hussein Obama II is of the "mulatto" race, his status of citizenship is founded upon the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Before the [purported] ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the race of "Negro" or "mulatto" had no standing to be citizens of the United States under the United States Constitution.
Contrary to the argument presented in the pleading, the Fourteenth Amendment defined citizenship and granted both civil and political rights to those born in the United States. Moreover, it made it illegal for any state to deny those rights. Also, the Fourteenth Amendment effectively overturned the Dred Scott decision (of 1857), which found that slaves and their descendants could never be U.S. citizens.
While this case has very little chance of being won in court, it is a stark reminder of the challenges and racist attitudes many of us continue to face.
Food for thought:  
To quote Rodney King, "Can we all just get along."  That's all I have to say about that!