Lunes, 29 de noviembre de 2010
?

Understanding ?The Jack Maskell Memorandum?

By far the most frequently asked question in America since August 28, 2008, the closing day of the 2008 Democratic National Convention, is this: ?Does Barack Hussein Obama meet the constitutional qualifications to serve as President of the United States?? With every reason to believe that he does not, the second most-asked question has been, ?How could every single member of Congress? all 535 of them? fail in their constitutional obligation to properly vet Obama?s qualifications before certifying the vote of the 2008 Electoral College??

For the past two years Americans have been flooding congressional offices with demands for answers to these questions. And now we know. The answer to the first question is, ?No, Obama is not eligible to serve as president because he is not a ?natural born? U.S. citizen.? The answer to the second question is, ?The Jack Maskell Memorandum.?

But before we approach the question of who Jack Maskell might be, and the role he plays in what history will doubtless record as the greatest single crime of all time, let?s first review the facts surrounding Obama?s eligibility. Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states that, ?No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.?

We know that Obama was not a citizen of the United States at the time the Constitution was adopted, we know that he was at least thirty-five years of age when he took office in January 2009, and we know that he had been a U.S. resident for at least fourteen years at the time he was nominated. But is he a ?natural born? citizen? What is a ?natural born? citizen, and how do we prevent someone who is not a natural born citizen from becoming president or vice president?

When the Founding Fathers met in Philadelphia in September 1787 to sign the final draft of the U.S. Constitution, the physical scars of the War of Independence from Great Britain were still visible all around them and a deep-seated animosity toward all things British colored every aspect of their daily lives. So is it even conceivable that, just five years and eleven months after Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown, the Founders would have affixed their signatures to a document that would allow an individual with divided loyalties ? e.g., an individual with dual US-British citizenship ? to serve as president or vice president of the United States? Not likely.

That is precisely why the Framers found it necessary to include the words, ?or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this constitution?? At the time the Constitution was adopted, every citizen of the thirteen colonies was a British subject, or a citizen of some other country. And since the founders wished to exclude all those with dual citizenship (divided loyalties) from serving as president or vice president at any time in the future, they provided an exemption of limited duration for those who were officially U.S. residents at the time and who might wish to serve as president or vice president after reaching the age of thirty-five.

For example, George Washington was 57 years of age when he was inaugurated as our first president. But Washington, born and raised in Virginia, had been a British subject during all of his 57-plus years. Hence, as a means of qualifying a class of men for the presidency during the first thirty-five years of our nationhood, while preventing any man with dual or naturalized citizenship from ever serving as president, after a pool of ?natural born? men had reached the age of thirty-five? limiting access to those offices only to those born to parents, both of whom were U.S. citizens? the founders included the words, ?or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this constitution??

Few Americans, not even our distinguished members of Congress, have ever stopped to consider what those sixteen simple words mean, or, more importantly, who they exclude from presidential consideration. That is why, after sitting silently in their chairs while the names of 365 Obama electors were read from the Speaker?s rostrum, not a single member of Congress rose to object? preferring instead to hide behind the legal skirts of the Congressional Research Service (CRS) and their Legislative Attorney, Jack Maskell.

Read More: By Paul Hollrah, Bob McCarty.com


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 16:48
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar


?

The Supreme Court failed to uphold the Constitution


?

There are many things I could say about the ruling not to grant a writ of certiorari to Kerchner et al v. Obama et al, but leave that aside for the Supreme Court of the United States has that right.


?

It would be interesting to know why this writ was denied, but if on looks closely at page 15 of the order, one sees these consecutive cases,


?

10-416 MONTEJO, JESSE J. V. LOUISIANA

The petitions for writs of certiorari are denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of these petitions.


?

10-446 KERCHNER, CHARLES, ET AL. V. OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL.

The motion of Western Center for Journalism for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.


?

10-560 SCHULZ, ROBERT L. V. FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, ET AL.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


?

The only question I have and I am sure over 50% of Americans have is why did we not see on the Kerchner order the following Justices Kagan and Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.Seriously, they did not recuse themselves. They were appointed by the usurper Obama!


?

Was not both Justices Kagan and Sotomayor appointed by the usurper? Do they not have a financial stake in this? Was not inJustice Kagan the Solicitor General whose name is on previous Justice Department documents concerning Obama's ineligibility?


?

?

Justice (Mata) Sotomayor

Justice (Hari) Kagan


?

Obama's MataHari

Left looking ?legal barflies? aren't they?


?

It is not what the order says, it is what it doesn't say will haunt the Roberts court throughout history. What was the vote count, and what would have happened if Kagan and Sotomayor recused themselves? Why are they not taking part in some deliberations, but in the one where they have a financial stake in, they interject their opinion? We all knew for a long time no one was watching the store when it came to Article II, Section 1; but who is watching the store when it comes to the Justice's ethics, professionalism, and sense of fair and unbiased justice?


?

Chief Justice Robert's can you explain why this conflict of interest was allowed to fester on your Court?


?

We could have survived a constitutional crisis and came out the better for it, but if any thing comes to light concerning this that proves Obama is a usurper it will forever destroy what little faith people have in the government.


?

But one thing is for certain, Obama was NOT proven to be a natural-born citizen as required by the Constitution of the United States of America. He is still in office because of a legal concept called standing.


?

No wonder he is the laughing stock of the world's leaders,


?

AND that is what is going to haunt Obama forever. To insure that these lawsuits stop, Obama is not even going to be a one term pResident, he will be forced out of office under the 25th amendment before the first recess of the new Congress. Once he tries ?ruling? by fiat executive order, the new Congress will hold hearings. Not because it is the right thing to do, but because their political and possibly personal future would be at stake.


?

I guess Obama borrowed too much money and spent it on the SEIU and ACORN to tell China, ?so sorry we are not going to honor the debt the usurper put us in.?


?

Or just maybe it is the simple fact that both Justices Kagan and Sotomayor could not find honest employment outside of that which is tax payer subsidized?


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 16:01
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Supreme Court Denies Kerchner vs Obama.

Uses WikiLeaks Drama as The Perfect Distraction ?











By Steve Cooper
The Conservative Monster.com




I think it is safe to say that today was the perfect day for the Supreme Court to dump Obama Eligibility case,? Kerchner vs Obama. The media is in high gear over the WikiLeaks File dump, but this case that was masterfully put together by Mario Apuzzo and Commander Kerchner will not see the light of day in the media due to the intense blackout on the Obama eligibility issue. I have never seen such panic in my life of observing politics over one issue that was supposedly settled ON THE INTERNET LOL. You have to laugh...


I predicted this case would be denied or dismissed last week on my radio show and it has nothing to do with Commander Kerchner not having standing or the case. It has to do with the corruption in our legal system to protect the liars that put a Usurper into office. Clarence Thomas admitted on video "we are avoiding that issue", while joking about eligibility. I am glad that the elitist traitors are getting a good chuckle over the biggest violation of the U.S. Constitution ever.


Commander Kerchner went this far and he had to go all of the way, he is a patriot.


This will go under the radar thanks to the other collaborators at Fox News, because they really are the ones that should be reporting this, but they are not. The American sheep have to obey Glenn Beck's blackboard, after all Beck insists that Obama was born in Hawaii, even though Obama's grandmother seems to disagree with him. How dare I question the great Glenn Beck with boldness...



So, what is next for this issue? Like I said, the only hope is for states to adopt eligibility statutes individually to require all presidential candidates to PROVE that they are eligible to be president. Also, another big blow was that the natural born citizen definition controversy will continue thanks to the cowardice and treason of the Supreme Court.


Click here for MORE



Comm. Kerchner and Mario Apuzzo on The Conservative Monster radio show

Obama Eligibility Archives


Share this story

Bookmark and Share


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 15:25
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Monday, November 29, 2010

The Birther Beat Goes On: Author of "Obama Identity" on Fox News; Obama's Grandmother Said Obama Was Born in Mombasa, Kenya!

?

Video; This would be funny if it wasn't true. Watch how the Fox News hosts quickly change the subject when the former congressman and author of "Obama Identity" John Leboutillier brings up the fact that Obama's Kenyan grandmother stated numerous times on the record that Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya.

The fact is numerous individuals in Kenya stated on the record that Obama was indeed born in Kenya, which includes Kenyan government officials. Even Obama's own wife stated on video that Obama is Kenyan. The question remains; when in the hell will the American media do their job and investigate and report the truth about Obama's questionable and criminal past!?

Hat tip to the Conservative Monster for the Fox video clip.

Visit the Birther Vault for the long list of evidence against Hawaii officials and all of the people questioning Obama's eligibility; [http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/08/video-ltc-terry-lakins-attorney-on-cnn.html].






Minister in Kenyan Natl Assembly on 25Mar2010 states Obama "born in Kenya" - "not native American"
Kenyan Ministers Orengo & Khalwale: Obama "born in Kenya"-"not native American"-"should repatriate"
"BookmarkShare??

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 14:53
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/supreme-court-cowards/

Supreme Court?COWARDS

?2010 drkate

The time has arrived, Patriots.? Our entire system has been corrupted, and the cowardice of the Supreme Court has been fully exposed.? There is no legal reason why the Kerchner Petition was denied, obviously the Supremes were unable to come up with a single reason why they denied cert.

They couldn?t come up with a reason?except ?politics??and that wouldn?t look very Supreme Court like, now would it?

We know that Kerchner and Apuzzo are right on the law?not one argument put up by Obama?s team went to the merits of the case.? And they argued that we don?t have standing, as the American people?they urged the court to ignore the law, the constitution, history, and the people it is supposed to serve.

This lack of response to the merits means that Kerchner proved Obama is ineligible.

There is no more conspiracy?it is true, the United States government was overthrown in 2008. And the Supreme Court has now effectively stated that anyone can be president in our country, to heck with Article II or any aspect of the constitution.

We must acknowledge that God does have a plan; that this defeat is part of it.? He has placed in our way even more challenges?would the removal of Obama have placated our souls so that we would do no more work for our Country?? Would we go ?back to our lives??

Now is the time for all good men and women to come to the aid of their country.? Remember, the danger for LTC Terry Lakin is now immensely greater.? And our national security is at great risk.

I?ve got lots more to say, and plans are already hatching.? To those obots and obamathugs watching this blog, you won?t know of these plans until they hit you.

Courage and the Constitution:? this is our clarion call.? All your life has prepared you for this moment.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 12:30
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

?

?


The motion of Western Center for

?

Journalism


for leave to file a brief

?

as amicus curiae is granted.

?




http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/112910zor.pdf


Amicus Curiae Brief filed by the Western


Center for Journalism to Support Kerchner

v Obama Petition


Amicus Curiae Brief filed by the Western Center for Journalism to Support Kerchner v Obama Petition


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 12:09
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

I just received an email from Victoria Windsor. The Supreme Court has denied Apuzzo?s Writ for Certiorari ? they gave NO explanation whatsoever.

This tells me the Supreme Court is a now complicit in the cover-up of Obama?s eligibility.

Right before Thanksgiving I received an email from a person who claimed to Clerk for Judge Thomas. I didn?t know the person so I was hoping it was a crank email. Turns out the person was telling the truth.

He said, ?the Supreme Court would announce on Monday and give no explanation.? He further said, ?most of the clerks at the Supreme Court were liberal and were laughing at Apuzzo and the Case.? You know that Apuzzo and Kerchner have spent in excess of a $million dollars on this case.

This tells you we have a VERY, VERY SICK Government. ALL 3 BRANCHES ARE COMPLICIT in the COVER-UP.

I have said from the start, the States and the People NEED to take control. We are never going to get the Federal Government (EVER) to do the right thing. They ALL fear for their jobs or they are all so corrupt they flat don?t give a damn.

This is disgusting. Everyone, including most Congress Members and Supreme Court Justices know that Obama is dirty.

Sorry folks ? you get the kind of Government that you vote into Office. We have many people in this Country that are just fine with corruption and evil running the Government as long as they get their pay check or piece of the tax pie.

It will not change unless the States and the People stop it!

Comments

??

  • Don says:

    George Soros. Nuff said.

  • 29, 2010 at 10:54 am
  • Sarah says:

    Sad day for justice in this country. I wish I would?ve believed the guy that said he was a scotus clerk, I was so excited and anxious waiting all weekend for the news. I could?ve relaxed if I knew the decision was already made by Friday. Dumb me.

  • Tabasco says:

    I am in a state of shock.

    I hope to hear more today on the situation.

    In Argentina the Supreme Court and the all the politicians abandoned the people as the Banksters took over the country and all its wealth leaving the people to starve to death in the streets. Watch the video. It takes time but I watched the entire video all 12 parts of it. it is shocking that America is in the same boat. here is the start Part 1. ARGENTINA?S ECONOMIC COLLAPSE.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rH6_i8zuffs

    It is important to watch because it is exactly the same thing happening here in America as happened in Argentina. We are now going into our economic collapse. This is titled ARGENTINA?S ECONOMIC COLLAPSE.

    Notice how the politicians run to clean up the mess and then immediately switch sides once elected.

    We need a true reformer like Palin more than ever. Phony reformers will only sell us down the drain. Watch the movie. It is all true story on how the Banksters took over Argentina. And since it worked they will keep repeating the same thing until they own the world.

    The Federal Reserve with the interest on all money is the root cause of our problem. That video I gave here before. that is the one on THE SECRET OF OZ. But the video on Argentina supports the same view. The problem in society is the BANKSTERS.

  • ledbythnose says:

    Larry was right on the money the other day about this travesty. I hate to have to admit it Folks but the fix is in and there will be no investigation nor will there be any trial of this issue on a Federal level period. Bob and many others have worked tirelessly over the last 2+ years trying to bring this thing to a head and sadly to no avail. Soetoro will not be brought down by the eligibility issue period.We can now only hope that Mr.Issa will bring Impeachment charges against this Marxist Regime.It makes my blood boil that the American People can no longer depend on Government for Constitutional standing. If no charges are brought against Soetoro and his minions after January then I think we know what must happen at that point.The Second Amendment was designed by the Founders for exactly this situation and it will be up to EVERY American Citizen to use WHATEVER MEANS NECCESSARY to remove,arrest and prosecute these Traitors, and I mean right down to the local Civil level. Bottom line is be prepared for REVOLUTION! Long live the Republic and may we have the resolve to reclaim it for posterity sake so help us God!
    Godspeed.

  • Larry says:

    WELL, NOW, SCOTUS has announced that our Nation in NOW a ?Land OF NO LAWS!!?
    IF they have Refused to accept the Articles of the Constitution, the have in ESSENCE declared the Constitution of the United States of America a NON-BINDING, NULLIFIED Document and have NULLIFIED ALL OF GOVERNMENT!! As of this MOMENT, We are WITHOUT LAW~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    ?HOUSTON, WE HAVE A PROBLEM!!!!

  • ??


    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:28
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

    ?

    Monday, November 29, 2010

    Supreme Court Denies Kerchner v Obama Petition; Justices Continue Evading Obama's Eligibility to be President and Commander-in-Chief.

    ?


    Supreme Court Denies Kerchner v. Obama/Congress/Pelosi Petition

    for a Writ of Certiorari; Justices Continue Evading Obama's Eligibility

    to be President and Commander-in-Chief...


    Via the SCOTUS Order List for 11/29/10: 10-446 - KERCHNER,

    CHARLES, ET AL. V. OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL.


    The motion of Western Center for Journalism for leave to file a brief as

    amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.


    Check back later for any updates and or news regarding this expected

    but disgracful decision by the SCOTUS. Justice Thomas stuck by his
    words!



    The full SCOTUS Order List and Petition embedded below.

    Previous reports on Kerchner v Obama can be found here.

    Visit the Birther Vault for the long list of evidence against Hawaii

    officials and all of the people questioning Obama's eligibility;

    [http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/08/video-ltc-terry-lakins-attorney-on-cnn.html].
    Kerchner et al v. Obama/Congress/Pelosi et al - Supreme Court Order List Page 15 - 11/29/10
    Kerchner v Obama/Congress/Pelosi - Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed with the U.S. Supreme Court - 9/30...
    Kerchner v Obama/Congress/Pelosi - Amicus Curiae Brief Filed by the Western Center for Journalism to Suppor...
    Obama Ineligible - I tried and lied but it won't go away! Wash Times Natl Wkly 2010-11-08 pg 5

    1 comments:

    Anonymoussaid...

    I'm not surprised one bit. Shame on them!

    Post a Comment

    ?


    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:50
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

    Sunday, November 28, 2010

    Obama Ineligible! Obama: I Tried and Lied But It Won't Go Away! Washington Times National Weekly - 29 Nov 2010 Issue - Pg 5

    Obama Ineligible! Obama: I Tried and Lied But It Won't Go Away! Washington Times National Weekly - 29 Nov 2010 Issue - Pg 5
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/44262283/Obama-Ineligible-I-tried-and-lied-but-it-won-t-go-away-Wash-Times-Natl-Wkly-2010-11-29-pg-5

    Article II "Natural Born Citizen" Means Unity of Citizenship and Sole Allegiance At Birth:

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/04/article-ii-natural-born-citizen-means.html

    A Catalog of Evidence - Concerned Americans Have Good Reason to Doubt that Putative President Obama Was Born in Hawaii:

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/catalog-of-evidence-concerned-americans.html

    U.S. Supreme Court Orders Will Be Posted at This Link at 10 a.m. 29 Nov 2010:
    ?

    cfkerchner said...

    Our Petition Was Denied.

    10-446 KERCHNER, CHARLES,

    ET AL. V. OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF U.S.,

    ET AL.


    The motion of Western Center for Journalism

    for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted.

    ?

    The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.



    http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/112910zor.pdf



    CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
    Lead Plaintiff
    Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al

    http://www.protectourliberty.org

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com
    ####

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:45
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    ?
    ??

    LTC Lakin Named ?Man of the Year?

    ??
    ?

    ARE THERE OTHERS DESERVING?

    by David F. LaRocque

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/11/28/ltc-lakin-named-man-of-the-year/ltc-lakin-4/

    Is there legitimate authority to court-martial this man, or any member of the Armed Forces, while a question remains about the eligibility of the putative commander-in-chief?

    (Nov. 28, 2010) ? Friends and Patriots,

    The court-martial of LTC Lakin is scheduled to convene on December 14, 2010. The defendant in this case, Colonel Terry Lakin has been recognized by the web site www.theconservativemonster.com as its 2010 ?Man of the Year.?

    Colonel Lakin, a decorated and highly-regarded U.S. Army physician with multiple prior overseas deployments, has been charged with dereliction of duty for his refusal to accept deployment orders until his request for verification of the legitimacy of those orders has been provided in connection with the resolution of the issues surrounding the eligibility of the de facto commander-in-chief.

    While Colonel Lakin is, in my opinion, highly deserving of this recognition, it must be remembered that, in addition to the pending Lakin court-martial, there are now three eligibility-related cases which have reached the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking acceptance for a decision by that court by means of a legal procedure known as a ?petition for a writ of certiorari.?? The plaintiff in each of these three cases is a present or former U.S. military officer, as follows:

    1) Kerchner et al v. Obama et al, CDR Charles Kerchner USNR (ret) plaintiff, Mario Apuzzo Esq., counsel (http://puzo1.blogspot.com );

    2) Rhodes v. McDonald, CPT Connie Rhodes USA (MD, U.S. Army) plaintiff, Dr. Orly Taitz, counsel (http://www.orlytaitzesq.com);

    3) Hollister et al v. Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama et al, Col. Gregory Hollister USAF (ret) plaintiff, John D. Hemenway Esq., counsel (http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/11/col-gregory-hollisters-obama.html).

    In addition to these cases, the case Barnett, Keyes et al v. Obama et al (CPT Pamela Barnett, USA (ret) and Alan Keyes, plaintiffs, Dr. Orly Taitz counsel) is on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; and the case Taitz v. Obama is active on a motion for reconsideration of a previous denial of a motion for a ?quo warranto? proceeding in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking a demonstration of eligibility justifying the authority of the office of president claimed by Barack Obama.

    Finally, let us not overlook the important case of LCDR Walter Fitzpatrick, a retired naval officer and graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy. LCDR Fitzpatrick, son of a World War II naval officer, became aware of the serious and unaddressed concerns which had been raised about the eligibility of the newly-inaugurated president. Because of the circumstances surrounding the 2008 presidential election and inauguration, LCDR Fitzpatrick believed that one or more criminal acts had taken place in connection with this election, and that an ineligible person had usurped the office of president of the United States. LCDR Fitzpatrick recognized that he had a right under the U.S. Constitution to present such a criminal complaint to his local grand jury, and attempted to do so, charging Obama with treason.

    The truly extraordinary sequence events that followed resulted in the illegal incarceration of LCDR Fitzpatrick in medieval and brutally inhumane conditions in the Monroe County, TN county jail in Madisonville, TN, an illegal incarceration which continued through the Thanksgiving holiday, and continues to this day. In the process, LCDR Fitzpatrick has stumbled upon a situation of such massive local corruption involving law enforcement, the judiciary, the local bar, the press, and possibly the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, that the local population is literally living in a state of terror.

    The level of terror associated with this corruption cannot be overstated. It has produced at least one unsolved murder (of a local Republican election official) and the effective abrogation of the rule of law in an entire county.

    The Fitzpatrick case also appears to be moving toward some kind of resolution which will ultimately return its focus to LCDR Fitzpatrick?s original purpose ? the apparent criminal acts which resulted in the fraudulent election of Barack Obama to the office of president of the United States.

    What we have here is a massive confluence of well-founded legal actions directed to the single objective of establishing conclusively whether or not the putative president of the United States is in fact constitutionally eligible to serve in that office in accordance with Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the United States Constitution.

    This is not a politically or racially motivated effort. This is an effort to ?support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic? pursuant to the oath of office taken by every military officer, every government official, every member of the judiciary, and every member of Congress.

    By extension, this effort is, in fact, a critically important and absolutely crucial defense of the rule of law. For once this nation allows the well-known, long-established, and consistently-honored constitutional requirements to serve in the office of president to be disregarded, then the very essence of the Constitution itself will have been effectively abrogated. This means nothing less than that our precious Constitution will have been abandoned and that the rule of law will have been rendered meaningless.

    If you want to see what the absence of the rule of law looks like, there are numerous examples in recent history in places like China, the Soviet Union, Burma, Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea. But we have our own domestic example in Monroe County, TN, and it is truly frightening.

    In my opinion, we actually have a number of patriots who should be honored as ?Men and Women of the Year? for 2010, including several senior military officers and attorneys, and at least one pastor, who have provided unique, extraordinary, and substantial contributions to the cause of justice on the eligibility matter during the year 2010.

    Because of their unusual courage in the face of ongoing threats and widespread ridicule, their extreme personal sacrifices, their original contributions to the advancement of the eligibility cause, and the real physical risks which they have undertaken for the sake of their devotion to the Constitution, I would suggest that in addition to LTC Terry Lakin, LCDR Walter Fitzpatrick, Attorney Orly Taitz, Pastor James David Manning, and Attorney Mario Apuzzo are equally deserving of the highest honor from the Constitutionalist community.? The contributions of these individuals are so well-known, so extensive, and so monumentally significant that I will not attempt to take the space here to describe them in detail.

    Note: The author of this guest editorial has contacted the editor and requested a change in the text. On further reflection, Mr. LaRocque has concluded that the contributions made to the eligilibility cause by CDR Charles Kerchner are so significant that he should properly be included with the other five honorees as ?Man of the Year.? Accordingly, the list of primary honorees has been expanded by the author to include six individuals:? LTC Terry Lakin, LCDR Walter Fitzpatrick, CDR Charles Kerchner, Attorney Orly Taitz, Pastor James David Manning, and Attorney Mario Apuzzo.

    I would also suggest that bestowal of such an honor would not be proper without mention of the extraordinary contributions to the cause of the defense of the Constitution and the preservation of the rule of law from the following additional individuals:

    CDR Charles F. Kerchner USNR (ret) ? lead plaintiff in Kerchner v. Obama, for his exemplary leadership and foresight in the eligibility battle; for having located and engaged a brilliant and dedicated attorney (Mario Apuzzo) to serve as counsel for his case; and for his extraordinary personal initiative in preparing and publishing his ongoing series of informative full-page advertorials regarding the entire eligibility matter in the Washington Times.

    http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/protectourliberty.htm

    Colonel Gregory S. Hollister USAF (ret) ? lead plaintiff in Hollister v. Soetoro- for his early action in initiating litigation in the Obama eligibility case, as well as for his record of constitutional vigilance going back to concerns he presented to higher authority in 1994 relating to the apparent constitutionally-disqualifying activities engaged in by President William Clinton during the Vietnam era.

    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/06/colonel-hollister-seeks-recusal-of.html

    http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=1221#more-1221

    CPT Connie Rhodes USA ? plaintiff in Rhodes v. MacDonald and an Army physician, Captain Rhodes was the first and most junior active duty U.S. military officer to refuse deployment as a result of constitutional eligibility concerns regarding the commander-in-chief. Her case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, Judge Clay D. Land presiding. Judge Land eventually ordered highly unusual sanctions against Attorney Taitz in this case in the form of a $20,000 penalty for alleged violations of the federal rules of procedure. Attorney Taitz believes that these sanctions were intended to intimidate her in order to frustrate the judicial process in the Rhodes case, and that they were wholly improper. This case is being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/39932523/Captain-Rhodes-Taitz-v-Colonel-MacDonald-Obama-et-al-United-States-Supreme-Court-Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari-10-21-10

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2573870/posts

    Major Stefan Frederick Cook, USAR ? an Army reservist who volunteered for call-up to active duty for deployment to Afghanistan in early 2009. When he placed his Army Reserve career as well as his civilian employment in jeopardy by requesting confirmation, in accordance with his understanding of his duties as a military officer, of the legitimacy of the commander-in-chief prior to his scheduled deployment, his active duty orders were revoked. Major Cook was subsequently terminated from his defense-related civilian employment, apparently at the insistence of the Department of Defense. Major Cook was represented by Attorney Orly Taitz. He was described as a ?jackass? by MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann and Attorney Taitz was described as a ?con-woman.? His case was the first case that directly challenged the constitutional authority of the newly-inaugurated president, raising hopes of an expeditious resolution of the eligibility controversy without lengthy legal proceedings ending ultimately at the U.S. Supreme Court, but these hopes were quickly dashed by the Army?s revocation of Major Cook?s activation and deployment orders. Despite his challenge to authority, which appeared to have doomed his Army Reserve career, Cook has been promoted to Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) with an effective date of December 15, 2010.

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104009

    CPT Pamela Barnett USA (ret) ? Captain Barnett is a former Army officer and the lead plaintiff in Barnett v. Obama. She was one of the first military officers to step up and volunteer as a plaintiff in the case which was being prepared by Attorney Taitz following the 2008 presidential election.

    http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/10/05/capt-pamela-barnett-speaks-with-the-post-email/

    The Honorable Alan Keyes ? one of the original plaintiffs in Barnett v. Obama, Keyes is a former Ambassador to the U.N. Economic and Social Council during the Reagan administration, as well as a former Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations. Dr. Keyes was a candidate for president in 2008 for America?s Independent Party. He has been a strong national voice on the eligibility issue, and several videos have been widely viewed in which Dr. Keyes expresses his strong concerns about Barack Obama and the entire eligibility controversy, describing Obama as a ?radical Communist.?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uu7Adt5ZvU&feature=related

    Lieutenant General Thomas G. McInerney USAF (ret) ? Lt Gen McInerney is a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy, a combat pilot and Vietnam veteran, and former Commander of the 11th Air Force in Alaska. He is also a regular Fox News contributor. In August 2010 he submitted an affidavit to the military court in support of LTC Terry Lakin in which he acknowledged widespread concerns over Obama?s constitutional eligibility, and demanded that he release his birth records or that the military court authorize discovery to obtain them. In his affidavit General McInerney stated the following: ?The Constitution requires the President to be a natural born citizen in order to be eligible to hold office. If he is ineligible under the Constitution to serve in that office, that creates a break in the chain of command of such magnitude that its significance can scarcely be imagined.?

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/08/31/lt-gen-thomas-mcinerney-ret-provides-affidavit-supporting-ltc-lakin/

    Major General Paul E. Vallely USA (ret) ? a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, General Vallely is a Vietnam veteran and former Deputy Commanding General, U.S. Pacific Command. He has extensive experience in special operations. He is also a military analyst on Fox News. General Vallely will be a defense witness at the military court-martial of LTC Lakin. As the featured speaker at a Lincoln-Reagan Memorial Dinner in Virginia City, MT on June 5, 2010 General Vallely called for ?the immediate resignation of Barry Soetoro AKA Barack Hussein Obama based on incompetence, deceit, fraud, corruption, dishonesty and violation of the U.S. Constitution.? Earlier in his remarks, General Vallely stated that ?We the People have had enough? The Obama White House and identifiable members of Congress are now on a progressive socialist, treasonous death march and are bankrupting and weakening the country. We have watched them violate their sacred oath of office? these public servants must put the citizen?s interests above self-interest by resigning immediately.?

    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/06/fox-news-military-analyst-major-general.html

    John Hemenway Esq. ? Attorney Hemenway is counsel in the case Hollister v. Soetoro. He is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy (Class of 1951), a Rhodes Scholar, and a veteran of the U.S. Foreign Service with experience in the former Soviet Union and Germany as Chief of the Berlin Section. Attorney Hemenway, who is reported to be 85 years old, was sanctioned by Judge James Robertson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in a decision in the Hollister case with the never-to-be-forgotten words of Judge Robertson that ?the issue of the President?s citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America?s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama?s two-year campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court.? Attorney Hemenway?s son, also named John, was shot to death in Bedford, VA on April 30, 2010. No information from the official investigation into this apparent homicide has been reported, nor has any connection been established to the legal action against Barack Obama in which the senior John Hemenway is serving as legal counsel.

    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/05/ltc-terry-lakins-lawyers-son-was-shot.html

    http://www.informamerica.net/assassination_murder/Obama_Opponents_Murdered.html

    Joseph Farah, Bob Unruh, Jerry Corsi/World Net Daily ? WorldNetDaily has been committed to the resolution of the Obama eligibility controversy from its earliest days prior to the 2008 election. It is probably accurate to say that every single development in the eligibility controversy has been reported at WND fully and accurately. Joseph Farah writes frequent opinion pieces on these developments, while Corsi and Unruh are on top of ongoing developments. Jerry Corsi traveled to Kenya to investigate rumors of a Kenyan birth for Obama and was incarcerated by Kenyan authorities for his troubles. He was the author of the book Unfit for Command which exposed John Kerry?s misrepresentations of his military record, and wrote an excellent book on Barack Obama titled The Obama Nation which exposed much accurate and extremely disturbing information about Obama?s background, including his family?s ties to the Communist Party and his work as an Alinsky-trained ?community organizer? which should have raised serious questions in the mainstream press regarding his suitability as a presidential candidate. The book is so disturbing that it is unimaginable that any loyal American citizen could have voted for Obama after reading this book, yet it was ignored by the rest of the media. All this said, Joseph Farah must be given special recognition for his unique contributions, including a bold speech at the National Tea Party Convention in early February 2010 in which he focused on the eligibility controversy, and his sponsorship of a national billboard campaign with the message ?Where?s the Birth Certificate?. It is not an exaggeration to say that WorldNetDaily has become the journal of record for the eligibility issue, and these three individuals have each made major contributions. The link below is a complete archive of WND news reports on the eligibility issue.

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=98546

    Lucas Smith ? perhaps the most controversial of the major eligibility figures, Lucas Smith is a rather young writer previously unknown on the national scene. He claims to have traveled to Kenya, and while there to have obtained a copy of the original birth certificate for Barack Obama at the Coast Province General Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya. He attended one of the hearings at the Federal District Court in Santa Ana, CA in late 2009 in connection with the hearings conducted by Judge David O. Carter in the case Barnett v. Obama. He brought a copy of the Kenyan birth certificate to this hearing and was prepared to testify to his knowledge of this matter, either in open court or in a deposition, but was blocked from doing so by Obama?s attorneys. On July 4, 2010, Smith sent individual hand-addressed letters by Federal Express, with certified copies of the purported Kenyan birth certificate enclosed, to each of 538 voting and non-voting members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. In this writer?s opinion (based in part on my personal observations of Lucas Smith and his document at the Judge Carter hearing) there is at least a 90 per cent probability that the Lucas Smith document is genuine. Lucas Smith has offered to provide the Kenyan birth certificate for professional authentication, but there have been no takers. He deserves recognition for his notable personal initiatives which have greatly increased the visibility of the eligibility matter. The fact is that the document Lucas Smith possesses may be the one document most feared by Obama and his co-conspirators in what appears to be an unprecedented massive presidential election fraud, because if valid and authentic, the Kenyan birth certificate would almost certainly expose Barack Obama as an illegal alien.

    http://www.wasobamaborninkenya.com/

    http://www.youtube.com/user/InspectorSmith

    Andy Martin ? another somewhat controversial figure in the eligibility controversy is Chicago attorney Andy Martin. He wrote and published in 2008 a book about Barack Obama titled Obama: The Man behind the Mask. While Andy Martin has a penchant for self-promotion, he has organized several eligibility conferences and has traveled to Hawaii several times to initiate legal efforts to break loose the tight control placed on critical Obama documentation by Hawaiian government officials. While his efforts have not borne fruit, they have served to increase the visibility of the eligibility controversy, and they have further exposed the massive political corruption which exists in the Aloha State.

    http://contrariancommentary.blogspot.com/2010_09_01_archive.html

    Sharon Rondeau ? Sharon is the editor of the on-line newspaper The Post and Email. This website has been one of the most courageous, consistent, and reliable web sites in publishing eligibility-related material. It accepts editorial contributions from its readers, and has recently maintained a rather intense focus on two issues ? the political corruption in Hawaii which has allowed government officials in that state to illegally block the release of documents related to Barack Obama?s claimed birth in that state; and the massive and frightening political, legal, and media corruption in Monroe County, TN which has resulted in the illegal incarceration of LCDR Walter Fitzpatrick and has allowed a literal reign of terror to be imposed on the citizens of that county. Sharon Rondeau deserves special recognition for her lonely efforts to expose these very serious instances of corruption, so serious that they beg the questions of:? How far has this type of corruption spread? What are we going to do about it?

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/11/21/is-monroe-county-law-enforcement-complicit-in-the-murder-of-jim-miller/

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/11/16/last-request-to-hawaii-attorney-for-documents-before-lawsuit-is-filed/

    If I have left out any names which are deserving of inclusion, please advise me. I am open to the addition of any worthy individuals to this list.

    David F. LaRocque

    Note:

    The legal submissions in the cases mentioned above are extremely well-documented, thorough, and historically significant. They are well worth reviewing, particularly the following:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/38506403/Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari-filed-with-the-U-S-Supreme-Court-for-Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/39932523/Captain-Rhodes-Taitz-v-Colonel-MacDonald-Obama-et-al-United-States-Supreme-Court-Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari-10-21-10

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/30315695/HOLLISTER-v-SOETORO-APPEAL-PETITION-filed-1241041-by-Appellant-Petition-Transport-Room

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/32347910/Col-Hollister-v-Soetoro-Obama-Appeal-Motion-to-Recuse-Case-09-5080-5-31-2010

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/35860891/BARNETT-v-OBAMA-APPEAL-9th-CIRCUIT-KREEP-19-Filed-clerk-order-TransportRoom-18-0

    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/10/attorney-taitz-files-petition-for-writ.html

    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/09/taitz-v-obama-quo-warranto-taitz-has.html

    ?

    ? 2010, The Post & Email. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.

    http://www.thepostemail.com/make-a-donation/

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:40
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    S?bado, 27 de noviembre de 2010

    Wyoming Republican Alan Simpson has a pretty low opinion of the people that have paid into Social Security all their lives and now need something back.

    The co-chair of President Barack Obama?s bipartisan deficit commission lashed out at seniors Wednesday because they are unhappy with his ideas for reducing the deficit by cutting Social Security benefits while reducing corporate taxes.

    ?I?ve never had any nastier mail or [been in a] more difficult position in my life,? Simpson told Jeremy Pelzer at the Casper Star-Tribune. ?Just vicious. People I?ve known, relatives [saying], ?You son of a bitch. How could you do this???

    The draft report released by Simpson along with co-Chair Erskine Bowles proposed raising the retirement age to 69 by 2070. Additionally, 90 percent of Social Security income would be taxable, as opposed to 82.5 percent as is currently projected.

    Critics of the proposal have dubbed the group the ?catfood commission? because seniors who see their benefits cut would have to reduce their expenses or find additional sources of income.

    ?We had the greatest generation,? Simpson said. ?I think this is the greediest generation.?

    Referring to MSNBC?s Rachel Maddow as ?that,? the commission co-chair blamed political polarization for the attacks on him.

    ?You don?t want to listen to the right and the left ? the extremes,? he said. ?You don?t want to listen to Keith Olbermann and Rush Babe [Limbaugh] and Rachel Minnow [sic] or whatever that is, and Glenn Beck. They?re entertainers. They couldn?t govern their way out of a paper sack ? from the right or the left. But they get paid a lot of money from you and advertisers ? thirty, fifty million a year ? to work you over and get you juiced up with emotion, fear, guilt, and racism. Emotion, fear, guilt, and racism.?

    One contributor to the liberal website Daily Kos believes that Simpson ?doesn?t apparently understand the program that it has been his life?s mission to destroy.?

    ?[H]is perspective indicates something even more vile: a belief that people?s sole source of income, their very livelyhood, is some sort of mass generosity. It isn?t,? wrote brooklynbadboy. ?Instead of working all your life and then spending your elder years destitute, why not take care of the old people now and then when you get old, you?ll get yours. It?s a deal, not a handout.?

    I don?t see how you can reach consensus with someone like this. There is no middle ground between people who think Social Security is a government handout and reality. To malign people who have worked their entire lives and kept their end of the bargain, he says to them, essentially ?you?re beat.? You cant negotiate with a guy like that. He doesn?t believe in keeping his end of the deal. In fact, there is a word for people who take money and then don?t hold up their end of a bargain: a thief. I say it is that person who is truly greedy.

    It?s not the first time Simpson?s comments about Social Security have raised eyebrows. In an August email, he described the program as a ?milk cow with 310 million tits!?

    Simpson told Ashley Carson, executive director of the Older Women?s League, that those who oppose cuts to Social Security are ?Gray Panthers? and ?Pink Panthers.?

    After his remarks, The New York Times? Paul Krugman called on the president to remove Simpson from the deficit commission.

    ?At this point, though, Obama is on the spot: he has to fire Simpson, or turn the whole thing into a combination of farce and tragedy ? the farce being the nature of the co-chair, the tragedy being that Democrats are so afraid of Republicans that nothing, absolutely nothing, will get them sanctioned,? wrote Krugman.

    But White House press secretary Robert Gibbs confirmed to reporters that Simpson wouldn?t lose his job. ?We regret that he sent that e-mail,? Gibbs said. We don?t condone those comments. But Senator Simpson has and will continue to serve on the commission.?

    Simpson later released an email to Carson apologizing. ?I can see that my remarks have caused you anguish, and that was not my intention.?

    Source: The Raw Story


    Comment by American Grand Jury:

    Simpson is an old-time RINO that has been trying to dump Social Security for years. This old dog is too far gone to realize that is it people like him that voted to rob the Social Security Trust Fund in the first place. Congress has treated the Trust Fund like a candy store where they tap the money and give back phony IOU?s in return.

    Hey Simpson, you want to save money? Get rid of all the fraud in Social Security and Medicare, get rid of all the money paid out in welfare, tell the illegal aliens to go back to Mexico, dump Obamacare, tell Obama and his pampered wife to quit spending time and money like they are drunken sailors, take a pay-cut in Congress (if you believe we are all greedy), dump the EPA, TSA and Homeland Security ? they are all police state institutions anyway ? and finally dump the Government Employees Union, they cost us $Billions in perks and benefits.. hell, I can go on and on. I can show you how to save tons of money and never touch the Social Security Trust Fund, er, I mean the Congressional Robber Baron?s Fund.


    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:03
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    Viernes, 26 de noviembre de 2010
    Jueves, 25 de noviembre de 2010

    ?

    Thursday, November 25, 2010

    LTC Lakin's Brother on Revolution Radio: LTC Lakin's Had Other Active Duty Military that Want to Sign Onboard; I'll Carry the Flag on this One!

    ?

    Video: LTC Terry Lakin's brother, Dr. Greg Lakin, on Revolution Radio with DrKate. Part 1 embedded below along with links to the other segments.

    Via DrKate of Revolution Radio; Dr Lakin will discuss his efforts to call attention to his brother's plight; the Obama administration's non-response; the upcoming trial; and other aspects of this critical case. LTC Lakin is facing Court Martial December 14-15 for asking the Commander in Chief to produce his credentials.

    Dr. Kate's Revolution Radio here. Dr. Kate's blog here. Hat tip to SafeguardOurConstitution.

    I want to give Thanks to all of the members of the Military that take their Oath seriously. Happy Thanksgiving!

    Members of the Armed Forces that have or are?judicially challenging Obama's Eligibility; Cmdr. Charles?Kerchner, Capt. Pamela Barnett, Cmdr. Walter Fitzpatrick,??Lt.?Col. Terry?Lakin,?Cmdr. Douglas Stoeppelwerth, Maj. Stefan Cook, Col. Hollister, Lt. Cmdr. John Steidel, Colonel Harry Riley, Lt. Col. Richard Bauerbach, Lt. Col. Mark Wriggle, LCDR Jeff Winthrope, Capt. Robin Biron, Col. John Blair, Capt. Harry Butler, MSGT Steven Neuenschwander, Major David Mosby, Capt. David Smithey, MSGT Jeffrey Schwilk, Sgt. Jeffrey Rosner, SFC E7 Robert Perry, Chief Warrant Of.Thomas Davidson, Sgt. Jason Freese and?Commander David LaRoque... Sorry if I left any out.

    Please visit SafeguardOurConstitution and view the Hard Facts regarding LTC Lakin here; http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/the-hard-facts.html

    Wikipedia Scrubs LTC Terry Lakin Article in 71 Minutes; Jerome Corsi and Al Discuss Scrubbing of LTC Lakin Article with Peter Boyles. Interview at Source.

    Dr. Corsi on LTC Lakin's Court-Martial & Obama's Usurpation: pResidents that hide documents are taking a big risk; extensive cover-up going on. Interview at Source.

    LTC Terry Lakin's Brother Dr. Greg Lakin on Court-Martial; He's Taking His Stand and He is Ready to Defend It, Got Obama's First Political Prisoner!? Interview at Source.

    Lt. Col. Terry Lakin's Brother Dr. Greg Lakin and World Net Daily's Jerome Corsi on the Peter Boyles Show to Discuss Lt. Col. Lakin. Interview at Source.

    An Original Song Dedicated to Lieutenant Colonel Terry Lakin: By Patra; It's Time to Know the Truth. Song embedded below and at Source.

    Action Alert, Calling All Patriots: Countdown to the Court Martial; LIEUTENANT COLONEL TERRY LAKIN ACTION WEEK, NOVEMBER 15-19, 2010.(Don't let up!) More details at Source.

    Visit the Birther Vault for the long list of evidence against Hawaii officials and all of the people questioning Obama's eligibility; [http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/08/video-ltc-terry-lakins-attorney-on-cnn.html].

    Part 1 below, part 2 here, part 3 here, part 4 here, part 5 here, and part 6 here. Enjoy!





    LTC Lakin - A Sampling of Common Blunders and Uncorroborated Statements by Members of Congress about Obama?...

    7comments:

    Anonymoussaid...

    Someone has been very busy while America sleeps. I look forward to listening, soon as I get the turkey in the oven.

    Happy Thanksgiving!

    Anonymoussaid...

    Thank you for your superb coverage of the eligibility issue. This is without a doubt the #1 website on this topic. Happy turkey day!!

    ObamaRelease YourRecordssaid...

    No problem. I wish the media would do their job.

    Thank you!

    Anonymoussaid...

    The media is in Obama's pocket. They won't honestly report this issue until to the people get fed up and rise up. Sad times

    Anonymoussaid...

    A whole battalion should join in with Ltc Lakin. The media would have no choice but to report it and Obama would be forced to publicly answer for his deceit.

    Anonymoussaid...

    ROFL @ 4:36,

    that would cook his goose for sure, or should I say his turkey?

    Anonymoussaid...

    My question is what will all the people who know about LTC Lakin do if the government railroads him and convicts him. Placing messages on a website will not stop the terror of this administration.
    This Vietnam Veteran is watching closely.


    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 15:46
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    Mi?rcoles, 24 de noviembre de 2010


    WND Exclusive
    BORN IN THE USA?

    U.S. Supreme Court

    confers on Obama eligibility

    Is president a 'natural-born citizen'

    as Constitution requires?


    Posted: November 23, 2010
    9:45 pm Eastern

    By Brian Fitzpatrick
    ??2010?WorldNetDaily
    ?

    ?

    U.S. President Barack Obama listens to remarks by Russia's President Dmitry Medvedev during their meeting at the APEC Summit in Yokohama, November 14, 2010. REUTERS/Jim Young   (JAPAN - Tags: POLITICS)

    ?

    WASHINGTON ? Is this the case that will break the presidential eligibility question wide open?

    The Supreme Court conferred today on whether arguments should be heard on the merits of Kerchner v. Obama, a case challenging whether President Barack Obama is qualified to serve as president because he may not be a "natural-born citizen" as required by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

    Unlike other eligibility cases that have reached the Supreme Court, Kerchner vs. Obama focuses on the "Vattel theory," which argues that the writers of the Constitution believed the term "natural-born citizen" to mean a person born in the United States to parents who were both American citizens.

    "This case is unprecedented," said Mario Apuzzo, the attorney bringing the suit. "I believe we presented an ironclad case. We've shown standing, and we've shown the importance of the issue for the Supreme Court. There's nothing standing in their way to grant us a writ of certiorari."

    If the Supreme Court decides to grant the "writ of certiorari," it may direct a federal trial court in New Jersey to hear the merits of the case, or it may choose to hear the merits itself. The court's decision on the writ could be announced as early as Wednesday.

    If any court hears the merits of the case, Apuzzo says it will mark the "death knell" for Obama's legitimacy.

    "Given my research of what a natural-born citizen is, he cannot be a natural-born citizen so it's a death knell to his legitimacy. What happens on a practical level, how our political institutions would work that out, is something else," Apuzzo told WND.


    Mario Apuzzo

    ?

    Apuzzo observed it is "undisputed fact" that Obama's father was a British subject.

    A hearing on the merits "is also a death knell because it would allow discovery so we would be able to ask him for his birth certificate, and we don't know what that would show," according to Apuzzo. "We might not even get to the question of defining 'natural-born citizen.' If he was not born in the U.S., he'd be undocumented, because he's never been naturalized. We don't even know what his citizenship status is. Hawaii has said they have his records, but that's hearsay. We have not seen the root documents."

    Another attorney who has brought Obama eligibility cases to the Supreme Court, Philip Berg, agrees that discovery would sink Obama's presidency.

    "If one court had guts enough to deal with this and allow discovery, Obama would be out of office," Berg told WND. "We would ask for a lift of Obama's ban on all of his documents. The last official report said Obama has spent $1.6 million in legal fees [keeping his papers secret], and the total is probably over $2 million now. You don't spend that kind of money unless there's something to hide, and I believe the reason he's hiding this is because he was not born in the United States."

    "The Supreme Court has never decided to hear the merits of an eligibility case," Berg added. "If the Supreme Court would decide to hear a case, Obama would be out of office instantly. If Congress decided to hear a case, Obama would be out of office."

    "They're taking a different approach, arguing that both parents must be citizens," Berg noted.

    Apuzzo is arguing the "Vattel theory," which asserts that the term "natural-born citizen" as used in the Constitution was defined by French writer Emer de Vattel. Vattel, whose work, "The Law of Nations," was widely known and respected by the founding fathers, used the term to mean an individual born of two citizens.

    According to Apuzzo, Congress and the courts have addressed the question of who can be an American citizen, for example regarding former slaves, Asian immigrants, and American Indians. However, the term "natural-born citizen" has never been altered.

    "The courts and Congress have never changed the definition," said Apuzzo. "The founding fathers understood that the commander-in-chief of the armed forces needed to have two American citizens as parents so that American values would be imparted to him."

    Apuzzo said the Supreme Court had clearly accepted Vattel's definition of "natural-born citizen" in "dicta," or statements made in opinions on cases addressing other matters. He cited Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion in the 1814 "Venus" case, in which Marshall endorses Vattel's definition.

    Apuzzo also cites the writings of founding father David Ramsay, an influential South Carolina physician and historian who used similar language to Vattel.

    Previous cases challenging Obama's eligibility have all been rejected on technical grounds. Numerous courts have decided that the plaintiffs do not have "standing" to bring a suit against Obama because they have failed to prove they are directly injured by his occupation of the Oval Office.

    "To me that's false," said Berg. "The 10th Amendment refers to 'we the people.' If the people can't challenge the president's constitutionality, that would be ridiculous."

    "My clients have a right to protection from an illegitimately sitting president," said Apuzzo. "Every decision he makes affects the life, property, and welfare of my clients."

    Apuzzo said the founding fathers had good reason to require the president to be a natural-born citizen.

    "They were making sure the President had the values from being reared from a child in the American system, and thereby would preserve everybody's life, liberty and property in the process.

    "They made that decision, so my clients have every right to expect the president to be a natural-born citizen. It goes to all your basic rights, every right that is inalienable. The president has to be a natural-born citizen."


    Related offers:

    Get the free, in-depth special report on eligibility that could bring an end to Obama's presidency

    There's a new strategy to get answers to Obama's eligibility questions. See how you can help.

    See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential-eligibility mystery!

    Join the petition campaign to make President Obama reveal his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate!

    Want to turn up the pressure to learn the facts? Get your signs and postcards asking for the president's birth-certificate documentation from the Birth Certificate Store!

    Send a contribution to support the national billboard campaign that asks the simple question, "Where's the birth certificate?"

    Get your yard signs and rally signs that ask the same question ? and make sure it's in time for the next tea-party rally

    Get your permanent, detachable magnetic bumper stickers for your car, truck or file cabinet ? and join the campaign for constitutional integrity.

    Get the most comprehensive special report ever produced on the Obama eligibility issue.


    Previous stories:

    1962 Obama articles don't mention wife, son

    '62 letter from father ignores Obama, mom

    Previously unknown Obama stepsister dies

    No Obama birth certificate among passport documents

    New documents point to Indonesian citizenship

    Oops! Obama mama passport 'destroyed'

    Eligibility challenger: Bring on the evidence

    Judges evade Obama birth-certificate query

    Did Obama even write letter to 'birth hospital'?

    Eligibility challenger: Army convicted me without trial

    Army disses officer challenging Obama

    Call for Obama's resignation cites 'deceit, fraud, dishonesty'

    Officer to Army: See you in court

    Call for Obama's resignation cites 'deceit, fraud, dishonesty'

    Army slams door on Obama details

    Hearing set for officer challenging eligibility

    CNN places eligibility in primetime spotlight

    Army to 'inquire' into charges against Lakin

    Army charges Lt. Col. Lakin

    Retired Army general: Lt. Col. Lakin has 'valid point'

    Approaching apocalypse: Will Obama docs surface?

    'Important question about Constitution'

    Officer challenging Obama 'reassigned'

    Officer to Obama: Burden of proof must rest with you

    Officer questioning eligibility faces new threats from Army

    Army suggests brain scan for eligibility challenger

    Army 'showdown' at eligibility corral

    THE FULL STORY: See listing of more than 200 exclusive WND reports on the eligibility issue

    ?


    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 8:52
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    Martes, 23 de noviembre de 2010

    Diana West: Obama's paltry paper trail raises serious questions

    Wikipedia, the widely read, online, multiauthored encyclopedia, features an entry on the term "memory hole," which originated with the prescient if not also clairvoyant George Orwell. The Wikipedia definition begins:

    "A memory hole is any mechanism for the alteration or disappearance of inconvenient or embarrassing documents, photographs, transcripts, or other records ... particularly as part of an attempt to give the impression that something never happened."

    Wikipedia itself may have just offered a good example of how the mechanism works when unknown, unknowable site authorities "took down" a new entry on Lt. Col. Terrence "Terry" Lakin's challenge to President Obama's eligibility to hold office almost as soon it went up.

    I read a screen shot of the entry and it is factual and noninflammatory. Did Lakin's page go down the memory hole?

    Wikipedia readers who seek information about Lakin are redirected to a synopsis of his case within a composite entry on the larger Obama citizenship controversy. Not all but much of the same information is available there, only now, instead of appearing under a biographical entry titled "Terrence L. Lakin," it is included within "Barack Obama Citizenship Conspiracy Theories."

    I linger over this incident not only because Lakin supporters have dubbed this week Terry Lakin Action Week, urging American citizens to take the occasion to call their congressional representatives about the case, or even because Lakin, a decorated, 18-year Army officer and physician, faces an upcoming court-martial at Fort Meade, Md., on Dec. 14 for refusing to follow orders to redeploy to Afghanistan because of his conviction that the president hasn't proven his eligibility to hold office.

    Those are both timely reasons to think about Lakin. But there is a larger question here that his sensational case should point us to consider.

    Essentially, Wikipedia's editing decision reflects one point of view regarding the Obama "natural-born" citizenship matter -- the point of view, as polled by CNN in July, of the four in 10 American voters who believe Obama was "definitely born" in the United States. That relatively low percentage of convinced Americans surprised me given the near-100 percent figure that would surely apply to mainstream (read: liberal) and conservative media, with "alternate" exceptions.

    Rounding out the poll, 29 percent believe the president was "probably born" in the United States; 16 percent think he was "probably born" in another country; 11 percent think he was "definitely born" in another country and only 2 percent had "no opinion." This demonstrates that the topic resonates with practically every American, with a fairly whopping six in 10 Americans at least a little uncertain whether Obama was born where he says he was born.

    Of course, Obama's failure to release his original 1961 birth certificate (which, contrary to mantralike misperception, has never been released) is just the beginning. There remains a startling dearth of documentation pertaining to Obama's progress through his 49 years of life that only begins with his birth certificate.

    A gaping hole -- dare I say "memory hole"? -- seems to have consumed all possible Obama records from his education, health, family records, even his pre-presidential political career. But this subject is never taken seriously by the media or the political establishment, including, most glaringly, erstwhile GOP opponent John McCain, who, on being challenged on the eligibility question himself, should have called on candidate Obama to join him in releasing their bona fides together.

    But even to suggest such a thing is to indulge in "conspiracy theories." Not surprisingly, Wikipedia defines this term for us as well, noting that it's "often used dismissively in an attempt to characterize a belief as outlandishly false and held by a person judged to be a crank or a group confined to the lunatic fringe."

    In this definition may lie the key to understanding the singularity of the Lakin case. As a senior military officer with an unblemished career, service in war zones, decorations, Pentagon responsibilities including those of flight surgeon for the crew of Army chief of staff, and recommendation for promotion to full colonel, Lakin is neither a "crank" nor a "lunatic."

    But he has a simple request for the president that drove him to what amounts to a historic act of civil disobedience for which he may well serve time in prison: Release your original 1961 birth certificate so this poisonous issue no longer divides the American people.

    ?Columnist Diana West is syndicated nationally by United Media and is the author of "The Death of the Grown-Up: How America's Arrested Development Is Bringing Down Western Civilization."



    Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/columnists/2010/11/diana-west-obamas-paltry-paper-trail-raises-serious-questions#ixzz1678Jsi9M

    >> Read the banned wikipedia article. Why was it removed?
    Click here now to read it.
    Updated 11/21/2010 by SOC Staff


    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:03
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    Lunes, 22 de noviembre de 2010

    Sunday, November 21, 2010

    Washington Times - Kerchner v Obama & Congress et al Petition for Writ of Certiorari scheduled for Conference on 23 Nov 2010 with U.S. Supreme Court

    Washington Times - Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al Petition for Writ of Certiorari scheduled for Conference on 23 Nov 2010 with U.S. Supreme Court

    by: CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
    http://www.protectourliberty.org

    We are living through history in the making. Please read or re-read this historic Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court asking them to support and defend the Constitution ... in particular Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, the presidential constitutional eligibility clause. Read or re-read the Petition then read this ad. Then meditate on the words in both and then pray that the Justices do the right thing on Tuesday and support and defend our Constitution and Republic and grant Certiorari and take up our case and seek the truth about Mr. Obama the usurper, impostor, and fraud now occupying the Oval Office. Mr. Obama and his puppet masters and his enablers in political power and in the main stream media have perpetrated and allowed to continue the greatest fraud on this nation in the history of our Republic and he needs to be exposed and removed. See the ad linked to below and via the image at the left for an overview of the Petition and the issues.

    Washington Times -- Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al Petition for Writ of Certiorari Scheduled for Conference on 23 Nov 2010 with the U.S. Supreme Court - Washington Times National Weekly edition - 22 Nov 2010 issue, page 5: http://www.scribd.com/doc/43541103/Kerchner-v-Obama-Petition-Scheduled-for-Conference-at-Supreme-Court-on-Tues-Nov-23-2010-WTNW-pg-5


    QUESTIONS PRESENTED TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT:
    PETITION 10-446

    ?

    1. Whether petitioners sufficiently articulated a case or controversy against respondents which gives them Article III standing to make their Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection claims against them.

    2. Whether putative President Obama can be an Article II ?natural born Citizen? if he was born in the United States to a United States citizen mother and a non-United States citizen British father and under the British Nationality Act 1948 he was born a British citizen.

    3. Whether putative President Obama and Congress violated petitioners? Fifth Amendment due process rights to life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property and Ninth Amendment rights by Congress failing to assure them pursuant to the Twentieth Amendment that Obama qualified as an Article II ?natural born Citizen? before confirming his electoral votes and by Obama refusing to conclusively prove that he is a ?natural born Citizen.?

    4. Whether Congress violated petitioners? rights under the Fifth Amendment to equal protection of their life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property by investigating and confirming the ?natural born Citizen? status of presidential candidate, John McCain, but not that of presidential candidate, Barack Obama.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further comments by CDR Kerchner (Ret):

    Obama is not Article II constitutionally eligible to be the President and Commander of our military. Obama is NOT a "natural born Citizen" to constitutional standards. Obama's father was NOT a U.S. Citizen. Obama's father was not an immigrant to the United States. Obama's father was a foreign national, a British Subject. Obama is the child of an alien father who was sojourning in the U.S. attending college. Obama was born a British Subject via his father and is still such to this day. Obama has never conclusively proved he was born in Hawaii. Obama's paternal family in Kenya, Kenyan government officials, and newspapers in Kenya say he was born in Kenya. Obama's maternal grandmother likely falsely and illegally registered him as born in Hawaii to get him, her new foreign-born grandson, U.S. Citizenship.

    History shows us that a popularly elected, but ineligible, chief executive in the executive branch of a government can be legally and constitutionally removed from office, e.g., Governor Thomas H. Moodie of North Dakota was a prime example. After he was sworn in and serving as Governor, the North Dakota State Supreme Court ordered Governor Moodie removed from office, after it was determined that he was constitutionally and legally ineligible to serve in the office to which he was popularly elected.

    http://history.nd.gov/exhibits/governors/governors19.html

    Also, two U.S. Senators although popularly elected and sworn in to the U.S. Senate were subsequently removed from office after it was learned that they were NOT constitutionally eligible when they were elected.

    Albert Gallatin [U.S. Senator constitutionally ineligible and his seating unconstitutional and election & seating annulled]:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Gallatin

    James Shields [U.S. Senator constitutionally ineligible and his seating unconstitutional and election & seating annulled]:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Shields

    Thus it is very clear that winning a popular election does not trump or nullify the constitution of a state or the U.S. federal constitution. Obama is not constitutionally eligible to be the President and Command in Chief of the military and should be removed from office and his election, confirmation, and swearing in annulled.

    Again, please take the time to read or re-read the Petition then read this ad. The questions and the main brief are only 36 succinctly written and easy to read pages. Then meditate on the words therein and then pray that the Justices do the right thing on Tuesday and support and defend our Constitution and Republic and grant Certiorari and take up our case and seek the truth about Mr. Obama the usurper, impostor, and fraud now occupying the Oval Office. Mr. Obama and his puppet masters and his enablers in political power and in the main stream media have perpetrated and allowed to continue the greatest fraud on this nation in the history of our Republic and he needs to be exposed and removed. May God help us save our liberty and republic and protect us in the days ahead.

    Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (Retired)
    Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
    Please if you can, visit this site and help the cause:
    http://www.protectourliberty.org/
    http://puzo1.blogspot.com
    ####

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 17:35
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

    Sunday, November 21, 2010

    Washington Times: SCOTUS; Kerchner v Obama & Congress et al Petition for Writ of Certiorari scheduled for Conference on November 23, 2010.

    ?

    Washington Times - Kerchner v Obama & Congress et al Petition for Writ of Certiorari scheduled for Conference on 23 Nov 2010 with U.S. Supreme Court?
    by: CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
    http://www.protectourliberty.org

    We are living through history in the making. Please read or re-read this historic Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court asking them to support and defend the Constitution ... in particular Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, the presidential constitutional eligibility clause. Read or re-read the Petition then read this ad. Then meditate on the words in both and then pray that the Justices do the right thing on Tuesday and support and defend our Constitution and Republic and grant Certiorari and take up our case and seek the truth about Mr. Obama the usurper, impostor, and fraud now occupying the Oval Office. Mr. Obama and his puppet masters and his enablers in political power and in the main stream media have perpetrated and allowed to continue the greatest fraud on this nation in the history of our Republic and he needs to be exposed and removed. See the ad linked to below and via the image at the left for an overview of the Petition and the issues.
    ?

    Washington Times -- Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al Petition for Writ of Certiorari Scheduled for Conference on 23 Nov 2010 with the U.S. Supreme Court - Washington Times National Weekly edition - 22 Nov 2010 issue, page 5: http://www.scribd.com/doc/43541103/Kerchner-v-Obama-Petition-Scheduled-for-Conference-at-Supreme-Court-on-Tues-Nov-23-2010-WTNW-pg-5


    QUESTIONS PRESENTED TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT:
    PETITION 10-446

    1. Whether petitioners sufficiently articulated a case or controversy against respondents which gives them Article III standing to make their Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection claims against them.

    2. Whether putative President Obama can be an Article II ?natural born Citizen? if he was born in the United States to a United States citizen mother and a non-United States citizen British father and under the British Nationality Act 1948 he was born a British citizen.

    3. Whether putative President Obama and Congress violated petitioners? Fifth Amendment due process rights to life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property and Ninth Amendment rights by Congress failing to assure them pursuant to the Twentieth Amendment that Obama qualified as an Article II ?natural born Citizen? before confirming his electoral votes and by Obama refusing to conclusively prove that he is a ?natural born Citizen.?

    4. Whether Congress violated petitioners? rights under the Fifth Amendment to equal protection of their life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property by investigating and confirming the ?natural born Citizen? status of presidential candidate, John McCain, but not that of presidential candidate, Barack Obama.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ?

    Further comments by CDR Kerchner (Ret):

    Obama is not Article II constitutionally eligible to be the President and Commander of our military. Obama is NOT a "natural born Citizen" to constitutional standards. Obama's father was NOT a U.S. Citizen. Obama's father was not an immigrant to the United States. Obama's father was a foreign national, a British Subject. Obama is the child of an alien father who was sojourning in the U.S. attending college. Obama was born a British Subject via his father and is still such to this day. Obama has never conclusively proved he was born in Hawaii. Obama's paternal family in Kenya, Kenyan government officials, and newspapers in Kenya say he was born in Kenya. Obama's maternal grandmother likely falsely and illegally registered him as born in Hawaii to get him, her new foreign-born grandson, U.S. Citizenship.

    History shows us that a popularly elected, but ineligible, chief executive in the executive branch of a government can be legally and constitutionally removed from office, e.g., Governor Thomas H. Moodie of North Dakota was a prime example. After he was sworn in and serving as Governor, the North Dakota State Supreme Court ordered Governor Moodie removed from office, after it was determined that he was constitutionally and legally ineligible to serve in the office to which he was popularly elected. http://history.nd.gov/exhibits/governors/governors19.html

    Also, two U.S. Senators although popularly elected and sworn in to the U.S. Senate were subsequently removed from office after it was learned that they were NOT constitutionally eligible when they were elected.

    Albert Gallatin [U.S. Senator constitutionally ineligible and his seating unconstitutional and election & seating annulled]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Gallatin

    James Shields [U.S. Senator constitutionally ineligible and his seating unconstitutional and election & seating annulled]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Shields

    Thus it is very clear that winning a popular election does not trump or nullify the constitution of a state or the U.S. federal constitution. Obama is not constitutionally eligible to be the President and Command in Chief of the military and should be removed from office and his election, confirmation, and swearing in annulled.

    Again, please take the time to read or re-read the Petition then read this ad. The questions and the main brief are only 36 succinctly written and easy to read pages. Then meditate on the words therein and then pray that the Justices do the right thing on Tuesday and support and defend our Constitution and Republic and grant Certiorari and take up our case and seek the truth about Mr. Obama the usurper, impostor, and fraud now occupying the Oval Office. Mr. Obama and his puppet masters and his enablers in political power and in the main stream media have perpetrated and allowed to continue the greatest fraud on this nation in the history of our Republic and he needs to be exposed and removed.? May God help us, save us, and protect us in the days ahead.

    Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (Retired)
    Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
    Please if you can, visit this site and help the cause:
    http://www.protectourliberty.org/
    http://puzo1.blogspot.com
    ####
    Kerchner v Obama/Congress/Pelosi - Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed with the U.S. Supreme Court - 9/30...
    Kerchner v Obama/Congress/Pelosi - Amicus Curiae Brief Filed by the Western Center for Journalism to Suppor...
    Kerchner v Obama Petition Scheduled for Conference at Supreme Court on Tues Nov 23 2010 - WTNW pg 5

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:36
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    Domingo, 21 de noviembre de 2010

    Barry Soetoro [aka Barack Hussein

    ?Obama],

    Show Us?Your Long Form Hospital

    Birth Certificate!!!!

    ?


    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 8:34
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    ?

    SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2010

    A Simple Petition for Redress

    ?
    The court is asked to determine what constitutes a ?natural born Citizen??

    United States Constitution (1787)-?Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 ?No person except a?natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.??

    Naturalization Act of 1790 (amended 1795)-?"?the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as?natural born Citizens".

    Civil Rights Act of 1866-??Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and?not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States??

    The Fourteenth Amendment (1868)-??All persons born or naturalized in the United States, andsubject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.? NOTE: U.S. Congressman John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendment's first section, considered the proposed national law on citizenship as ?simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents [plural] NOT owing allegiance to ANY foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, aNATURAL BORN CITIZEN?? If this law was simply to reaffirm the common law doctrine then the condition of the parents would be totally irrelevant. [emphasis added]

    Minor v. Happersett (1874)-??The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be?natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, ornatural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents.?As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.?For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.?

    United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)-??These considerations lead to the conclusion that the rule in respect of citizenship of the United States prior to the Fourteenth Amendment differed from the English common law rule in vital particulars, and, among others, in that it did not recognize allegiance as indelible, and in that it did recognize an essential difference between birth during temporary, and birth during permanent, residence. If children born in the United States were deemed presumptively and generally citizens, this was not so when they were born of aliens whose residence was merely temporary, either in fact or in point of law.? AND ?"Born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," and "naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," mean born or naturalized under such circumstances as to be completely subject to that jurisdiction, that is as completely as citizens of the United States, [p730] who are, of course, not subject to any foreign power, and can of right claim the exercise of the power of the United States on their behalf wherever they may be. When, then, children are born in the United States to the subjects of a foreign power, with which it is agreed by treaty that they shall not be naturalized thereby, and as to whom our own law forbids them to be naturalized, such children are not born so subject to the jurisdiction as to become citizens, and entitled on that ground to the interposition of our Government, if they happen to be found in the country of their parents' origin and allegiance, or any other.? NOTE: The ultimate decision of the court formalized the concept of mere jus soli birth as sufficient for United States citizenship for the first time in our history.

    Historical precedence of the Presidency-?

    http://thenaturalbornpresidency.blogspot.com/2009/01/first-post-natural-born-presidency-and.html

    Presidential candidate Senator McCain-?inarguably born on foreign (Panamanian) soil to American citizens, senate resolution signed by then Senator Obama affirmed the importance of his parental citizenship heritage as a prerequisite for POTUS.

    President Obama-?inarguably born in the United States to a foreign (British) father, of temporary residence, and an American mother (statutorily incapable of bestowing her citizenship due to Naturalization Act of 1952), American citizenship solely based on statute regarding the Wong Kim Ark decision per the 14th Amendment of jus soli.

    Questions pertinent to the court:

    1. Is mere jus soli required for ?natural born? citizenship?

    2. Is consideration of the citizenship of the parents a requirement for "natural born" status?

    3. Is there, in fact, an unambiguous ?natural? (i.e. immutable) state of citizenship that only results from birth within the United States to parents who are Americans (naturalized or born)?

    4. Can the question of children born within the United States to illegal immigrants having greater claim to the presidency than do children born to American parents, serving at the direction of the Armed Forces, abroad be reconciled?

    5. Is President Obama, whose citizenship is solely the product of a latter 19th century court decision, a "natural born Citizen" and thus eligible for his current office per the constitutional requirement?

    IN CONCLUSION:?The decision of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark answered who, at birth, were indeed citizens but did not identify that which were unequivocably?"natural born".?Per Minor v. Happersett, the court is formally tasked with stating by what without?"doubt"?criteria, indeed, does President Obama meet this constitutional requirement to hold office?
    ?

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 8:07
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    Viernes, 19 de noviembre de 2010

    ?

    Thursday, November 18, 2010


    Dr. Corsi on LTC Lakin's Court-Martial & Obama's Usurpation: pResidents that hide documents are taking a big risk; extensive cover-up going on.

    ?

    World Net Daily's Dr. Jerome Corsi discusses LTC Terry Lakin's court-martial & Obama's usurpation of the highest office on the Peter Boyles radio show. This short interview aired on November 17th, which is now uploaded at Youtube and embedded below.

    Also, if you missed it, on November 17th, Lt. Col. Terry Lakin's brother Dr. Greg Lakin appeared for a second time on the Peter Boyles radio show to discuss LTC Lakin's upcoming court-martial trial which is scheduled for December 14-16. The short interview is embedded below along with part 1 of his first appearance on the Peter Boyles radio show.

    Dr. Greg Lakin's first interview; YouTube: Lt. Col. Terry Lakin's Brother Dr. Greg Lakin and World Net Daily's Jerome Corsi on the Peter Boyles Show to Discuss Lt. Col. Lakin. Part 1 below and the rest at Source.

    Video: Wikipedia Scrubs LTC Terry Lakin Article in 71 Minutes; Jerome Corsi and Al Discuss Scrubbing of LTC Lakin Article with Peter Boyles. Part 1 below and the rest at Source.

    Action Alert, Calling All Patriots: Countdown to the Court Martial; LIEUTENANT COLONEL TERRY LAKIN ACTION WEEK, NOVEMBER 15-19, 2010. Source.

    Bonus: The Kerchner et al v Obama/Congress/Pelosi et al Petition now before the SCOTUS asked the Justices to take judicial notice of the Lt Col Lakin court martial and the Affidavit filed in that military trial by Lt Gen McInerney as to the impact that the uncertainty of the constitutional eligibility of Obama is having on our military whose members have all sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Interview at Source.

    Previous reports on Lt. Col. Lakin can be found here. The latest info on his upcoming court-martial can be found here. Visit the Birther Vault for the long list of evidence and people questioning Obama's eligibility; [http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/08/video-ltc-terry-lakins-attorney-on-cnn.html].








    LTC Lakin - A Sampling of Common Blunders and Uncorroborated Statements by Members of Congress about Obama?...

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 16:48
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

    Friday, November 19, 2010

    Unconstitutionally Elected & Seated State & Federal Officials Can and Have Been Removed. A Popular Election Does Not Trump or Amend the Constitution

    Ineligible and Unconstitutionally Elected & Seated State & Federal Officials Can and Have Been Removed. A Popular Election Does Not Trump or Amend the Constitution

    by: CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
    http://www.protectourliberty.org/


    Obama is NOT Article II constitutionally eligible to be the President and Commander of our military. Obama is NOT a "natural born Citizen" to constitutional standards. Obama's father was NOT a U.S. Citizen. Obama's father was not an immigrant to the United States. Obama's father was a foreign national, a British Subject. Obama is the child of an alien father who was sojourning in the U.S. attending college. Obama was born a British Subject via his father and is still such to this day. Obama has never conclusively proved he was born in Hawaii. Obama's paternal family in Kenya, Kenyan government officials, and newspapers in Kenya say he was born in Kenya. Obama's maternal grandmother likely falsely and illegally registered him as born in Hawaii to get him, her new foreign-born grandson, U.S. Citizenship.


    History shows us that a popularly elected, but ineligible, chief executive in the executive branch of a government can be legally and constitutionally removed from office, e.g., Governor Thomas H. Moodie of North Dakota was a prime example. After he was sworn in and serving as Governor, the North Dakota State Supreme Court ordered Governor Moodie removed from office, after it was determined that he was constitutionally and legally ineligible to serve in the office to which he was popularly elected.
    http://history.nd.gov/exhibits/governors/governors19.html

    Also, two U.S. Senators although popularly elected and sworn in to the U.S. Senate were subsequently removed from office after it was learned that they were NOT constitutionally eligible when they were elected.
    Albert Gallatin [U.S. Senator seating unconstitutional and annulled]:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Gallatin
    James Shields [U.S. Senator seating unconstitutional and annulled]:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Shields

    Thus it is very clear that winning a popular election does not trump, amend, or nullify the constitution of a state or the U.S. federal constitution. We are a nation of laws, not men. We are a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy where the current political whims of the the political majority can over rule the U.S. Constitution by a simple popular vote. Obama is not constitutionally eligible to be the President and Command in Chief of the military and should be removed from office and his election, confirmation, and swearing in annulled.

    Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (Retired)
    Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
    Please if you can, visit this site and help the cause:
    http://www.protectourliberty.org/
    http://puzo1.blogspot.com
    ####


    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 16:42
    Comentarios (2)  | Enviar

    Thursday, November 18, 2010

    Article II "Natural Born Citizen" Means Unity of Citizenship and Sole Allegiance At Birth

    Article II "Natural Born Citizen" Means Unity of Citizenship
    and Sole Allegiance At Birth


    by: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    Written: April 23, 2009
    Reposted: November 18, 2010


    Article II of our Constitution has a lot to say about how a would-be President is born. "Natural born Citizen" status requires not only birth on U.S. soil but also birth to parents who are both U.S. citizens by birth or naturalization. This unity of jus soli (soil) and jus sanguinis (descent) in the child at the time of birth assures that the child is born with sole allegiance (obligation of fidelity and obedience to government in consideration for protection that government gives (U.S. v. Kuhn, 49 F.Supp.407, 414 (D.C.N.Y)) and loyalty to the United States and that no other nation can lay any claim to the child's (later an adult) allegiance and loyalty. Indeed, under such birth circumstances, no other nation can legally or morally demand any military or political obligations from that person. The child, as he/she grows, will also have a better chance of not psychologically struggling with conflicted allegiance and loyalty to any other nation.

    Unity of citizenship and allegiance is based on the teachings of the law of nature (natural law) and the law of nations, as confirmed by ancient Greek and Roman law; American, European, and English constitutions, common and civil law, and statutes; and Vattel's, The Law of Nations, all of which the Founding Fathers read and understood. These sources have taught civilizations from time immemorial that a person gains allegiance and loyalty and therefore attachment for a nation from either being born on the soil of the community defining that nation or from being born to parents who were also born on that same soil or who naturalized as though they were born on that soil. It is only by combining at birth in the child both means to inherit these two sources of citizenship that the child by nature and therefore also by law is born with only one allegiance and loyalty to and consequently attachment for only the United States.

    Our Constitution requires unity of U.S. citizenship and allegiance from birth only for the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military, given the unique nature of the position, a position that empowers one person to decide whether our national survival requires the destruction of or a nuclear attack on or some less military measure against another nation or group. It is required of the President because such a status gives the American people the best Constitutional chance that a would-be President will not have any foreign influences which because of conflict of conscience can most certainly taint his/her critical decisions made when leading the nation. Hence, the special status is a Constitutional eligibility requirement to be President and thereby to be vested with the sole power to decide the fate and survival of the American people. Of course, the status, being a minimum Constitutional requirement, does not guarantee that a would-be President will have love and fealty only for the United States. Therefore, the final informed and intelligent decision on who the President will be is left to the voters, the Electors, and Congress at the Joint Session, to whom hopefully responsible media and political institutions will have provided all the necessary vetting information concerning the candidate's character and qualifications to be President.

    Through historical development, unity of citizenship and sole allegiance at birth is not required for U.S. born citizen Senators, Representatives, and regular citizens under the 14th Amendment and Congressional enactments. In contradiction and which confirms the Founding Fathers' meaning of what a "natural born Citizen" is, naturalized citizens, since 1795, before becoming such must swear an oath that they renounce all other allegiances to other nations. During the Washington Administration, the First Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1795 in which it provided that new citizens take a solemn oath to support the Constitution and ?renounce? all ?allegiance? to their former political regimes. This is during the time that most of the Framers were alive and still actively involved in guiding and forming the new national government and Constitutional Republic. Today, we still require that an alien upon being naturalized must give an oath that he/she renounces all former allegiances and that he/she will ?support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.? Hence, allegiance is not simply a thing of the past but very much with us today. It is important to also understand that naturalization takes an alien back to the moment of birth and by law changes that alien?s birth status. In other words, naturalization, which by legal definition requires sole allegiance to the United States, re-creates the individual as though he were a born Citizen but only does it by law and not by nature. This is the reason that the 14th Amendment considers a naturalized person to be a ?citizen? of the United States and not a ?natural born Citizen? of the United States. This recreation of birth status through naturalization which also existed under English common law also probably explains why John Jay underlined the word ?born? when he recommended to General Washington that only a ?natural born Citizen? (as to say born in fact, by nature, and not by law) be allowed to be President. Consequently, naturalized citizens stand on an equal footing with born Citizens (who are so recognized and confirmed by the 14th Amendment or by an Act of Congress and who can be but not necessarily are also ?natural born Citizens?) except that they cannot be President or Vice President, for they were born with an allegiance not owing to the United States and acquire that sole allegiance to the United States only after birth. Surely, if a naturalized citizen, even though having sole allegiance to the United States, is not Constitutionally eligible to be President, we cannot expect any less of someone who we are willing to declare so Constitutionally eligible.

    The Founding Fathers emphasized that, for the sake of the survival of the Constitutional Republic, the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military be free of foreign influence and intrigue. It is the "natural born Citizen" clause that gives the American people the best fighting chance to keep it that way for generations to come. American people do not have the Constitutional right to have any certain person be President. But for the reasons stated above, minimally they do have a Constitutional right to protect their liberty by knowing and assuring that their President is Constitutionally eligible and qualified to hold the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    185 Gatzmer Avenue
    Jamesburg NJ 08831
    Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
    TEL: 732-521-1900 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting??????????????732-521-1900??????end_of_the_skype_highlighting ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
    BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com


    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 16:39
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

    Obama Birthplace Controversy

    http://beforeitsnews.com

    ??????

    Veteran to 112th Congress: first order of business - validate Constitutional Qualifications of usurper Barry Soetoro (Barack Hussein Obama)
    Veteran Harold Sorensen to 112th Congress: first order of business - validate Constitutional Qualifications of usurper Barry Soetoro (Barack Hussein Obama)

    *NOTICE AND DEMAND*
    *November 18, 2010*

    The United States Congress, House of Representatives and Senate, First Order of Business must be to validate the Constitutional Qualifications of Usurper Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Obama, currently occupying the Office of President of the United States.

    All other Business in the United States Congress, as currently assembled, must cease and desist until the American People have ALL the documents that Barrack Obama has illegally spent millions of tax dollars, campaign funds and illegal use of Government Lawyers to hide from your Constitutients.

    In addition, the Congress must verify that the Connecticut State issued Social Security Number, assigned to a deceased person, is currently and fraudulently used on Obama?s Selective Service Application. It is criminal felony to use another?s Social Security Number.

    ?Misprision of Felony? 18 U.S.C. ? 4: Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

    At this time I demand that you must uphold your Oath of Office to Preserve, to Protect and to Defend the Constitution of the United States of America from both Enemies from Within and from Without.???????????????????? [ Contact your elected leader today and demand action >>>

    The American People are awaiting your Public Disclosure.

    Constitutionally yours,

    Harold Sorensen

    LEGISLATION REQUIRED AT STATE LEVEL: THE SECRETARY OF STATE MUST BE REQUIRED TO VET EVERY CANDIDATE FOR ANY CITY, COUNTY, STATE OR FEDERAL OFFICE TO MAKE SURE EACH ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY QUALIFIED TO HOLD THE OFFICE THEY SEEK... Source; www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=15746

    Note to Rep. Darrell Issa: Please investigate Obama's fraudulent use of Social Security Number 042-68-4425 reserved for Connecticut applicants. Source.

    Revealed: Members of Congress Internal Memo Leaked; What to Tell Your Constituents in Answer to Obama Eligibility Questions. Source.

    Confirmed: Congressional Research Service is now involved in the cover-up of Obama's usurpation of the presidency of the United States. Source.

    Commander Kerchner: While a natural born Citizen is obviously a Citizen at birth, not all Citizens at birth are natural born Citizens at birth. Source.

    Reality Check: Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, Texas plan to use state law to demand proof of constitutional eligibility for presidential candidates. Source.

    Action Alert, Calling All Patriots: Countdown to the Court Martial; LIEUTENANT COLONEL TERRY LAKIN ACTION WEEK, NOVEMBER 15-19, 2010. Contact new Congress members at Source.

    Visit the Birther Vault for the long list of evidence against Hawaii officials and all of the people questioning Obama's eligibility; [obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/08/video-ltc-terry-lakins-attorney-on-cnn.html].

    Obama's Social Security Number(s) - Jerome Corsi on the Jeff Kuhner Show - 5/18/10 -




    Neil Sankey - Barack Hussein Obama Addresses & SS Numbers -
    Affidavit of Deportation Officer John Sampson Regarding Obama's Social Security Number 8-11/2010
    Susan Daniels Affidavit Regarding Obama's Social Security Number(s)
    SSNs & addresses belonging to dozens of Barack Obama's, Stanley Ann Dunham and Michelle Obama.



    Read more at Birther Report


    Want to share YOUR story with our dynamic and rapidly growing audience?
    Click here to become a Contributor.

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 15:38
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

    More on Obama?s records: the problem is not in lack of evidence?

    Posted on | November 18, 2010 | No Comments

    Now Obama?s cronies are coming with a new story, claiming that there

    was a typo in his application for his Social Security number. They are

    saying that he has a CT Social security number because of a typo. ?It is

    hard to believe that there was a typo, but even if you were to give him

    and his supporter?s a benefit of a doubt, ?that does not explain:


    1.? 1890 birthdate in multiple databases, which is associated with this

    Social Security number?


    2.? his unwillingness to present his original birth certificate, which shows guilty mind, it shows he has something to hide.


    3. multiple SS numbers in different databases


    4. his name Soebarkah in his mother?s passport


    5. redactions in his stepfather?s immigration records


    6. fraudulent statement ?on his bar application


    7. his Indonesian school registration?under the name ?Soetoro


    8. his unwillingness to provide his university records


    9 the fact that he used a different Social Security number, while

    serving in Senate and so much more.


    If you look at the picture in totality, you will find too many

    inconsistencies, which cannot be explained by one typo. The only

    reasonable explanation to this total picture is massive fraud and

    treason, for which he needs to be criminally prosecuted after he is

    removed from office.?


    The problem is not in lack of evidence in building a case against

    Barack Hussein Obama. The problem is in lack of integrity of some

    people, who are entrusted by their Oath of Office to review this

    evidence. We had a massive failure of all the safeguards, protecting us

    as citizens against such fraud. It is up to you to continue demanding

    from your elected officials and law enforcement?at each level to act.

    They need to act now and hold everyone involved accountable?.


    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 8:05
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

    Call of Duty Video Game, Whacking Castro

    Fidel Castro Outraged by Black Ops Video Game

    ?By Humberto Fontova??Thursday, November 18, 2010

    Those 638 (at last Castro count and dutiful MSM dissemination) CIA assassination attempts against Fidel Castro have inspired a video game titled Call of Duty: Black Ops that racked up $ 360 million in its first day on sale, a new record for video games. Among the game?s treats is whacking Castro. Between bouts of fulmination against a Big Peace contributor: (?Fontova?s books simply libel our Revolution?s founders! The terms ?scoundrel? and ?traitor? should precede every mention of Humberto Fontova!?) Castro?s press agency, Cubadebate, now fulminates against the video game: ?What the United States couldn?t accomplish in more than 50 years, they are now trying to do virtually.?


    Disputing Castroite claims is not an MSM specialty, to put it mildly. From Cuba?s fabulous healthcare, to the malicious U.S. bullying that drove the poor dear into the arms of mother Russia, to the diabolical ?embargo? we maintain against the poor dear, to the poor dear?s eye-misting concern for the downtrodden and especially the black, to how this poor dear, despite all the above aggression, converted a hopelessly corrupt, racist, gangster-ridden, and impoverished Caribbean island into the Emerald City?with all this issuing from the MSM it?s hard to get a fact in edgewise.

    But we?ll try. ?This new video game is doubly perverse,? fulminates Castro?s media. ?On the one hand, it glorifies the illegal assassination attempts the United States government planned against the Cuban leader and on the other, it stimulates sociopathic attitudes in North American children and adolescents.? Let?s take the items seriatum:

    The late E. Howard Hunt (?Eduardo?) was head of the CIA ?Cuba Project?s? political division in the early 60?s. ?So far as I have been able to determine? he clarifies in his book Give Us This Day. pp.38-39, no coherent plan was ever developed within the CIA to assassinate Castro, though it was the heart?s desire of many exile groups.? Interestingly Hunt stresses that whacking Castro was his own recommendation from the get-go. But he couldn?t get any serious takers within the agency suits.

    Old habits, perhaps, died hard:

    ?Me and my staff were all Fidelistas.? (Robert Reynolds, the CIA?s ?Caribbean Desk?s chief from 1957-1960.)

    ?Everyone in the CIA and everyone at State was pro-Castro, except [Republican] ambassador Earl Smith.? CIA operative in Santiago Cuba, Robert Weicha.

    ?Coherent plan,? it seems to me is the crucial term from Hunt. Now here?s Howard Hunt on Youtube shedding light on the CIA?s legendary and multifarious Castro ?assassination? plans: ?We never got that far.?

    Best yet, here?s a passage from the very liturgy of the ?Leave Castro Alone?I Mean It!? sect, the Frank Church Committee: ?In August 1975, Fidel Castro gave Senator George McGovern a list of twenty-four alleged attempts to assassinate him in which Castro claimed the CIA had been involved?The Committee has found no evidence that the CIA was involved in the attempts on Castro?s life enumerated in the allegations that Castro gave to Senator McGovern.?

    Now to the second item of concern for the child-care specialists who apparently run Castro?s regime, that ?stimulation sociopathic attitudes in North American children and adolescents.? We trust the Castro regime will come down harshly on any of the video game?s distributors in Cuba. Stimulating sociopathic attitudes in Cuban children, after all, is the exclusive vocation of the Stalinist regime itself. ?We will be like Che!? chant all Cuban schoolchildren every morning upon the commencement of their Stalinist indoctrination.

    ?Hatred as the central element of our struggle!? raved Ernesto ?Che? Guevara in his 1966 Message to the Tricontinental Conference in Havana. ?Hatred so violent that it propels a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him violent and cold- blooded killing machine?We reject any peaceful approach. We must keep our hatred alive and fan it to paroxysm! Violence is inevitable. To establish Socialism rivers of blood must flow!?

    ?My nostrils dilate while savoring the acrid odor of gunpowder and blood? Crazy with fury I will stain my rifle red while slaughtering any surrendered enemy that falls in my hands! With the deaths of my enemies I prepare my being for the sacred fight and join the triumphant proletariat with a bestial howl!?

    Rigoberto Hernandez was 17 when Che?s soldiers dragged him from his cell in La Cabana prison, jerked his head back to gag him, and started dragging him to the stake. Little ?Rigo? pleaded his innocence to the very bloody end. But his pleas were garbled and difficult to understand. His struggles while being gagged and bound to the stake were also awkward. The boy had been a janitor in a Havana high school and was mentally retarded. His single mother had pleaded his case with hysterical sobs. She had begged, beseeched and finally proven to his ?prosecutors? that it was a case of mistaken identity. Her only son, a boy in such a condition, couldn?t possibly have been ?a CIA agent planting bombs.?

    ?FUEGO!? and the firing squad volley shattered Rigo?s little bent body as he moaned and struggled awkwardly against his bounds, blindfold and gag. Remember the gallant Che Guevara?s instructions to his revolutionary courts: ?judicial evidence is an archaic bourgeois detail! We execute from revolutionary conviction!?

    ?We will be like Che!? Not that there?s anything sociopathic about that!

    Humberto Fontova Most recent columns

    Humberto Fontova is the author of four books including ?Exposing the Real Che Guevara and the Useful Idiots Who Idolize Him.? Visit hfontova.com. Humberto can be reached at [email protected]


    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 7:50
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

    ?


    ?


    BORN IN THE USA?

    State GOP leaders grab issue

    of Obama eligibility

    Republican lawmakers, governors

    poised to demand documentation


    Posted: November 18, 2010
    9:45 pm Eastern

    By Bob Unruh
    ??2010?WorldNetDaily

    ?

    U.S. President Barack Obama greets the media as he walks on the South Lawn of the White House upon his return to Washington, November 14, 2010. President Obama is back in Washington after a 10-day trip to Asia. UPI/Yuri Gripas/Pool Photo via Newscom

    The GOP members of Congress who booted Democrat Rep. Nancy Pelosi from the speaker's seat when they took the majority in the U.S. House this month may be the least of President Barack Obama's concerns as the 2012 presidential campaign assembles.

    That's because in Pennsylvania, and in at least a couple of other states, there are Republican-controlled Houses, Senates and governors' offices where being developed right now are plans to use state law to demand proof of constitutional eligibility from presidential candidates before they would be allowed on the state ballot.

    Get the free, in-depth special report on eligibility that could bring an end to Obama's presidency

    From Pennsylvania, Georgia and Texas there already is confirmation of such plans. Arizona is likely to have the same plan, and other states are expected to be in the works as legislatures approach the dates when they will convene.

    Pennsylvania

    In Pennsylvania, there was excitement over the GOP majority of both houses of the state legislature as well as the governor's office.



    Assemblyman Daryl Metcalfe told WND he is preparing to circulate a memo among his fellow GOP lawmakers for cosponsors for his proposal that would demand documentation of constitutional eligibility.

    "We aren't sworn in until Jan. 4," he said. "Once we're sworn in we'll be introducing the legislation that would require presidential candidates to prove their natural born citizenship before they are allowed to file petitions to have their name on the state ballot."

    He described it as a "problem" that there has been no established procedure for making sure that presidential candidates meet the Constitution's requirements for age, residency and being a "natural born citizen."

    "We hope we would be able to pass this legislation and put it into law before the next session," he said.

    He said any one of the states imposing such a requirement would be effective in solving his concerns.

    "I think the public relations nightmare that would ensue if any candidate would thumb their noses at a single state would torpedo their campaign," he told WND.

    Georgia

    Another state that will be in play on the issue is Georgia, where Rep. Mark Hatfield confirmed to WND that he will have a similar proposal pending.

    He had introduced the legislation at the end of last year's session to put fellow lawmakers on alert that the issue was coming.

    "I do plan to reintroduce the bill," he told WND today. "We'll move forward with trying to get it before a committee."

    In Georgia, Republicans hold majorities in both house of the legislature as well as "every constitutional statewide office," he noted.

    "I would be optimistic that we can [adopt the legislation]," he said.

    Hatfield said if only one or two states adopt such requirements, it readily will be apparent whether a candidate has issues with eligibility documentation or not. And while he noted a president could win a race without support from a specific state, a failure to qualify on the ballot "would give voters in other states pause, about whether or not a candidate is in fact qualified," he said.

    "My goal is to make sure any person that aspires to be president meets the constitutional requirements," he said. "This is a first step in that direction."

    Arizona

    It was last session when the Arizona House of Representatives adopted a provision that would have required documentation of eligibility from presidential candidates, but the measure died through the inaction of the state Senate in the closing days of the session.

    Sponsor Rep. Judy Burges told WND at the time that her plan would be renewed this session.

    Texas

    WND reported just days ago on a bill prefiled for the Texas Legislature by Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, that would require such documentation.

    His effort was the first wave of a surging tide of developing questions that could be a hurdle to a second term for Obama, who escaped such demands last year when the Arizona Senate failed to act on a similar plan after the House approved it.

    Berman's legislation, House Bill 295, is brief and simple:

    It would add to the state election code the provision: "The secretary of state may not certify the name of a candidate for president or vice-president unless the candidate has presented the candidate's original birth certificate indicating that the person is a natural-born United States citizen."

    It includes an effective date of Sept. 1, 2011, in time for 2012 presidential campaigning.


    Berman told WND he's seen neither evidence nor indication that Obama qualifies under the Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural-born citizen," a requirement not imposed on most other federal officers.

    "If the federal government is not going to vet these people, like they vetted John McCain, we'll do it in our state," he said.

    He noted the Senate's investigation into McCain because of the Republican senator's birth in Panama to military parents.

    Berman also said there will be pressure on any lawmaker who opposes the bill, since voters would wonder why they wouldn't want such basic data about a president revealed. And he said even if one state adopts the requirement, there will be national implications, because other states would be alerted to a possible problem.

    "If Obama is going to run for re-election in 2012, he'll have to show our secretary of state his birth certificate and prove he's a natural-born citizen," he said. "This is going to be significant."

    Berman said he's convinced there are problems with Obama's eligibility, or else his handlers would not be so persistent in keeping the information concealed.

    A year ago, polls indicated that roughly half of American voters were aware of a dispute over Obama's eligibility. Recent polls, however, by organizations including CNN, show that roughly six in 10 American voters hold serious doubts that Obama is eligible under the Constitution's demands.

    The Texas House is expected to be dominated by the GOP, with a roughly 2-1 margin, and Republicans will hold probably 19 of the 31 seats in the state Senate. The governor's office is Republican.

    Other state plans also might be in the works but unannounced yet. Officials with the Denver-based National Conference of State Legislatures said they were not tracking bills in development, or "prefiled" bills.

    Their monitoring will begin after the proposals formally are submitted, they said.

    Last year, several other states listened to proposals that could have had an impact on eligibility documentation. In New Hampshire, officials wanted to require candidates to meet the "qualifications contained in the U.S. Constitution." In Oklahoma, lawmakers heard a plan to let voters decide the issue, and in South Carolina, the plan was to prevent candidates from being on the ballot unless "that person shows conclusive evidence that he is a legal citizen of the United States."

    Further, several other states discussed requirements for candidates, but they did not specifically address the Article 2, Section 1 constitutional compliance, so it's unclear whether they would have addressed Obama's situation.

    There also is Rep. Bill Posey's bill at the federal level.

    Posey's H.R. 1503 states:

    "To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee's statement of organization a copy of the candidate's birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution."

    The bill also provides:

    "Congress finds that under ? the Constitution of the United States, in order to be eligible to serve as President, an individual must be a natural born citizen of the United States who has attained the age of 35 years and has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years."

    The sponsors' goal is for the bill to become effective for the 2012 presidential election. The legislation now is pending in a House committee and has more than a dozen co-sponsors.

    Officials today told WND the bill is pending, and plans are that it will be acted on through the committee process in the U.S. House.

    Jointens of thousands of others who already have signed a petition to statelawmakers asking them to make sure the next president of the UnitedStates qualifies under the Constitution's eligibility requirements.

    There have been dozens of lawsuits and challenges over the fact that Obama's eligibility never has been documented. The "Certification of Live Birth" his campaign posted online is a document that Hawaii is a document that has made available to those not born in the state.

    The controversy stems from the Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

    The challenges to Obama's eligibility allege he does not qualify because he was not born in Hawaii in 1961 as he claims, or that he fails to qualify because he was a dual citizen, through his father, of the U.S. and the United Kingdom when he was born and the framers of the Constitution specifically excluded dual citizens from eligibility.

    Complicating the issue is the fact that besides Obama's actual birth documentation, he has kept from the public documentation including his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, Illinois State Bar Association records, baptism records and his adoption records.

    There are several cases still pending before the courts over Obama's eligibility, including two that are scheduled to be discussed by the members of the U.S. Supreme Court. Others remain pending at the appellate level.

    Those cases, however, almost all have been facing hurdles created by the courts' interpretation of "standing," meaning someone who is being or could be harmed by the situation. The courts have decided almost unanimously that an individual taxpayer faces no damages different from other taxpayers, therefore doesn't have standing. Judges even have ruled that other presidential candidates are in that position.

    The result is that none of the court cases to date has reached the level of discovery, through which Obama's birth documentation could be brought into court.

    A petition that has been launched by WND founder and CEO Joseph Farah asks that state lawmakers do their duty in making sure the next presidential election will feature candidates whose eligibility has been documented.

    Tens of thousands already have signed on.

    "What we need are hundreds of thousands of Americans endorsing this strategy on the petition ? encouraging more action by state officials before the 2012 election. Imagine if just one or two states adopt such measures before 2012. Obama will be forced to comply with those state regulations or forgo any effort to get on the ballot for re-election. Can Obama run and win without getting on all 50 state ballots? I don't think so," he said.

    An earlier petition had been directed at all controlling legal authorities at the federal level to address the concerns expressed by Americans, and it attracted moreo than half a million names.

    For 18 months, Farah has been one of the few national figures who has steadfastly pushed the issue of eligibility, despite ridicule, name-calling and ostracism at the hands of most of his colleagues. To date, in addition to the earlier petition, he has:

    Farah says all those campaigns are continuing.

    "Obama may be able to continue showing contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law for the next two years, as he has demonstrated his willingness to do in his first year in office," he wrote in a column. "However, a day of reckoning is coming. Even if only one significant state, with a sizable Electoral College count, decides a candidate for election or re-election has failed to prove his or her eligibility, that makes it nearly impossible for the candidate to win. It doesn't take all 50 states complying with the law to be effective."

    If you are a member of the media and would like to interview Joseph Farah about this campaign, e-mail WND.


    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 7:41
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    Jueves, 18 de noviembre de 2010

    http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2010/11/17/standing-and-the-constitution/

    Standing and the?Constitution

    ?2010 drkate

    Indeed, Obama has no right to the Office of President and Commander in Chief. He can only occupy that office at the pleasure, discretion, and option of the People which includes the Kerchner petitioners. And the Kerchner petitioners, showing that both Congress and the Executive have failed to protect them and their individual rights guaranteed to them under the U.S. Constitution and in their effort to therefore protect themselves, have every right to take their claims to a court of law for the purpose of enforcing their personal and individual right to that protection. ~Mario Apuzzo

    The central argument used by Obama?s legal defense to? prevent questions of his eligibility from reaching the discovery phase revolves around whether the plaintiffs have standing to bring a question before the court, and if the court has the jurisdiction to hear the case. Whether the court has jurisdiction to take a question depends in part upon whether the plaintiffs have presented specific evidence that the injury claimed is ?concrete and particularized?.

    This is the first question presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in the Petition for Writ of Certiorari submitted by Mario Apuzzo on behalf of Commander Kerchner, which has been distributed to the Justices for conference on November 23:

    The Standing Question

    Whether petitioners sufficiently articulated its case or controversy against respondents which gives them Article III standing to make their Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection claims against them.

    Obama?s defense team has repeatedly tried to focus on the first part of this precisely articulated question for the Supreme Court.? That is, they have tried to isolate ?standing? from the? context of the case?the Fifth Amendment and equal protection violations by Obama and Congress inflicted upon Commander Kerchner and co-plaintiffs by not assuring Obama is a natural born citizen.? Arguing ?standing? in the abstract is a straw man argument.

    Blocking Kerchner through the standing argument also has prevented addressing the charge that Obama is not a natural born citizen, even if he was born in Hawaii, which is the second question presented to the Court.? This is the issue that must be resolved, but can?t be in the Court unless the standing issue is resolved.

    So, the question is how to knock the stuffing out of the straw man and reconvene as adults in the Court room where the merits of the case are considered?

    The Constitution Protects Individual Rights

    The essence of the response to the issue of standing is that the Constitution protects each individual person?s unalienable rights, not the ?collective whole? or of the majority.? The Constitution recognizes these rights are concrete and real and are in need of protection from government abuses.

    In an analysis of Daniel Webster?s writings, Apuzzo notes that a fundamental part of a self-governing people is the right to define the qualifications for office:

    ?the People have a right to establish qualifications for their elected officials before they may occupy any such office, for such office is ?the free gift of the people.? He explains that no man has a right to an office, for the office is granted at the pleasure of the People to those in whom they feel ?confidence? and with whom they share a feeling of ?good-will? because they believe that person to be both fit and qualified for that office?

    ?No man has a right to an office? seems to eliminate the idea that the Constitution means ?equal opportunity without regard to qualification?

    Here is no right of office enumerated; no right of governing others, or of bearing rule in the State. All bestowment of office remaining in the discretion of the people, they have of course a right to regulate it by any rules which they may deem expedient. Hence the people, by their constitution, prescribe certain qualifications for office?

    He also explains that qualifications for office are for the safety and security of the individual and the nation as a whole. He believes that such qualifications should be retained in the constitution agreed upon by the People so as to provide to them the maximum protection.

    In the Construction of Article II Section 1, the terms ?natural born Citizen?, and ?Citizen of the United States? were used; the Fourteenth Amendment uses ?citizen of the United States?.? If these words did not have specific meaning, they would not have been used.? This is supported by a careful reading of the history of the Constitution and the development of our Nation. From Commander Kerchner?s research a plethora of? information supporting the plain reading of the Constitution and meaning of its words and phrases arise:

    ...The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction, and no excuse for interpolation or addition?

    It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect;? ? Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 174 (1803).

    Thus, when we consider the history of the construction of Article II, Section 1, understand that we exercised the right to define the requirements of the President such as would best affect the safety and security of the individual and the nation as a whole. John Jay was instrumental in advising George Washington of the need to insulate the office of the President from foreign influence.

    It is Commander Kerchner?s right, and our right, to have a person in the President?s position who meets the qualifications specified by the people?especially in the Presidency.? From the Petition:

    Petitioners cannot rely on Obama, who was born with dual and conflicting allegiances to protect them as a ?natural born Citizen? would.

    Indeed, what evidence at all do we have that Obama is meeting our safety and security needs individually or as a Nation?? He is behaving as a person with multiple personalities allegiances who can?t make up his mind which citizen he wants to be.

    Standing Affirmed by the Constitution

    The constitution has specified particular requirements for the office of the president that have specific meaning, and which we the people deemed necessary to protect our individual rights to life, liberty, security, happiness, and property. Ensuring that

    When Congress failed to ensure that Obama was a ?natural born citizen?, yet ?verified? John McCain?s status as a natural born citizen, Kerchner?s? Fifth Amendment equal protection and due process rights were violated.? These rights were violated again when Congress failed to qualify Obama under Article II, Section I, and the Twentieth Amendment.

    These injuries are particularized and concrete especially when seen within the context of the constitutional question being presented.

    Kerchner deftly requested the Court to take judicial notice of the case of LTC Terry Lakin, adding another example of a concrete, particular injury resulting to an individual?and our armed forces? from Obama?s ineligibility.? The impact of deployment by illegal orders would violate his own oath to the Constitution. Failing to report his specific concerns would be dereliction of duty.

    Intending to break the chain of command by trying LTC Lakin only with respect to the Pentagon will result in Court Martial and hard labor.

    A Rarefied Moment in History

    The Kerchner case is so fundamental to the basis of our Constitution and our liberties, unalienable rights? that one is left speechless, or typeless as the case may be. Lives are at stake, the Constitution hanging by a thread, and courage is in short supply in the Judiciary.

    We need to write the end of this story, as a reader here suggested, and let the good guys win.


    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:20
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

    Ortega?s Land Grab

    Nicaragua has invaded Costa Rican territory. How will the U.S. respond?

    6:30 AM, Nov 18, 2010 ? By JAIME DAREMBLUM
    ?

    With the world distracted by currency fights, European debt problems, and other economic challenges, Nicaragua has quietly invaded and occupied the sovereign territory of Costa Rica. It is an act of naked aggression that deserves to be condemned and resisted by governments everywhere, yet most Americans have probably read little or nothing about it.

    ?

    Here?s a brief synopsis of what happened. At the direction of their government, Nicaraguans were dredging the San Juan River, which forms a section of their southern border with Costa Rica. They were doing so in a manner that was damaging many Costa Rican properties, which understandably prompted San Jos? to complain. Then, Nicaraguan military troops entered and occupied a large river island (Calero Island) that has traditionally been considered part of Costa Rican territory. Indeed, they even raised a Nicaraguan flag there. The soldiers are refusing to leave Calero Island, and Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega is insisting?against all evidence?that the island belongs to Managua.

    Initially, Managua alleged that an error made by Google maps was the reason Nicaraguan soldiers entered another sovereign nation. And while Google soon admitted an error in its map and corrected the mistake, Nicaragua, nevertheless, still claims the land as its own and hasn?t removed its troops from Costa Rica.

    Why would Ortega deliberately trigger such a conflict? Simple: to increase his domestic support ahead of next year?s presidential election, and to advance his radical project of turning Nicaragua into a mini-Venezuela.

    Nicaraguan politicians of all ideological bents have a long history of rattling sabers toward Costa Rica. The right-wing Somoza dictatorship engaged in such behavior, as did the leftist Sandinista regime (led by Ortega) during the 1980s and the nominally ?conservative? Alem?n government during the 1990s. Ramping up tensions with their southern neighbor is an easy way for Nicaraguan leaders to inflame nationalist sentiment and rally public support for the incumbent administration.

    Ortega has angered and frightened many Nicaraguans with his efforts to rig municipal elections and erode constitutional checks and balances. ?Headlines in Nicaragua?s opposition dailies read like cries of distress: ?Sandinista Dictatorship Established in Supreme Court,? ?Dictatorship Thanks to Weakened Opposition,? ?Dictatorship, Step by Step,?? Managua-based journalist Tim Rogers wrote recently. Now the Sandinistas are ?using the San Juan River spat to distract attention from their autocratic abuses and boost their popularity.

    The attempted land grab confirms, yet again, that Ortega (and his party) never really changed. Though he won election fairly as the Sandinista candidate in 2006, he?s still the same corrupt, authoritarian thug who ruled Nicaragua with an iron fist during the 1980s, a time when he was receiving significant aid from the Soviet Union. Back then, Ortega looked to Moscow for both economic assistance and ideological guidance. Today, he looks to Caracas. Indeed, with each passing month, Nicaragua becomes more and more like Venezuela.

    Ch?vez has a well-documented record of extra-territorial aggression; for example, his regime has cooperated with terrorist groups like the Colombian FARC and meddled in foreign elections (in Argentina, El Salvador, Peru, and elsewhere). Ortega has spent the past four years mimicking his Venezuelan patron. The land grab suggests that he?s getting bolder in the run-up to the 2011 election.

    The Obama administration must take a firm stand against Nicaragua?s belligerence. The occupation of Calero Island represents, quite simply, a cross-border invasion. (Costa Rican president Laura Chinchilla is not exaggerating when she uses that word.) If the U.S. and its democratic partners in Latin America don?t firmly and effectively pressure Nicaragua to leave the island and quit its warmongering, other pro-Ch?vez governments may feel emboldened to pursue similar adventurism. While the stakes in the San Juan River dispute may appear small, they?re actually quite large. Ortega is testing the willpower of his democratic neighbors. Their response will have serious consequences for the entire region.

    Jaime Daremblum, who served as Costa Rica?s ambassador to the United States from 1998 to 2004, is director of the Center for Latin American Studies at the Hudson Institute.


    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 8:14
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    Mi?rcoles, 17 de noviembre de 2010

    ?

    Wednesday, November 17, 2010

    Video: Sarah Palin; We know that Obama wasn?t vetted through the campaign, and now, you know, some things are coming home to roost...

    Via Hot Air, hat tip Give Us Liberty; - Palin: You know, a little media vetting in 2008 would have gone a long way? - by Ed Morrissey

    With Barack Obama getting a rebuff on the world stage, losing a midterm election, and presiding over a floundering economy almost two years after implementing his stimulus policies, it may occur to some people now that electing a man with no executive, military, diplomatic, or private-sector experience at all might have been a teensy little mistake. How did the media let that slide? (Oh, come on, you know I know the answer!) Sarah Palin chatted with KWHL?s Bob and Mark Show in Anchorage today to discuss the re-release of John Ziegler?s documentary How Obama Got Elected and her own travelogue series, and underscored how important its lessons are for participatory democracy to work properly and elect effective representation. She tells Bob and Mark that the hagiographic coverage of Obama in 2007-8 is now ?coming home to roost?:

    We know that Obama wasn?t vetted through the campaign, and now, you know, some things are coming home to roost, if you will, which is inexperience, his associations, and that ultimately harms our republic when a candidate isn?t ? isn?t vetted by the media, that cornerstone of our democracy. So, you?re right, it?s not about me and whether you like my politics or not. You can push all that aside, and just pay attention to what that message is in this documentary, and that is that things have got to change for the better in the state of journalism. Otherwise, you know, it could be part of a demise of our democracy if that cornerstone erodes.

    Fourteen months ago, I warned that the emerging theme of the Obama administration was incompetence. That was entirely avoidable; ...continued here; http://hotair.com/archives/2010/11/16/palin-say-a-little-media-vetting-in-2008-would-have-gone-a-long-way/






    Obama Ineligible - I tried and lied but it won't go away! Wash Times Natl Wkly 2010-11-08 pg 5

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 23:35
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    Lunes, 15 de noviembre de 2010

    TC Terry Lakin update, November 15, 2010, Inform Congress, American Patriot Foundation?request

    LTC Terry Lakin update, November 15, 2010, Inform Congress, American Patriot Foundation request

    From American Patriot Foundation.
    ?American Patriot Foundation: Updates on LTC Terry Lakin?s Case
    http://www.SafeguardOurConstitution.com
    ?
    Dear Supporter of Lt. Col. Terry Lakin,
    ?
    With LTC Terry Lakin?s court-martial only one month out, the American Patriot Foundation is encouraging phone calls to Congress next week and to newly elected Members of the House and Senate? to drive home the fact that a decorated 18-year serving Army officer with numerous deployment overseas and winner of a Bronze Star? is facing imprisonment for defying military orders in order to seek assurance that the President/Commander-in-Chief is Constitutionally eligible to serve in his current post.?
    ?
    Since Nuremberg, servicemembers are trained to question illegal orders, yet for more than a year, no one in the Pentagon could answer LTC Lakin?s simple question? is there proof that the CINC is legally, Constitutionally eligible to be in charge of the U.S. Armed Forces?? LTC Lakin would have been part of Barack Obama?s surge forces to Afghanistan? but now he faces up to four years of hard labor at Fort Leavenworth prison? if convicted at court-martial on December 14th.?
    ?
    Click Here For Details on How You Can Help
    http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/actionweek.html
    ?
    You can also download our latest document: Download APF?s New Blunders Report: A Sampling of Common Blunders and Uncorroborated Statements by Members of Congress about Obama?s Birth and Constitutional Eligibility
    ?
    Note: We continue to need your contributions to support Terry?s communications efforts. He also needs your prayers. And so, we ask that you not only once again go to our website
    www.safeguardourconstiution.com and make a tax deductible donation.
    ?
    AMERICAN PATRIOT FOUNDATION, INC.

    WHAT YOU CAN DO NOW
    Support Terry?s Communications Efforts
    http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/support-the-foundation.html

    Add a Banner to Your Website
    http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/banners-and-graphics.html
    Forward this email to anyone you feel may have an interest in Terry?s case.?


    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 12:03
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

    Sunday, November 14, 2010

    Action Alert, Calling All Patriots: Countdown to the Court Martial; LIEUTENANT COLONEL TERRY LAKIN ACTION WEEK, NOVEMBER 15-19, 2010

    We are urging Terry's advocates to make calls to Capitol Hill- and to newly elected Members of Congress- during the week of Nov 15-19 to urge them to speak up for LTC Lakin and to provide feedback on the response to those calls. Remember that the U.S. Congress works for you- and that Members have a certain obligation to respond to constituent inquiries- but please be polite and respectful in advancing your point of view. FULL ARTICLE? ???http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/11/action-alert-calling-all-patriots.html


    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:24
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    S?bado, 13 de noviembre de 2010

    ?

    Friday, November 12, 2010

    Strunk v Paterson/Obama et al: Treason, Sedition, Scheme to defraud, Grand Larceny, Money laundering, Bribery, Forgery, Tampering with public records...

    ?


    SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS - 29642-08 - 11/12/2010


    Plaintiff; Christopher Earl Strunk,
    -against-
    Defendants; David A. Paterson (NYS Governor), Andrew Cuomo (NYS Attorney General), Thomas P. DiNapoli (NYS Comptroller), Sheldon Silver (NYS Speaker of the Assembly), Malcom Smith (NYS Senator), Hakeem Jeffries (NYS Assemblyman for the 57th AD), Christine Quinn (NYC Speaker of the Council), William Thompson (NYC Comptroller), Jim Tedisco (NYS Assemblyman), Dean Skelos (President pro tempore of the NYS Senate) in their Official Capacities and individually, the Democrat Candidate Presidential Electors as a class, in their official Capacity and individually; The New York State Board of Elections and John Does and Jane Does, SOEBARKAH (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama) Individually; OBAMA FOR AMERICA; OBAMA VICTORY FUND, NANCY PELOSI, individual; DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN 111, individually; MCCAIN VICTORY2008; MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY2008; JOHN A. BOEHNER, individually; THE NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE; THE NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF THE INDEPENDENCE PARTY; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; ROGER CALERO, individually; THE SOCLALIST WORKERS PARTY; XYZ JOINT FUNDRAISING COMMITTEES; NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, JAMES A. WALSH / Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KEUNER / Co-Chair, EVELYN J. AQUILA / Commissioner, GREGORY P. PETERSON / Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, Deputy Director STANLEY ZALEN, Secretary of the State of New York, LORRAINE A. CORTEZ-VAZQUEZ, individually; ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI, John and Jane Does; and XYZ Entities.

    Notice of Motion for leave to file the First Amended Complaint NYS Supreme Court Kings County

    PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexed affidavit of Christopher-Earl : Strunk in esse, affirmed November 11,2010 with exhibit annexed, will move for leave to file and serve the Amended Summons and Verified First Amended Complaint before the Honorable David I. Schmidt at the Part 47 Courtroom in the Courthouse st 360 Adams Street Brooklyn New York 10007, on 30th day of November 2010, at 9:30 O'clock before Noon or at a time designated by the court or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard. - Stamped; Kings County Supreme Court Motion Support APPROVED, Dated, 11/12/10.

    AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

    Accordingly, I, Christopher Earl Strunk, being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty of perjury: ...

    ...3. This Affidavit is in support of the Notice of Motion for permission to file a First Amended Complaint (FAC) to the underlying Verified Complaint filed on or about October 27, 2008 and is filed with leave under CPLR Rule 305 and Rule 3025(b); there is no previous request for this relief, nor is there another to benefit.

    4. That the Verified FAC with Summons annexed herewith provides nunc pro tunc additional facts and details as a more definite statement of the ongoing injury suffered by Plaintiff along with those similarly situated and that requires the addition of necessary parties and the treatment of the Democratic Party Electoral College of New York as a Class rather than as a matter of individual persons in that the election and vote has already occurred and is merely a matter of state and federal record at the present; and further,

    5. That Plaintiff?s injury as a matter of complexity requires standing with CPLR ?1353 regarding civil preceding regarding enterprise corruption by all Defendant individuals? malicious promotion of a scheme to defraud the people of the New York state in promotion of ballot fraud with the 2008 election cycle with ineligible Presidential Candidates intent to launder campaign funds both foreign and domestic to seize the Executive.

    6. That necessary Parties as yet known are joined herein pursuant to CPLR ?1354 as persons and or enterprise not convicted of the crime of enterprise corruption that is a party to a civil action under this Article 13, whenever joinder of such person or enterprise is necessary with CPLR ?1001; and according to Penal Law ? 460.40 Enterprise corruption jurisdiction is afforded the Court for participation by a person(s) preparatory to, however separate from a State Finance Law Article 13 Section 190 application.

    7. That Plaintiff alleges a suffrage and property taking injury effected by violation of Penal Law ? 105.35 by all Defendants individually that are part of a conspiracy of enterprise corruption against the fisc and real property owners as a class similarly situated with applicability for purposes of this article, as to conspiracy to commit the crime of enterprise corruption in violation of section 460.20 of this chapter shall not constitute an offense; however, includes but is not limited to:

    Penal Law: ? 155.30 Grand Larceny in the fourth degree when The property, regardless of its nature and value, is taken from the person of another; ? 170.10 Forgery in the second degree; ? 175.25 Tampering with public records in the first degree; ? 175.35 Offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree; ? 175.40 Issuing a false certificate; ? 210.40 Making an apparently sworn false statement in the first degree; ? 200.04 Bribery in the first degree; ? 190.65 Scheme to defraud in the first degree; ? 470.05 Money laundering in the fourth degree; and further,

    Election Law: ? 17-102. Misdemeanors at, or in connection with, primary elections, caucuses, enrollment in political parties, committees, and conventions; ?17-106. Misconduct of election officers; ? 17-120. Misconduct in relation to certificate of nomination and official ballot; ? 17-128. Violations of election law by public officer or employee; ? 17-152. Conspiracy to promote or prevent election; and? 17-168. Crimes against the elective franchise not otherwise provided for. Any person who knowingly and willfully violates any provision of this chapter, which violation is not specifically covered by any of the previous sections of this article, is guilty of a misdemeanor; with related law in its entirety.

    8. That this case has been awaiting results of Affirmant?s FOIA case against the U.S. Department of State et al. in Washington District of Columbia U.S. District Court 08-cv-2234 wishing to obtain facts germane to Causes of Action Two thru Five of the underlying complaint and that have been in part incorporated into the First Amended Complaint herewith annexed; and while there Affirmant in association with other cases has obtained other prima facia facts germane to the first thru fifth Cause of action herein, including notification of the issuance of two affidavits sworn by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi in her individual capacity as a member of the Democratic party at the National Democratic Party Presidential Nominating Convention shown in FAC Exhibits B, and C.

    9. That there is now substantial prima facie evidence of fraudulent misdirection to put Barack Hussein Obama. John Sidney McCain III, and Roger Calero onto all the State ballots in 2008 at the Federal Elections, involves Defendants Andrew Cuomo the New York Attorney General and Lorraine A. Cortez-Vazquez the New York Secretary of State, NYS Board of Elections, et al. also involves Governor Paterson?s Jesuit Chief of Staff who orchestrated the deception from the governor?s office without properly informing the Governor who is legally blind and otherwise is unable to ascertain such facts for himself relied on the Jesuit, and as such all are in the conspiracy as defined by 42 USC 1985(3) to disrupt suffrage and among other laws that breach Defendants fiduciary duty and injure Plaintiff who contends the State ?Little? RICO applies as presently before the Justice David I Schmidt herein.

    10. That the NYS Election Law does not express that any of the respective Presidential Ballot Certificates must be a sworn statement or as it requires every other certificate to be sworn as to all matters true and correct as in other Articles thereby arguendo sets a greater responsibility upon the NYS Board of Election Commissioners and or their agents or the Sub-divisions thereof as a fiduciary duty to ascertain the veracity accordingly since it has not been done by a notary public or commissioner of deeds under oath, thereby shifting the burden to the Defendant Board and or sub-divisions accordingly, and that Plaintiff alleges when upon examination of all the Presidential Ballot Certificates shows an arbitrary pattern of enterprise corruption scheme to defraud requiring among other relief a Judicial Declaratory judgment as a legal matter of first impression regarding the fiduciary duty of public officials to make sure there is equal treatment of all certifications for ballot access that has not been done for the 2008 election cycle.

    11.That Affirmant has had previous discussions about sealing this case from the public because of my fear of reprisals and that NY Assistant Attorney General and Defendants Counsel Joel Graber stated that sealing would be difficult unless it were strictly a family / domestic relations type of sealing, not something like this case; and therefore as I agree with Mr. Graber, a suitable protective order and related relief associated with it is appropriate and reasonable under the circumstance and that the public has a right to know what we are doing; and

    12. Therefore at this point in time, Affirmant asks for a protective order as to Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse alone, and that Affirmant be afforded an order for a weapon conceal carry privilege in New York state.

    13.That Affirmant knows foregoing contents apply to me and my injury that by Respondents misapplication and misadministration of law presents a question of first impression as a State question involving the questionable seating of the New York Electoral College after the questionable ballot access afforded by arbitrary and capricious action of the NYS Board of Elections et al. for the various Party Presidential Candidate Slates at the General Election of November 4,2008; the same is. true to my own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true. The grounds of my beliefs as to all matters not stated upon information and belief are as follows: 3rd parties, books and records, and personal knowledge.

    Wherefore Plaintiff wishes an order of the Court granting the opportunity to file and serve the Amended Summons and Verified First Amended Complaint; and for other and different relief the court deems necessary to serve justice herein.... -snip-

    Jump to the Verified Complaint filed... First and Second Cause of Action including Exhibits at Scribd, and embedded below.

    THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
    (Sedition, as against all Defendants)

    23. Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in the First through Second Cause of Action with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length.

    24. That Democrat Party Elector Candidate Class of Defendants, Public Officer Defendants, the Defendants of NYS BOE, Defendant Presidential Candidates and committees and their agents John and Jane Does act as an enterprise to commit acts of sedition in an agreement, communication or other preliminary activity aimed at inciting treason or some lesser commotion against public authority and policy, as have with state action under color of law undermined the State and Federal election as under 42 USC ?1983, ?1985(3) and 1986 along with related law in its entirety.

    25. That Defendant ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI, (Defendant Brzezinski) individually with his place of business at Columbia University in the City of New York School of Foreign Affairs 2960 Broadway New York, NY 10027-6902, is both a blood member of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (SMOM) on "the right" and of the Scottish Rite Freemason Grand Lodge of Philadelphia on "the left" working for the Jesuits against the sovereign interest of the USA;

    26. Defendant Brzezinski?s world outlook and agenda by evidence of writings acts for the Society of Jesus that eclipses all other influences on SOEBARKAH, McCain and Calero.

    27. That Defendant Brzezinski has managed a crucial role for the Vatican State as a member of the SMOM and as a Freemason of the Philadelphia Grand Lodge to create global regionalism that subsumes national sovereignty and as Former National Security Adviser to President Carter expressed his view of regionalism at Mikhail Gorbachev?s October 1995 State of the World Forum, that quote:

    ?We cannot leap into world government in one quick step...The precondition for eventual globalization ? genuine globalization ? is progressive regionalization.?

    28. That Defendant Brzezinski advised the SOEBARKAH and McCain campaigns, and used his sons, Mark who was a member of the advisors in the SOEBARKAH Campaign and Ian who was an advisor on the McCain Campaign, all done in exchange for his sons? government employment and furtherance of the enterprise corruption.

    29. That Defendant JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN III individually with place of business located at Washington Office: 241 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510, was born on August 29, 1936 in Colon Hospital, Colon Panama according to the Panama Canal Health Department not in the Panama Canal Zone (see Exhibit D); and according to the Hay-Banau-Varilla Treaty of November 18, 1903 that has 26 articles (see Exhibit E) in which the two pertinent to the status of the city of Colon under that Treaty refer to the Convention for the Construction of a Ship Canal says that the Colon Panama, the birth city cited on McCain?s 1936 long form birth certificate where he was witnessed being born, and where his parents resided, Colon, Republic de Panama, is not part of the Canal Zone, quote:

    ARTICLE I: The United States guarantees and will maintain the independence of the Republic of Panama.

    ARTICLE II: The Republic of Panama grants to the United States in perpetuity the use, occupation and control of a zone of land and land under water for the construction maintenance, operation, sanitation and protection of said Canal of the width of ten miles extending to the distance of five miles on each side of the center line of the route of the Canal to be constructed; the said zone beginning in the Caribbean Sea three marine miles from mean low water mark and extending to and across the Isthmus of Panama into the Pacific ocean to a distance of three marine miles from mean low water mark WITH THE PROVISO THAT THE CITIES OF PANAMA AND COLON and the harbors adjacent to said cities, WHICH ARE INCLUDED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE ZONE ABOVE DESCRIBED, SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED WITHIN THIS GRANT?? (Emphasis by Plaintiff) and therefore,

    Defendant McCain is not a natural-born Citizen was not born on U.S. Territory or the USA and is not eligible for the Presidency with the U.S. Constitution Article II Section One Clause 5 as mandated by the Defendant NYS BOE.

    30. That Defendant SOEBARKAH is a Madrasah trained radical Sunni Muslim by birth right according to the Koran through his father Barack Hussein Obama Sr. (a Sunni Muslim), and that by training and practice admitted during the speech to the Muslim Brotherhood in Cairo in 2009 ? SOEBARKAH practices Shariah law and is devoted to King Saud of Saudi Arabia who based upon information paid for the Columbia and Harvard university expenses with the full knowledge and blessing of Defendant Brzezinski.

    31. Defendant SOEBARKAH admits his natural father at the time of his birth is a citizen of the United Kingdom and the British Nationality Act of 1948 governs dual citizenship at birth.

    32. That Rep. John Bingham, author of the 14th Amendment, Congressional Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., pg 1291 (March 9, 1866) stated:

    ?? every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen.?

    33. That Defendant SOEBARKAH and or his agent(s) as part of the scheme to defraud placed an image of a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth (COLB) on the Internet, which in Hawaii per se is issued for all birth's registered by the State of Hawaii whether the human being is born there or not, and as a prima facia fact means the Hawaii issued COLB does not prove "natural born" citizenship or birth in Hawaii, only a long form document would.

    34. A COLB per se is sufficient proof of citizenship if not part of a scheme to defraud; however, a COLB issued to those who are "naturalized" in Hawaii is of questionable legal issue contrary to U.S. Constitution Article 1 ?8 Clause 4, Article I ?9 Clause 1, Article 1 ?10 Clause 1, and as a matter of first impression conflicts with the full faith and credit clause.

    35. That Defendant SOEBARKAH (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama) at six years of age used the name given upon his adoption by Lolo S. Soetoro Mangunharjo, an Indonesian colonel in General Suharto's Armed Forces who had married Stanley Ann Obama, and as an Indonesian Citizen from six years of age SOEBARKAH is presumed to have an Indonesian passport after removal from the U.S. Passport of Stanley Ann Soetoro as released to Plaintiff on July 29, 2010 by the U.S. Department of State, see Exhibit F.

    36. That Defendant SOEBARKAH is not eligible for the Office of the President because with the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952 as the controlling legal authority for the birth of BHO, and especially when the transmission of British citizenship to BHO at birth no matter where the location is proves a dual citizen at birth, as a treaty matter between Britain and the USA, and that with the admission against interest of both Stanley Ann Dunham Obama and Barack Hussein Obama Sr. in a marriage in Hawaii entered after conception, in which both parents attribute Paternity to BHO Sr. without challenge at the time of the March 20, 1964 divorce decree makes BHO Jr. a British subject with dual citizenship and multi-allegiances at best that by the 1952 McCarran-Walter Act, therefore BHO Jr. is not a Natural Born Citizen; and

    37. Further, Defendant SOEBARKAH lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother married an Indonesian citizen and became a naturalized citizen of Indonesia and in that Indonesia does not recognize dual citizenship, and because Defendant SOEBARKAH did not take an oath of allegiance to the USA when reaching the proper age while resident in the USA retains Indonesian Citizenship having renounced his previous U.S. Naturalized citizenship / British Citizen status; and

    38. Plaintiff further alleges, that had SOEBARKAH followed up with his resident status after 1971 while living with his Grandmother in Hawaii to become naturalized, he failed to take an oath of allegiance when SOEBARKAH turned 18 years old to regain his U.S. citizenship status, and then obtained school financing as a foreign exchange student in Hawaii and again at Occidental College in Los Angeles as done at Columbia and Harvard, at best has multiple citizenship status with allegiances to Indonesia, Great Britain, Kenya perhaps; however is not a natural-born citizen of the United States and according to the public record is not even a citizen of the United States, and therefore, ineligible for the presidency with the U.S. Constitution Article II Section 1 Clause 5 as mandated by the Defendant NYS BOE; and

    39. Further by U.S. Senate resolution is underscored and confirmed by the Honorable United States District Judge Michael Chertoff then serving as the Secretary of Homeland Security in testimony under oath before the U.S. Senate Committee and as reprinted in the Congressional Record pages S2950 and S2951 (see Exhibit G) stated:

    CHERTOFF. ?My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.?

    40. In that on April 10, 2008, Defendant SOEBARKAH, as a U.S. Senator was the Sponsor of the sense resolution S 511 (see Exhibit H) along with other U.S. Senators Mrs. MCCASKILL, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. COBURN, Mrs. CLINTON, and Mr. WEBB who maliciously submitted the S 511 resolution knowing it was false as to the natural-born Citizen status of Senator John Sidney McCain III, in violation of 18 USC ?1001; and in which S 511 was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary then to the U.S. Senate as a fraud upon Congress and the People of the several states and territories contrary to the facts shown in Exhibit D and above stated:

    ?Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936:?

    41. That SOEBARKAH acknowledges endorsing Senate Resolution 511 that one needs two (2) U.S.A. Citizen parents at birth to be qualified to be a natural born citizen.

    42. That Defendant ROGER CALERO was born in Nicaragua in 1969. He and his family fled via Los Angeles, California in 1985. Calero is now a permanent resident alien (holding a green card) since 1990. While in Los Angeles, Calero joined a socialist movement and helped mobilize support against Proposition 187 in the early 90s, and is presumed to have filed a certification for ballot access through the respective Defendant Socialist Worker?s Party Committee as shown on Exhibit A, but is not a natural-born U.S. Citizen with the U.S. Constitution Article II Section 1 Clause 5 as mandated by the Defendant NYS BOE.

    43. That on November 30, 2007, Defendant SOEBARKAH affirmed an affidavit for the Arizona Secretary of State to gain ballot access in the Arizona 2008 Presidential Preference Election Ballot, and likewise on October 9th 2007, Defendant McCain affirmed an affidavit for the Arizona Secretary of State to gain ballot access in the Arizona 2008 Presidential Preference Election Ballot and that both affirmations were duly filed with the AZ Secretary of State who provided a certified copy of each respective filed affidavit (see Exhibit I); with each individually affirming that

    ??I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that all the information in this Nomination Paper is true, that as to these and all other qualifications, I am qualified to hold the office that I seek, having fulfilled the United States constitutional requirements for holding said office. I further swear (or affirm) that I have fulfilled Arizona's statutory requirement for placing my name on the Presidential Preference Election ballot.?

    44. That according to the Help America to Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) section 213 (a) (1) (A) the Arizona Secretary of State (located at the Office of the Secretary of State of Arizona 1700 West Washington Street, 7th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85007-2888), and the New York Secretary of State Defendant LORRAINE A. CORTEZ-VAZQUEZ (located at the Department of State One Commerce Plaza 99 Washington Ave, Albany, NY 12231-0001) are both Federal officers who each serve as an unpaid employee of the United States Election Assistance Commission (EAC), a Federal employee and respective state employee.

    45. Wherefore, Defendant SOEBARKAH and Defendant McCain each individually and in conspiracy committed perjury before a Federal Officer in violation of 18 USC ?1001 as part of the racketeering enterprise corruption.

    46. That Plaintiff with those similarly situated are denied individual 1st, 5th , 9th and 10th amendment rights to sovereignty and a republican form of government as well as financial injury for the cost of the 2008 election cycle in New York..

    FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION?
    (Conspiracy to commit Treason, as against all Defendants, and their agent John / Jane Does XYZ Entities as an enterprise)

    47. Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in the First through Third Cause of Action with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length.

    48. That Democrat Party Elector Candidate Defendants, their agents John and Jane Does are part of an enterprise who have overthrown the government of the United States in conjunction with SOEBARKAH, Joseph Biden, McCain, Calero and their agents at the state and national level with those other candidate elector slates of other states of the several states (?Racketeering Enterprise?).

    49. Based upon information and belief the Democrat Party Elector Candidate Defendants, their agents John and Jane Does using the Defendants NYS BOE and their agents as an enterprise have misapplied and mis-administered their public duties under NYS BOE regulation by failure to obtain and ascertain proof that each Defendant Presidential Candidate is a natural-born Citizen, that otherwise is contrary to State Law, regulations and the United States Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5:

    ?No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.?

    50. Based upon information and belief the State Defendants, Defendant Presidential Candidates, various Defendant Committees and their agents have not presented a certified copy of the ?long-form? birth certificate of the Defendant Presidential Candidates for ballot access to the New York November 4, 2008 General Election / 2008 election cycle.

    51. There has never been an Article II executive who has ever been a naturalized citizen or a non-citizen as it is against the mandate of the U.S. Constitution Article II Section 1 Clause 5 that a candidate be a natural-born U.S. Citizen to be eligible.

    52. There has never been an Article II executive who is a citizen of a foreign nation and or has dual allegiance with a foreign nation.

    53. That were the executive to be occupied by a foreign citizen would constitute an invasion, coup-d-tat and trespass upon the sovereign citizen of New York a taking as of right under the 10th Amendment must secede New York from the Union until such time the Union were made whole and laws enforced again.

    54. Those Defendants know they have a duty to prevent any person who is not a natural born citizen from ballot access in the state of New York when running for President and or Vice President and have maliciously failed miserably in an act of treason.

    55. Those Officer Defendants and the NYS BOE have not fulfilled the due diligence necessary to protect the voter(s), are ultra vires and individually liable.

    56. That Democrat Party Elector Candidate Defendants, their agents John and Jane Does as an enterprise are attempting to overthrow the government of the State of New York in conjunction with Barack Hussein Obama, Joseph Biden racketeering Enterprise at the November 4, 2008 for foreign agents who are enemies of Plaintiff and those New York State Citizens guaranteed sovereignty exclusively under the New York State Constitution separate and apart from the other states of the several states.

    57. That the Racketeering Enterprise corruption has overthrown the government of the state of New York to which the Democrat Party Elector Candidate Defendants owe allegiance, and who join the Racketeering Enterprise to wage war against the State and or materially promote the foreign illegal alien SOEBARKAH , foreign born Roger Calero with only a green card and foreign born U.S. Citizen John Sidney McCain III to the Executive branch and the Presidency of the United States against the law of both the State and Federal Constitutions, as has with state action undermined the State and Federal election with 42 USC 1983, 1985(3) and 1986 related Federal and State law in its entirety.

    58. That Defendants infringe Strunk?s individual liberty, expectation of a republican form of government, and burden his expectation of effective participation in the general election were the laws not enforced in good faith with the duties of their office.

    59. Plaintiff is the only person in the USA to have duly fired fired fired BHO on January 23, 2009 by registered mail (rendering BHO the USURPER as Plaintiff is entitled to characterize BHO as) on the grounds that he had not proven himself eligible to be the administrator / trustee of Plaintiff?s private account at the U.S. Treasury as required by U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 clause 5 with a pending Replevin matter in the District of Columbia;

    60. Further, that the Honorable Justice David I. Schmidt in the NYS Supreme Court Case Strunk v. Paterson et al. in the County of Kings with index 08-29642 declined to sign a subpoena order to obtain document records of Stanley Ann Dunham (SAD) from US DOS, and that thereby forced Plaintiff as the only alternative to obtain the passport records of SAD in FOIA case DCD 08-cv-2234;

    61. Further, that document records are germane to determine where Stanley Ann Dunham was at the time of the Usurper?s birth as requested in the FOIA;

    62. Further, that Plaintiff FOIA case in Washington D.C. 08-cv-2234 presently has a decision pending on a Summary Judgment that Plaintiff opposes, as there has been a preponderance of evidence showing that federal parties and those yet named have committed a fraud upon that court and have violated 18 USC ?1001.

    63. Further, that not all the requested documents are now essential for the continuation of Plaintiff?s action before Justice Schmidt as here demonstrated.

    64. Further New York State Board of Elections individuals; the New York State Secretary of State individually, the New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo individually as an elector along with John and Jane Does have conspired inter alia for a breach of fiduciary duties under color of state law enacted by the State Legislature to protect Plaintiff?s right to a reasonable expectation of participation and success with a proper ballot for the New York electoral college election of the 2008 president and vice president of the United States of America in accordance with United States Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5; and

    65. Furthermore, that as a matter of State Court standing Plaintiff?s suffrage privilege goes to his specific circumstances and depends upon Plaintiff's substantive due process right to publicly available document records questionably withheld since 2008 as a 5th amendment issue, and which goes well beyond simple procedural due process as a minimum requirement as U.S. DOS?s Counsel suggests in the use of the term reasonable, to injure Plaintiff along with those similarly situated.

    FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
    (Enterprise Unjust Enrichment, against All Defendants)

    66. Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in the First through Fourth Cause of Action with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length.

    67. That based upon information and belief Russia, Iran , Syria, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Lebanon, Nigeria, Libya, Egypt, Dubai among other sovereign foreign entities and persons have illegally contributed to the campaign of Defendant SOEBARKAH who spent $738,812,857 to seize control of the White House and is 46% of the total money raised for all candidates in the 2008 Presidential Election that compares to three hundred and ten million spent by Defendant McCain; and as part of the scheme to defraud the Vatican Bank was used as an intermediary for transfer of funds into its USA landing Banks in New York that with the release of the banking records of the SOEBARKAH campaign committee will show substantial illegal foreign involvement to launder funds to buy the presidency as previously done in the instance of James Riady of the Indonesian Lippo Group for Bill Clinton in 1992 was not convicted by the DOJ until January 11, 2001.

    68. Each of the Defendants and their agents have been unjustly enriched by the referenced activities to disrupt the election without assuring a duly eligible Presidential Candidates for the Republican Democrat and Socialist Workers party under color of state law, that violates Plaintiff?s and those similarly situated Federal / State voter right and imposing expense as a taking; as with 42 USC ?1983 and related law applies in its entirety with election costs levied upon real property.

    69. That Defendant SOEBARKAH (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro, a.k.a Barack Hussein Obama) individually under the name Barack Hussein Obama is located in care of c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, District of Columbia 20500 used campaign finance committees nationally and in New York State according to records maintained by the Defendant NYS BOE include but are not limited to: OBAMA FOR AMERICA by Martin H. Nesbitt, Treas. PO Box 8102 Chicago, IL 60680 ; OBAMA VICTORY FUND by Andrew Tobias, Treas. 430 South Capitol Street SE Washington DC 20003; among others used exclusively in New York state; and that Defendant Soebarkah conspired with Defendant Nancy Pelosi individually with place of business located at Washington, D.C. Address 235 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC 20515-0508, along with the DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK located at 461 Park Avenue South New York, NY 10016 , STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE located at 2-4 Nevins Street Floor 3 BROOKLYN, NY 11217 and XYZ JOINT FUNDRAISING COMMITTEES to use the funds associated with the campaign.

    70. That Defendant John Sidney McCain III, individually then located at 3501 North 24th Street Phoenix, AZ 85016 used campaign finance committees nationally and in New York state according to records maintained by the Defendant NYS BOE, and that include but are not limited to the MCCAIN VICTORY 2008 located at 228 S WASHINGTON ST STE 115 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314; MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008 & The New York Finance Committee Road to Victory Tour located at 228 S WASHINGTON ST STE 115 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314, and that Defendant John Sidney McCain located at Campaign Address 2211 East Camelback Road Phoenix, AZ 85016 and place of business at Washington, D.C. Address 241 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510, conspired with Defendant John A. Boehner, individually along with THE NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE located at 315 STATE ST, ALBANY, NY 12210-2001 , THE NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF THE INDEPENDENCE PARTY located at Frank MacKay, Chairman Independence Party of New York State PO BOX 871 Lindenhurst, NY 11757, STATE COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE located at 486 78TH STREET BROOKLYN, NY 11209, and XYZ JOINT FUNDRAISING COMMITTEES to use the funds associated with the campaign.

    71. That Defendant R?ger Calero, individually used campaign finance committees nationally and in New York state according to records maintained by the Defendant NYS BOE, and that include but are not limited to persons associated with THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY located at Committee Address: 1000 Grand Concourse, #4A Bronx, NY 10451, read more: http://www.city-data.com/elec /CALERO.html#ixzz14RIyR4iu, and XYZ JOINT FUNDRAISING COMMITTEES to use the funds associated with the campaign.

    72. That the campaign finance associated with the Defendant Soebarkah and Biden Candidacy activities is aided and abetted by Democrat Party Electoral College slate malice seated after the November 4, 2008 General Election that further damaged Plaintiff at both the national and state level beyond what has occurred, and will occur, by reason of all Defendants? activities of unjustly enriching themselves at expense of Plaintiff and others similarly situated.

    73. That all the Defendants having been culpable to jointly and severally aid and abet the false billing of Defendant Presidential Candidate campaigns with associated funds from the New York state taxpayers in the excess of say $10,000,000.00 or more, are liable for the cost of elections, with interest, and cost of suit caused by the scheme to defraud.

    WHEREFORE, Plaintiff wishes a preliminary injunction hearing and summary judgment under CPLR ?3001 and permanent injunction against the Defendants and such other relief as the Court deems just including:

    a. That the Court order expedited discovery to determine the mope of the I alleged $10,000,000.00 or more actual damages plus after conducting hearings and jury trial to determine the scope of punitive treble damages;

    b. That the court order a report to be presented to the full legislature and Chief judge of the Court of Appeals in the matter of public officer impeachment, sedition, treason and referral for prosecution.

    c. And for further and different relief as the Court may deem necessary herein. - Dated November 11, 2010. -SNIP-

    Complete Strunk v Paterson/Obama et al Complaint with Exhibits at Scribd

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:12
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

    Obama Birthplace Controversy

    ?
    ObamaCon2012 Day 1 Update: News Conference; Letter to Oahu Circuit Judge accusing the Hawai?i courts of corruption in dealing with public records
    Obamacon 2012 Chairman Andy Martin will hold a Honolulu news conference today, November 11th, to accuse the Hawai?i courts and Hawai?i Attorney General of corruption in the battle for access to President Barack Obama?s original, typewritten 1961 birth certificate. ?We have confronted secret hearings, secret orders, after-the-fact correspondence and a whole host of other suspicious practices,? Martin says. ?What secrets are Hawai?i officials hiding from the American people? To claim Barack Obama is a ?private? person is a joke; to refuse to release public records concerning the origins of an American president is an outrage. What the ?Hawai?i hoodlums? do not realize is that their dirty tricks are single-handedly helping to destroy Obama?s credibility with the American people.? Obamacon 2012/Honolulu 2010 continues through Tuesday, November 16th.

    Obama author/film producer Andy Martin accuses Hawai?i courts of corrupt practices in denying public access to Hawai?i state records involving President Barack Obama

    Martin says his efforts questioning Obama?s birth Hawai?i birth certificate launched the most formidable spontaneous political movement in American history: Americans who doubt Obama?s origins and family history

    Martin says 100 million Americans now have questions about who Obama really is and where he really comes from

    (HONOLULU)(November 11, 2010) Obama author and film producer Andy Martin will hold a Honolulu news conference this morning, November 11th, to release a letter to an Oahu Circuit Judge accusing the Hawai?i courts of corruption in dealing with public records involving President Barack Obama. ?In over forty (40) years of litigating public interest cases from coast-to-coast and around the world I have seldom seen the sustained level of corrupt practices and harassment I experience in Honolulu courts seeking access to Hawai?i state records on President Barack Obama,? Martin says. Martin is often called the ?King of the Birthers? because of his relentless efforts to force the release of Barack Obama?s original, typewritten 1961 birth certificates, which Hawaii officials confirm exists but which they have refused to release on the basis that Obama is a ?private citizen.? ?We need to have a pubic hearing and we need to get the truth out to the American people,? Martin says. ?What are Hawaii judges and state officials hiding about Barack Obama? Can the facts and the truth be as bad as the cover-up? Who is this man that they are trying to protect??

    Martin is in Honolulu for Obamacon 2012/Honolulu 2010, the first political convention of the 2012 presidential campaign season.

    Martin is also spearheading a separate investigation into potential terrorist threats against Hawai?i and the United States.

    The text of his letter follows: November 10, 2010

    Rom A. Trader Swearing-In Ceremony
    Hon. Rom A. Trader
    Circuit Court
    777 Punchbowl Street
    Honolulu, HI 96813-5093
    by hand

    with copy to:

    Hon. Mark Bennett
    Attorney General
    425 Queen Street
    Honolulu, HI 96813
    by hand

    Re: Martin v. Bennett
    Circuit Court No. 10-1-0969-05-RAT

    Dear Judge Trader:

    There are some very mysterious things going on in the above case. Most respectfully I strenuously object to the utter lack of any appearance of impartiality or justice in the proceedings which you have apparently conducted ex parte.

    In late October I received a letter from the Attorney General claiming to present to me a proposed judgment (which had apparently already been signed on October 13th before the October 20th draft was even mailed) claiming that you dismissed my case based on a ?hearing? of which I was never notified in July.

    This is outrageous behavior by the Attorney General and the Court.

    I received no notice of any July hearing in my case, and I did not receive any proposed order in August (which was included in signed form dated August 30th with the October 20th draft).

    What is going on here?

    I do not like to accuse public officials of corruption, but when the Attorney General conducts a secret hearing with a judge and tenders secret orders, what else can you conclude but that the rather blatant appearance of corruption and obstruction of justice is influencing the proceedings?

    I have flown to Hawai?i so we may have an air-clearing hearing with all parties present in court.

    I am available in person in Hawai?i this Thursday and Friday (11th-12th), when I believe the courts are closed, and next Monday and Tuesday (15th and 16th) when the courts are presumably open. I will make myself available any time on the 15th and 16th because I do not return to the mainland until late on the evening of the 16th.

    I respectfully request that you vacate all judgments and orders which either you or the clerk has signed, since they were ex parte and therefore void ab initio, and conduct a de novo hearing on notice to all parties. I can be reached by cell-phone in Honolulu. My toll-free fax also works.

    I believe it is disgraceful that the court has been meeting in secret with opposing counsel, that opposing counsel makes no effort to notify me in a reasonable manner although I am readily available almost anywhere in the world by fax, and that we have the appearance of corruption in a case involving President Barack Obama.

    Rather than helping yourselves and the president, you are embarrassing him and fanning the fires of public distrust about Hawai?i governance.

    I ask that you make time on your schedule as soon as possible while I am physically present in Honolulu, and presumably on the 15th or 16th, so we can find out why the Hawai?i public officials do not believe in providing notice to out-of-state litigants.

    The Hawai?i courts are not a private playground for public officials such as the Attorney General and his staff to conduct ex parte cases in favor of President Barack Obama (or themselves, when local officials are asserting absurd and nonexistent legal theories) based on secret hearings and secret orders. I have been litigating cases for over forty (40) years and I have never experienced the lack of professional courtesy which appears to be routine in Hawai?i for ?outsiders.? The U. S. Constitution and the constitutional right to Due Process applies in Hawai?i.

    Respectfully submitted,

    ANDY MARTIN -

    Third National Conference on Barack Obama's Missing Birth Certificate, College Records and Religion, November 9-16, 2010 Honolulu

    Sponsors:
    www.ThePostEMail.com
    www.ContrarianCommentary.com
    www.StopObamaCoalition.com
    www.CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com

    Previous report on ObamaCon 2012 can be found here. Check back tomorrow for the Day 2 update!

    Visit the Birther Vault for the long list of evidence and people questioning Obama's eligibility; [http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/08/video-ltc-terry-lakins-attorney-on-cnn.html].
    Citizen v natural born Citizen-It's Don't Ask Don't Tell-20100809 issue Wash Times Natl Wkly - pg 5



    Read more at Birther Report

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 8:18
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    Viernes, 12 de noviembre de 2010

    ?



    WND Exclusive


    BORN IN THE USA?

    How Congress was

    prepped to dismiss

    'birthers'

    Research office memo

    includes FactCheck.org attack


    Posted: November 11, 2010
    10:15 pm Eastern

    By Jerome R. Corsi
    ??2010?WorldNetDaily

    ?

    The Congressional Research Service issued a memo to prepare members of Congress to rebut and defuse questions constituents were asking regarding Barack Obama's presidential eligibility under the "natural born citizen" requirement of the Constitution.

    CRS staff member Jerry W. Mansfield, an information research specialist in the Knowledge Services Group, confirmed to WND that he authored the June 5, 2009, CRS memo entitled "Qualifications of Barack Obama to Be President of the United States."

    WND has posted the CRS memo on Scribd.com for download.

    Attached to the memo was an attack piece published by FactCheck.org to dismiss claims that Obama's short-form Certification of Live Birth, or COLB, originally published during the 2008 presidential campaign by DailyKos.com, was a forgery.

    The memo was addressed to Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Calif., and sent to Jeffrey Post, a staff member in the congressman's office.

    Get the free, in-depth special report on eligibility that could bring an end to Obama's presidency

    Attached to the memo were copies of four articles from the Internet aimed at debunking and dismissing arguments questioning Obama's eligibility.

    ?

    The CRS memo surfaced with a fax cover sheet sent by staffer Jeffrey Post from Bilbray's Washington, D.C., office June 8, 2009, three days after Mansfield authored the memo and compiled the Internet attachments.



    ?

    The CRS is a public policy research arm of the United States Congress that is organized as a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress. It works exclusively for members of Congress, congressional committees and congressional staff in an advisory capacity, answering questions.

    Bilbray's office did not respond to repeated WND requests for comment. Jeffrey Post in Bilbray's office told WND he was not authorized to speak with the press.

    In the CRS memo, Mansfield writes: "Per your request we are enclosing several articles that address concerns about the birth certificate of President Obama, his place of birth and how questions surrounding it were ultimately resolved."

    In the second sentence, Mansfield suggests that questions raised about Obama's eligibility have been conclusively dismissed as Internet falsehoods that are taking on mythical proportions: "Also included are a lengthy piece prepared by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania [http://www.factcheck.org] and an article that points out that the Internet includes falsehoods and they can live forever."



    ?

    Mansfield told WND that he had written the memo to provide responses Bilbray could give to constituents who were peppering his congressional office for a response to eligibility challenges.

    WND has reported that Bilbray is on the record saying there is no need for the president to have been born in the United States ? or to have two parents who are U.S. citizens ? to be a "natural born citizen" and be eligible for the Oval Office.

    The controversy over Bilbray's comments developed when a YouTube.com video was posted. In the video of a television interview on MSNBC's "The Ed Show," Bilbray said, "It's just like people thinking that you gotta be born in the United States to be president. You don't have to be. That's a legend. We got to clarify that."

    Mansfield said he "did not conduct any investigation."

    "I merely responded to a request from a congressional office to answer a constituent," he said.

    Asked why he did not balance his memo with published articles questioning Obama's eligibility, Mansfield responded, "I reported what Hawaii Department of Health officials said because they were official statements made by government employees. There has been nothing official said by any official of government, so far as I know, supporting questions raised about Obama's eligibility. So, there is no issue here."

    When WND asked Mansfield if it was his job, in writing the memo, to draw a conclusion for Bilbray, he objected.

    "The attachments were articles in print," he said. "I was simply trying to pass on what is in the press."

    Mansfield was reluctant to talk to the press, and he ended the call abruptly saying, "I am getting contacted by irate people over this memo. It was meant as an advisory to a member of Congress. It was never meant to be released to the public"

    The attachment from FactCheck.org was a posting on Aug. 21, 2008, entitled "The truth about Obama's birth certificate."

    The first paragraph makes clear the piece was aimed at refuting the claim that the COLB was "fake."



    ?

    To refute the claim, FactCheck.org cited a statement by Hawaii Department of Health official Chiyome Fukino asserting she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, had verified that the health department holds "Obama's original birth certificate."



    ?

    Fukino issued a carefully worded statement on Hawaii DOH stationary Oct. 31, 2008, giving the impression that the agency possessed Obama's "original birth certificate," even though that is not precisely what she said.

    Here is the press release in question:



    ?

    What Fukino said was that she had "personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."

    The key phrase was the qualification "in accordance with state policies and procedures."

    Fukino did not explicitly say she had seen Obama's original birth certificate or his long-form hospital-generated birth certificate.

    WND has reported that the Hawaii Department of Health in 1961 would issue a Certification of Live Birth on the basis of family testimony, without any additional proof the child was actually born in Hawaii.

    WND has also reported that the Hawaii Department of Health has refused to substantiate the claim made by FactCheck.org and other Obama supporters that the short-form COLB is an authentic document issued by the Hawaii DOH.

    The FactCheck.org article, updated Nov. 1, 2008, included a mention of Fukino's carefully worded statement issued Oct. 31, 2008, claiming the statement "confirmed ? Obama was born in Honolulu," even though Fukino made no such direct claim.

    Nor did Mansfield point out in his CRS memo to Bilbray that the Annenberg Public Policy Center that finances FactCheck.org also financed Barack Obama who served as the Chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge in 1995. At that time the CAC made a $482,662 grant to a workshop project headed by Mike Klonsky, a former top communist activist who is an associate of former Weather Underground terrorist leader William Ayers, as documented by WND reporter Aaron Klein.

    The three other Internet pieces Mansfield attached to his CRS memo to Bilbray were:

    • A story from the Honolulu Star-Bulletin Nov. 1, 2008, entitled "Officials verify birth certificate of Obama," reporting on Fukino's Oct. 31, 2008, press release;

    • An editorial published in the McClatchy-Tribune Business News Dec. 9, 2008, entitled "Obama birth certificate gets a pass from the Supreme Court," in which the litigation brought by Leo Donofrio in the case Donofrio v. Wells was described by the newspaper as "wacky" and "specious";

    • A story by Tim Jones published in the McClatchy-Tribune Business News Dec. 8, 2008, entitled "Internet drives Barack Obama birth-certificate battle: Web allows opinions to 'live forever,' expert says," in which WND was characterized as "a popular, political right-leaning site" that has chronicled "the campaign challenging the legitimacy of Obama's 1961 birth certificate or the legality of his taking office."

    Mansfield attached to his CRS memo to Bilbray no articles published on the Internet by WND or any other source examining critically the Obama eligibility issue.

    As WND reported a CRS memorandum authored by Jack Maskell, the Legislative Attorney in the American Law Division, April 3, 2008, admits openly that no one ? not Congress, not the states and not election officials ? ever bothered to check Obama's eligibility to be president.

    But WND has reported statements from members of Congress that are based on arguments presented in the material provided by CRS.

    Among the statements from members of Congress that have appeared:

    • Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.: "Thank you for your recent e-mail. Senator Obama meets the constitutional requirements for presidential office. Rumors pertaining to his citizenship status have been circulating on the Internet, and this information has been debunked by Snopes.com, which investigates the truth behind Internet rumors."

    • Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla.: "Presidential candidates are vetted by voters at least twice ? first in the primary elections and again in the general election. President-Elect Obama won the Democratic Party's nomination after one of the most fiercely contested presidential primaries in American history. And, he has now been duly elected by the majority of voters in the United States. Throughout both the primary and general election, concerns about Mr. Obama's birthplace were raised. The voters have made clear their view that Mr. Obama meets the qualifications to hold the office of president."

    • Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio: "President Obama has provided several news organizations with a copy of his birth certificate, showing he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961. Hawaii became a state in 1959, and all individuals born in Hawaii after its admission are considered natural-born United States citizens. In addition, the Hawaii State Health Department recently issued a public statement verifying the authenticity of President Obama's birth certificate."

    • U.S. Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Fla.: "The claim that Barack Obama is not a citizen of the U.S. is false. This rumor is simply election year politics." She referred questioners to Snopes for documentation.

    • Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.: "The courts have held that President Obama is a natural-born American citizen. Moreover, in December 2008, the Supreme Court declined to hear a lawsuit challenging Mr. Obama's eligibility to serve as president, concurring with three other federal courts in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Washington. The courts have confirmed the determination of state officials in Hawaii that health department records prove that Barack Obama was born a U.S. citizen in Honolulu."

    • Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.: "President Obama demonstrated his citizenship during his campaign by circulating copies of his birth certificate, which showed he was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961."

    • Sen. Robert Casey, D-Pa.: "I am confident that Mr. Obama meets all the constitutional requirements to be our 44th president. Mr. Obama has posted a copy of his birth certificate on his campaign website and submitted an additional copy to the independent website FactCheck.org. The birth certificate demonstrates that he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii in 1961, thereby making him a natural-born citizen eligible to be president."

    • U.S. Rep. Wally Herger, R-Calif.: "As you know, some questions were raised about whether President Obama is a natural born citizen. There was a recent lawsuit arguing that he is not eligible for the Presidency for this reason. I understand that the Supreme Court considered hearing this lawsuit, but it ultimately turned down the request to have the case considered before the full court. I further understand that the director of Hawaii's Department of Health recently confirmed that President Obama was born in Honolulu and has personally verified that her agency has his original birth certificate on record. As you know, the U.S. Congress certified his election on January 8, and he was sworn into office on January 20, 2009. While I may disagree with President Obama on a multitude of issues, he has been elected as President of the United States through a fair process and has shown sufficient documentation, via a state birth certificate, that has been verified as being authentic. In short, therefore, I do not believe sufficient evidence was brought to light to conclude that President Obama was ineligible for the office."

    • U.S. Rep. Paul Hodes, D-N.H.: "President Obama publicly posted his birth certificate on his campaign website which confirms that he was born in Hawaii in 1961. This birth certificate confirms that President Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States, above the age of 35, and is therefore qualified to be President of the United States of America. If you would like to view President Obama's birth certificate, I encourage you to go to the website http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate."

    • "Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, "The Constitution and federal law require that, among other things, only native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to parents who were both American citizens) may be President of the United States. In President Obama's case, some individuals have filed lawsuits in state and federal courts alleging that he has not proven that he is an American citizen, but each of those lawsuits have been dismissed. This includes a recent decision by the United States Supreme Court to not review an "application for emergency stay" filed by a New Jersey resident claiming that the President is not a natural born citizen because his father was born in Kenya. Furthermore, both the Director of Hawaii's Department of Health and the state's Registrar of Vital Statistics recently confirmed that Mr. Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961 and, as such, meets the constitutional citizenship requirements for the presidency. If contrary documentation is produced and verified, this matter will necessarily be resolved by the judicial branch of our government under the Constitution."

    • "Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa.: "On June 13, 2008, the Obama campaign released a copy of his birth certificate after numerous claims were made about his eligibility to hold the office of President. The released copy created additional questions, because it contained a blacked out department file number and was apparently missing a seal, and it was impossible to detect raised text, a common characteristic of official documents. There were satisfactory answers to such questions, however: the department file number had been blacked out to prevent hackers from breaking into the Health Department's system, and the State places the seal on the back of the certificate. The website Factcheck.org investigated the matter and provided high-resolution photos taken at multiple angles that revealed the raised text and the seal on the back of the document. ... Accordingly, it has been concluded that President Obama has met the constitutional qualifications to be President of the United States."

    • U.S. Rep Vic Snyder, D-Ark.: "According to State of Hawai'i officials, the Hawai'i State Department of Health has President-elect Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with that state's policies and procedures.

    ?


    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 8:54
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    Jueves, 11 de noviembre de 2010



    BORN IN THE USA?

    Officer's brother: 'Obama

    could have made this all

    go away' Eligibility dispute

    focuses on whether orders

    are legitimate

    ?

    Posted: November 10, 2010
    8:09 pm Eastern

    By Bob Unruh
    ??2010?WorldNetDaily

    ?

    An attorney-doctor from Kansas whose brother is scheduled for a court-martial says President Obama could, if he chose, resolve the dispute virtually without effort.

    Greg Lakin, whose brother is Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, told talk radio show host Peter Boyles on KHOW radio in Denver that it would be "easy."

    "It could have been an easy fix. Obama could have stepped up and done the honorable thing and made this all go away," Greg Lakin said in the interview this week. "Just some type of showing, 'Hey, I was born here ? here's some proof.'"

    WND reported a new trial date has been announced by the military for Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, the career Army doctor who decided to refuse an assignment to Afghanistan because of his concern that the orders he was issued in a chain of command headed by Barack Obama were not legal.

    According to attorney Neal Puckett, who has represented Lakin since a military judge ordered Lakin could not have access to any information about President Obama's eligibility, the trial is scheduled to begin Dec. 14 and run for three days.

    ?See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential-eligibility mystery!

    He confirmed to WND that there will be new directions for the defense but could not elaborate.

    "All I can really say is the case is going to be handled differently from here on out," he said.

    Greg Lakin said he fears the military, which he said never has had to confront the possibility that a president may not be eligible and his orders then may be illegitimate, may take the easy way out and simply lock up his brother.

    "I wrote letter after letter, personally, to Mr. Obama," he told Boyles.

    He said he explained to the president, "This is your issue. This is an easy fix. ? Just show him or the Army or anybody in authority that you have this birth certificate. ? It went unanswered."

    Lakin said the issue appears to be "tearing" at the nation, and now with a change in power in the U.S. House, perhaps someone there will take action or the "Supreme Court will act like the Supreme Court of old and not shy away from the issue."

    Greg Lakin now practices medicine in Wichita, Kan., following a career that included stints as a police officer in Greeley, Colo., and a prosecuting attorney in Hawaii.

    He said his brother made the decision to challenge the president thoughtfully.

    "He's very principled. What's right is right. He really wants to get to the truth," he said.

    Greg Lakin said he was unsurprised by his brother's decision.

    "He loves the Army. He doesn't wish to harm the Army. He just wanted to make sure the orders he received were lawful," Greg Lakin said.

    Lakin's strategy in earlier court appearances was to seek verification of the legality of his orders under Obama. But the military's judge has ruled he cannot access Obama's records nor can he question those who have custody of Obama's records. She even ruled he could not explain that he believes the orders are illegal.

    It is possible that Lakin's case ultimately will end up before the Supreme Court, which may have difficulty ruling that he has no "standing" in the dispute. Virtually every other judge to date has concluded plaintiffs challenging Obama's eligibility lacked standing. But Lakin's case might be different because of the threat of jail time.

    ?

    The American Patriot Foundation, which has been running the Safeguard our Constitution website and working in support of Lakin, has confirmed the public can use the channel to support Lakin.

    There have been dozens of lawsuits and challenges over the fact that Obama's eligibility never has been documented. The "Certification of Live Birth" his campaign posted online is a document that Hawaii has made available to those not born in the state.

    Lakin has been charged by the Army with missing a movement, disobeying a lawful order and dereliction of duty.

    He posted a video asking for the court-martial to determine Obama's eligibility.

    He is board-certified in family medicine and occupational and environmental medicine. He has been recognized for his outstanding service as a flight surgeon for year-long tours in Honduras, Bosnia and Afghanistan. He was also awarded the Bronze Star for his service in Afghanistan and recognized in 2005 as one of the Army Medical Department's outstanding flight surgeons.

    The controversy stems from the Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

    A number of challenges and lawsuits have been based on the constitutional requirement, some alleging Obama does not qualify because he was not born in Hawaii in 1961 as he claims. Others say he fails to qualify because he was a dual citizen of the U.S. and the United Kingdom when he was born, and the framers of the Constitution specifically excluded dual citizens from eligibility.

    Complicating the issue is the fact that besides Obama's actual birth documentation, he has kept from the public documentation including his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, Illinois State Bar Association records, baptism records and his adoption records.

    Lakin posted a YouTube video challenging the Army to charge him over the issue.

    In a later video, Lakin said the issue of evidence is important:

    ?

    ?

    Note: A legal-defense fund has been set up for Lt. Col. Terry Lakin.

    ?

    ?


    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:34
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

    Monday, November 8, 2010

    Confirmed: Congressional Research Service is now involved in the cover-up of Obama's usurpation of the presidency of the United States.

    ?


    As reported here, Attorney Mario Apuzzo obtained and posted a leaked internal memo on eligibility written by the Congressional Research Service addressed to Senators and Members of Congress. In this memo the CRS gives talking points to answer questions from constituents regarding Obama's eligibility to be president. Now, Jerome Corsi of World Net Daily contacted and confirmed the validity of the leaked memo. Below are snippets from WND's report.

    Maybe the CRS could give some talking points on Obama's fraudulent use of Social Security Number 042-68-4425 reserved for Connecticut applicants!?

    Via WND; - Congress report concedes Obama eligibility unvetted - 'There is no specific federal agency' to review candidates for federal office - Jerome Corsi

    A congressional document posted on the Internet confirms no one ? not Congress, not the states and not election officials ? bothered to check Barack Obama's eligibility to be president, and that status remains undocumented to this day.

    It's because state and federal law did not require anyone in Congress or elsewhere to check to see if Obama was a "natural born Citizen" under the meaning of Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, according the document.

    The analysis by the Congressional Research Service, a research arm of the U.S. Congress, openly admits no one in the federal government, including Congress, ever asked to see Obama's long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate. It explains no one was required to do so.

    Technically, the CRS is a public policy research arm of the United States Congress that is organized as a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress; the CRS works exclusively for members of Congress, congressional committees and congressional staff in an advisory capacity, answering questions.

    The CRS memorandum, published and distributed to congressional offices April 3, 2009, was written to explain to senators and member of the House how they could answer constituents who were demanding to see Obama's birth certificate.

    Authored by Jack Maskell, the legislative attorney in the American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service, the document was a memorandum written for the subject "Qualifications for the Office of President of the United States and Legal Challenges to the Eligibility of a Candidate"

    It can be viewed and downloaded on Scribd.com. [embedded below]

    Maskell confirmed to WND that the document is authentic.

    He explained he wrote it only for distribution to congressional offices, not for public distribution, and it was not posted on any of the CRS report sites where the public might have been able to find it.

    He suggested one of the congressional offices that got the report facilitated its release, and it ended up posted on the Internet.

    Maskell told WND he wrote it because so many members of Congress were getting questions from constituents about the issue, and they wanted to know how to respond. It would explain why so many mailed and e-mailed responses to constituents on the issue of eligibility sound just alike.

    The CRS begins the memo by stating the problem: ...continued here; http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=225561

    A HUGE hat-tip to Attorney Apuzzo for first providing this important internal memo that clearly shows the conspiracy to keep Obama's eligibility under wraps runs deep within our government. Mr. Apuzzo and Commander Kerchner put countless hours in the fight to expose the Usurper-in-Chief and his many enablers. Note to the blogs; Please Give Credit Where Credit is DUE! http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/11/members-of-congress-memo-what-to-tell.html

    Also, the Kerchner et al. v. Obama/Congress/Pelosi et al., Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court Distributed for Conference of November 23, 2010. Source; http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/11/kerchner-v-obamacongresspelosi-update_08.html

    If you would like to help fight this battle to get the truth out. Please help the cause in this battle to Protect Our Liberty, please visit this link and make a donation; http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

    Visit the Birther Vault for the long list of evidence and people questioning Obama's eligibility; [http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/08/video-ltc-terry-lakins-attorney-on-cnn.html].



    CRS- Members of Congress Internal Memo - What to Tell Your Constituents in Answer to Obama Eligibility Que...
    Obama Ineligible - I tried and lied but it won't go away! Wash Times Natl Wkly 2010-11-08 pg 5

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:00
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    Jueves, 04 de noviembre de 2010

    WND Exclusive


    BORN IN THE USA?

    Eligibility attorney

    asks to join case

    before Supremes

    'There remains a question

    as to whether absurd

    results may occur'


    Posted: November 04, 2010
    12:30 am Eastern

    By Bob Unruh
    ??2010?WorldNetDaily

    ?

    U.S. President Barack Obama leaves Bunch of Grapes bookstore  in Vineyard Haven on Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, August 20, 2010. The first family is on a 10-day summer vacation. REUTERS/Jim Young (UNITED STATES - Tags: POLITICS)

    A prominent lawyer who has argued several legal challenges to Barack Obama's eligibility to be president, including cases pending at the appeals level in both state and federal courts in California, is asking to join in a case already pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.

    The request is from Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation to join the appeal by attorney Mario Apuzzo on behalf of his client, Charles Kerchner Jr.

    Kreep is seeking to file a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the Western Center for Journalism in support of Kerchner and the other plaintiffs.

    See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential-eligibility mystery!

    Word on what the high court will do with the Kerchner case has not been announced.

    ?

    The Western Center covers a wide variety of topics and is training "citizen journalists" and bloggers, the request explains. So, the "issue of a candidate for president of the United States not being required to conclusively prove his or her birth status is of great concern ? because if the determinations of eligibility are left to the political parties, this will lead to candidates who clearly fail to meet the requirements.""Federal law allows Congress to resolve questions regarding the vote of a presidential elector ? but this is a remedy limited to problems with electors and does not extend to the eligibility of a candidate," the request explains. "Since this action is a dispute over the eligibility of Barack Obama for the office of president of the United States, and not a dispute over whether the electors properly cast their vote, this statute does not apply to the underlying issues at hand."

    Further, it explains that the provisions in the U.S. Constitution, which require presidents to be a "natural born citizen," cannot be disregarded "by means of a popular vote of the people."

    Any amendment to the Constitution, the request points out, "requires a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of all state legislatures."

    "Once a name is placed on a ballot, voters are only concerned with whether they prefer one candidate over another candidate, as it can be rightfully inferred by said voters that the threshold issue of eligibility has already been determined by virtue of the candidate names having been placed on the ballot. Additionally, the candidates for the office of president ? are not required to prove any eligibility."

    Kreep continued, "Because voters can and do vote for candidates that are liked by the voters, even if those candidates may not be eligible for the position, the voters do not have the power, or the right, to determine the eligibility of a candidate. For the court to hold otherwise would be to strip all candidates not winning a majority of the votes cast of all political power, as the laws would be based upon the whims of the majority of voters, rather than on the Rule of Law."

    Kreep asked that the court "resolve the current issue of who has the authority to verify that a presidential candidate meetings the constitutionally required eligibility requirements."

    "Even if the people of the United States voted to elect as president a candidate who did not qualify for the position, that vote would not be sufficient to overcome the constitutional requirements for office," he said.

    "There remains a question as to whether absurd results may occur unless this court so determines," he said.

    Kreep is arguing cases before the appellate level courts in both the state and federal systems in California. He recently obtained a ruling from a state court that appears to say that a judicial review of a president's eligibility is a possibility ? after the Electoral College and congressional procedures run their courses.

    The ruling also suggests that state officials have the option of removing someone from a presidential ballot who is ineligible.

    The opinion upholds a state district court's dismissal of a challenge to the procedures under which California's electors helped install Obama in the Oval Office.

    The case was pursued on behalf of Ambassador Alan Keyes, Wiley S. Drake Sr. and Markham Robinson. It alleged that both the California Secretary of State Debra Bowen and the state's electors for the Electoral College in the 2008 election failed to verify that Obama is eligible.

    Keyes, Drake and Robinson also remain plaintiffs in a similar complaint in the federal court system. The case is now is pending before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

    In the federal case, the plaintiffs are represented by Kreep and California attorney Orly Taitz.

    Kreep has argued that the precedent already has been set, since state officials in California in 1968 refused to have activist Eldridge Cleaver's name on the ballot "because he was only 34 years old, a year short of the requisite 35 years of age needed to be a presidential candidate."

    The court's opinion said a line of responsibility would include the courts should Congress fail to act "in the first instance." During the 2008 election there was no action on the part of Congress regarding the issue.

    The court said, "Judicial review ? if any ? should occur only after the electoral and congressional processes have run their course."

    The president's lawyers in many of the cases have said, and judges have agreed so far, that the courts don't have jurisdiction over a question of eligibility. That's because of the Constitution's provision that presidential eligibility issues must be handled by Congress during the approval of the Electoral College vote, or a president must be removed by impeachment, which also rests with Congress.

    In one case, the president's lawyers prominently argued that the Constitution's "commitment to the Electoral College of the responsibility to select the president includes the authority to decide whether a presidential candidate is qualified for office."

    "The examination of a candidate's qualifications is an integral component of the electors' decision-making process. The Constitution also provides that, after the Electoral College has voted, further review of a presidential candidate's eligibility for office, to the extent such review is required, rests with Congress," the president's lawyers argued.

    But in "State ex rel. Sathre v. Moodie," after Thomas H. Moodie was elected to the office of governor of the state of North Dakota, according to court filings, "it was discovered that Thomas H. Moodie was not eligible for the position of governor, as he had not resided in the state for a requisite five years before running for office, and, because of that ineligibility, he was removed from office and replaced by the lieutenant governor."

    North Dakota's historical archives document the case.

    The Democrat was nominated by his party for governor in 1934 and beat his Republican opponent, Lydia Langer.

    "As soon as the election was over, there was talk of impeachment, but no charges were filed," the state's archives report. "After Moodie's inauguration on January 7, 1935, it was revealed that he had voted in a 1932 municipal election in Minnesota. In order to be eligible for governor, an individual has to have lived in the state for five consecutive years before the election. The State Supreme Court determined that Governor Moodie was ineligible to serve, and he was removed from office on February 16, 1935," the state reports.

    The claims are that Obama does not meet the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural born citizen." The lawsuits have asserted he either was not born in Hawaii as he claims or was a dual citizen because of his father's British citizenship at the time of his birth.

    The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

    However, none of the cases filed to date has been successful in reaching the plateau of legal discovery, so that information about Obama's birth could be obtained.

    Besides Obama's actual birth documentation, the still-concealed documentation for him includes kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.


    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:18
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar