Mi?rcoles, 27 de enero de 2010

A Chronology of Forgery & Deceit


by John Charlton

(Jan. 27, 2010) — Most know that there are doubts about Obama’s Birth Certificate or eligibility to be President of the United States, but few are aware of how his supporters passed off an obvious forgery of a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth and used cleverly crafted quotes of apparent authorities to establish its authenticity for the purpose of committing election fraud upon the entire nation.

The notion that it is a forgery continues to be squashed by the Main Stream Media. Consider the transcript from Chris Matthews’s “Hardball” program from last night during his interview of J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ), who is challenging John McCain for the U.S. Senate seat in Arizona (note that Matthews is attempting to belittle McCain’s opponent):

Matthews asked Hayworth: “Are you as far right as the birthers?” Are you one of those who believes that the president should have to prove that he’s a citizen of the United States and not an illegal immigrant? Are you that far right?”

“Well, gosh, we all had to bring our birth certificates to show we were who we said we were and we were the age we said we were to play football in youth sports,” Hayworth responded matter-of-factly. “Shouldn’t we know exactly that anyone who wants to run for public office is a natural born citizen of the United States and is who they say they are?”

Matthews referred back to some of Hayworth’s past statements. “I’m reading your letter that says the president should go back and get his birth certificate from the governor of Hawaii,” said Matthews, who then added: “I’m just asking, do you stand by this letter?”

“Yeah, sure,” Hayworth responded.

“Should the governor of Hawaii produce evidence that the president is one of us, an American?” Matthews asked. “Do you think that’s a worthy pastime for the governor of Hawaii right now?”

“No, I — look: I’m just saying the president should come forward with the information, that’s all,” said Hayworth. “Why should we depend on the governor of Hawaii?” (Source & Video)

That Matthews should ridicule such a common-sense request is absurd on its face; but his approach is pure Alinksy-esque tactics.

However, what the Main Stream Media doesn’t want you to remember or recognize is that the highly flaunted electronic image of the COLB which the Obama campaign puts forth to defend his claims to be eligible for office was recognized as a forgery from the beginning.

This is the little-known chronology of forgery and deceit which this article will highlight for the sake of national security.

June 2008

In June of 2008, public interest in and doubt concerning Obama’s claims to be a U.S. Citizen resulted in a flurry of Internet activity over demands to see documented evidence of such claims.

In early June, supporters of Obama began to display their ability to use image editing software to create plausibly authentic birth certificates.

After about a week of experimentation, they began to forge birth certificates for Obama citing places of birth such as Alaska and Korea (cf. Israel Insider’s report of June 24, 2008).  Then a few days later, the famous COLB which Obama and his supporters have used to support his personal claims and candidacy for president appeared at the Daily KOS website (high resolution image of COLB c/o Israel Insider).  The Israel Insider wrote in its report:

The image became increasingly suspect with Israel Insider’s revelation that variations of the certificate image were posted on the Photobucket image aggregation website — including one listing the location of Obama’s birth as Antarctica, one with the certificate supposedly issued by the government of North Korea, and another including a purported photo of baby Barack — one of which has a “photo taken” time-stamp just two minutes before the article and accompanying image was posted on the left-wing Daily Kos blog.

Israel Insider was the one of the first news agencies to cover the story of the forgery.  Inan unsigned report dated June 21, 2008, Israel Insider wrote:

In response to mounting media questions about the failure of the Barack Obama presidential campaign to produce the presumptive Democratic nominee’s birth certificate, an official spokesman of the campaign has endorsed as genuine the image of a document purporting to be his “birth certificate.” But some who have examined that image in high resolution claim inconsistencies and irregularities which suggest that the purported document is a forgery. Its high profile use by the campaign, they claim, suggests an attempt to conceal the truth of Obama’s birth circumstances and citizenship qualifications from the American people.

The near immediate acceptance of the forgery by the Obama Campaign signifies that these Obama supporters who were experimenting with document forgery were acting with the implicit approval of the Campaign.

On of the early reporters to work with the Obama Campaign to established the authenticity of the forger in the eyes of the public was Amy Hollyfield of the St. Petersburg Times. Writing on June 18, 2008, she said:

To verify we did have the correct document, we contacted the Hawaii Department of Health, which maintains such records.

“It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate,” spokesman Janice Okubo said after we e-mailed her our copy.

Okubo said a copy of the birth certificate was requested this month, but she wouldn’t specify by whom. But as we know from our attempts to get one in April, Hawaii law states that only family members can access such records.

Okubo in emails to other citizens would completely undo this interpretation; denying to the Israeli Insider on June 26, 2008, that she seen the original Obama certificate, and thus could even authenticate the online image, which electronic image the Department of Health did not release.  Note she did not even authenticate the information on the electronic image of a COLB, she merely said the document’s form was apparently that of a Hawaiian COLB; which of course it is, to the untrained eye.  Hollyfield’s parsing of the Okubo comment and her paper’s promoting of Hollyfield’s enlargement of its significance all point to motivation to make Obama’s alleged COLB appear authentic in the eyes of the public.

Campaign of Misinformation Mobilized to defend forgery

A reduced version of the infamous forged jpg image COLB for "Barack Hussein Obama II."

However, it was precisely at this time the coordinated manipulation of information began to show itself in regard to Obama’s birth certificate.  Because whereas the denial of Okubo, of having seen the original and of having released the electronic image, was published by the Israel Insider, it was not reproduced by major media outlets, which instead highlighted and repeated Amy Hollyfield’s parsing of the Okubo claims.  The St. Petersburg Times report, however, remains an authoritative record that the image was released by the Campaign, since the image which appears in the report  bears the caption: “[Courtesy of the Obama campaign]” (at least as of the time of this report).

Omitted in the reports were the claims of the Israel Insider in their June 24th report that a 2003 COLB belonging to a Patricia DeCosta, contained a field, which the Obama COLB lacked:  the all important “accepted by Registrar”; and the criticism that agency leveled against the Obama COLB genuineness on grounds that it lack proper accompanying marks of authentication:

So if he were registered as being born in Hawaii, Barack Obama — because only he or another member of his immediate family could by law request a “Certification of Live Birth” — must have a certified paper copy, with embossed stamp and seal, or he could request one. But what his campaign has put forward as genuine, according to the senior spokesman in the relevant department of the State of Hawaii, is not in fact a certified copy. It is not valid.

Whereas the uncertified Obama document provides the date “filed by registrar”, the certified DeCosta document provides the date “accepted by the registrar.” The difference between filing an application for a Certification of Live Birth and having it accepted may be key here.

The Obama campaign, however, continues to flaunt the unstamped, unsealed, uncertified document — notably in very low resolution — on its “Fight the Smears” website, with campaign officials vowing that it’s authentic, sending the image around as “proof” to reporters, and inviting supporters to refer to it as they battle against supposed distortions and calumnies against their candidate. However, the campaign refuses to produce an authentic original birth certificate from the year of Obama’s birth, or even a paper version with seal and signature of the “Certification of Live Birth.” Nor has it even published an electronic copy with the requisite embossed seal and signature.

Subsequent research by citizen-investigators has found that “accepted by Registrar” was the common terminology used to indicate that the claimed or submitted facts of a birth were accepted by the State Registrar of Vital Statistics as being credible.  “Filed by Registrar” meant simply that the claims had been made, and had not been verified.

In the same report, the Israeli Insider opined that the reason for the forgery was that Obama was not born in the U.S. and thus was not even a U.S. Citizen, or that he was not a natural born citizen. Most damming of all, in their June 21 report, they cited the claims made by the Obama Campaign through their “Fight the Smears” website, which in debunking what Obama’s Campaign considered “lies”, openly claimed he was a natural born citizen (and thus eligible for the presidency):

Lie: Obama Is Not a Natural Born Citizen

Truth: Senator Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, after it became a state on August 21st, 1959. Obama became a citizen at birth under the first section of the 14th Amendment  “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside….”

The problem with this explanation, is that not all those who are U.S. citizens under the 14th Amendment are natural born citizens; because the U.S. Supreme Court in its ruling, Minor vs. Happersett, years after the 14th Amendment became part of the U.S. Constitution, said that to know what a “natural born citizen” is one had to have recourse to sources outside the Constitution — an evident denial that the 14th Amendment defined such.  Indeed, those born on U.S. soil of a foreign parent, were always recognized to be under the jurisdiction of a foreign power; moreover, a “natural born citizen” has always been defined by the U.S. Supreme Court to be “one born in the country to parents who are citizens.”  Neither of these conditions prevailed for Obama, according to his claimed birth facts, since Barrack Obama Senior was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, in 1961, when Obama claims to be born.

On June 26, 2008, Pamela Geller, wrote summarized much of the Israel Insider reports in a post entitled, “Such a Liar: Obama’s Fake Birth Certificate,” which she published at her blog, Atlas Shrugs.  Her introduction was prophetic:

O-liar will merely say he had nothing to do with KOS releasing the fake doc but we know what a BOLD FACE LIE that is because KOS would rather chew off his arm than do anything to hurt the hate America candidate. My question is this …… does it matter? Even if he’s mom is American born, “Research has since uncovered the law, in force at the time of Obama’s birth, that were he to have been born in another country, his young American mother’s youth extended time abroad would not suffice to make him a “natural born citizen.” Even if he were naturalized later — and there is no evidence that he was — he would not be eligible to run for the office of president .”

If he is hiding the doc, what is he hiding?  C’mon….. give it up Obamendacity. I can’t people the Clintonostra did not uncover such a bombshell.

In fact the original KOS image would later disappear from the net, as well as the Fight the Smears Website.  Factcheck.org, another Obama disinformation network, would later join the fracas, in an attempt to uphold the authenticity of the image, using claims of two “experts” which had no credentials whatsoever, according to The Obama File.

July of 2008

On July 20, 2008, Pamela Geller published an exclusive report, detailing the research of a citizen who went by the nick, “TechDude”.  In that report numerous images were show, explaining how the Obama COLB image was a forgery and how it appears to have been produced by someone using Photoshop software on a MacIntosh computer.  That report concluded thus:

There are two obvious scenarios used to create the image that can be ascertained from evidence. Either a real COLB was scanned into Photoshop and digitally edited or a real COLB was first scanned to obtain the graphic layout then blanked by soaking the document in solvent to remove the toner. After rescanning the blank page to a separate image the graphics from the previously obtained scan could then be easily applied to the blank scan after some editing and rebuilding. It would also explain why date stamp bleeds through the paper and the various bits of toner located around the image as well as the remnants of the previous location of a security border.

So as I have been saying repeatedly since I first compared the KOS images to the Decosta image using the same tests and measurements – the image is a horrible forgery.

Like the work of Polarik, TechDudes analysis was ignored by the Main Stream Media in 2008, and heavily attacked by Obama supporters in the Winter and Spring of 2009. Attorneys Philip Berg (in  summer of 2008-2009) and Orly Taitz (late 2008-2009) would be among those who would champion the cause of disseminating information regarding the forged COLB. In Oct of 2009, Attorney Leo Donofrio would sue the SoS in New Jersey on grounds that Obama, McCain and the candidate from Nicaragua, were not natural born citizens, and therefore should not be allowed on the ballot for president.  His was the first lawsuit to avoid entirely the question of the forgery, in lieu of a direct attack citing the claims of Obama to a father who was a foreigner. Attorney Mario Apuzzo in 2009 would file a case against Obama & Congress using both lines of attack.

The New Truth

It is interesting to note, what Geller herself reported on July 14, 2008, that Wikipedia immediately joined the Obama Campaign action, by altering their article on Obama, replacing mention of “Obama Jr.” with “Obama II” based on the forged COLB:

Wikipedia used to have “Obama, Jr.” and now has changed to “Obama II” in the wake of the COLB. (hat tip Larwyn). Over at JOM

Is there anything in Obama’s books? I notice that the NYT back in 1990referred to both father and son as simply “Barack Obama.”

An excerpt from a noteworthy 2007 Obama speech:

There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born. So don’t tell me I don’t have a claim on Selma, Alabama. Don’t tell me I’m not coming home to Selma, Alabama.

I wonder what news organization was the first to use “Jr.” and whether there is any use of “II,” by the press or Obama, prior to the COLB.

The irony of what Geller found is this:  that Obama in 2007 claimed his name was “Barack Obama Jr.”, but after the release of the forgery, Wikipedia forgot that and claimed his name was “Barack Hussein Obama II”.

From hence forth, the forgery would become in the eyes of Obama supporters, in the eyes of the Main Stream Media, and in the eyes of many politicians, the historical truth; but the actual history and truth of it being a forgery would be tacitly omitted from all further mention.

Weclome to George Orwell’s 1984!

Now one Democrat is so sure of the revised history that he intends to make belief in it a litmus test of political credentials for his Republican opponents, according to James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal.  Andrea Shea King, who hosts a popular internet Radio program commented upon this, in her email missive this morning:

Menendez, who is from New Jersey, plans to “distribute a memo Tuesday advising Democratic campaign managers to frame their opponents early–and to drive a wedge between moderate voters and tea-party-style conservatives”:

The memo urges Democratic candidates to force their opponents to answer a series of questions:

“Do you believe that Barack Obama is a U.S. citizen? . . .”

If a Republican candidate says no to any of the questions, the memo says Democrats should “make their primary opponent or conservative activists know it. This will cause them to take heat from their primary opponents and could likely provoke a flip-flop, as it already has several times with Mark Kirk in Illinois.”

If you want to read the rest of the questions, click through to the link atop this item. We truncated the list because the first item is absolutely jaw-dropping.Are we given to understand that the Democrats intend to run for office by raising questions about Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president?

That has got to be the most brilliant campaign strategy since Michael Dukakis and Max Cleland raised questions about their own patriotism.

So if you hear any Democra


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:49
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Domingo, 24 de enero de 2010

Sunday, January 24, 2010

I Believe The Fix Was In for the 2008 Election and The Cover Up is Still Going Strong!

I believe that the RNC and DNC at the highest levels in 2008 were both complicit in shutting down all discussion of Obama's eligibility issue in the Main Stream Media, print press, and in the leading Conservative Talk Show radio stations. I believe that the RNC and the DNC were complicit in subverting Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of our Constitution as to the eligibility requirements for the Office of the President, i.e., the person eligible for that office must be a "natural born Citizen", i.e., one born in the country to parents who are both citizens of the country such that the child born has singular and sole allegiance at birth to the USA and no citizenship at birth with any other country via his parents or due to the place or location of birth. A natural born Citizen needs know law or resolution of Congress to give or clarify citizenship status. Natural born Citizenship status can only be obtained by the facts of nature at the child's birth. This is natural law. This is what the founders and framers of our Constitution required for the singular and very powerful office of the President and Commander in Chief of the military. John Jay and George Washington put that requirement into the Constitution for exactly the reason that the person serving in that office would have no foreign influences on him/her at birth due to the facts and circumstances of his/her citizenship at birth. Only "natural born Citizenship" in the USA per natural law guarantees no other allegiance or citizenship claims by an another country at birth. If you are born on the U.S. soil of parents who are both citizens, no other country can claim you as a Citizen of their country and you are only governed by the laws of the USA at your birth. This is natural law as written by Vattel in 1758 in his legal book, "The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law". This book was used as a reference to set up our new new nation in 1776 in the writing of the Declaration of Independence and also in drafting the new form of federal government in 1789 and the writing of our Constitution, the fundamental law of our nation.

Both parties put up questionable candidates in 2008 as to their birth citizenship and then the covered up for each other and helped shut down the media and talk radio totally via their respective high contacts in the media industry and elected officials within the sitting Bush administration and in Congress as well as within their own respective presidential campaign organizations. Though shalt not talk about the presidential constitutional Article II eligibility issues was the word put out by all the powers to be in Washington DC and the USA media. It was reported that threats were even made to certain conservative talk show radio hosts in the last quarter of 2008.

And it continues to this day, imo, and is most obvious with the stone silence and "cone of silence" and occasional mocking comments made by the talk show hosts about the eligibility issue questions if mentioned briefly by a guest now and then on Fox News. The approach on Fox News is to ban the topic. Other networks such as MSNBC simply mock the movement continually using Saul Alinsky's tactics from Rules for Radicals rule number 5, ridicule, to stifle all open, serious, and public debate on the issue and to scare off any one in political power from broaching the subject. Anyone even just mentioning this issue is pounced on for the ridicule treatment by the press. This shut down of a free and full "on air" debate of the Obama eligibility issue with serious scholars and legal experts representing each side (such as my attorney, Mario Apuzzo) being allowed on the air together with someone from the Obot side to debate this issue openly is being orchestrated at the highest levels of the RNC and DNC and their elected official type contacts in various powerful positions both today and back in Dec 2008 and early Jan 2009. Whispers in the hallways allude to grave consequences if one breaches this subject seriously on the air ways. The RNC silenced opposition in the conservative talk show radio and elsewhere in late 2008 which has enabled Obama to take power virtually unopposed as to addressing his constitutional eligibility in any serious manner in public debate via the national media. The leadership of the RNC at the highest levels, imo, shut down members of their own political party in Congress and via using their contacts in the highest levels of government, they helped shut down conservative talk radio and TV hosts with innuendos and and whispers of the consequences if this subject surfaced for discussion in a major way on their shows. They were told to keep the eligibility issue and the so called "Birthers" banned on their callers list with special instructions to the call screeners to keep them off the air. The RNC powers to be and their political connections used their power to do this to cover up their own subverting of Article II of the Constitution via putting up a candidate of their own with questionable natural born Citizenship status as their candidate for President. The big liberal media anointed Obama (a hard core progressive and Socialist) and then anointed McCain (a progressive light) because they knew McCain had a citizenship issue of his own and thus would keep him silent about Obama's. And it worked. A "cone of silence" was dropped on the eligibility issue in the DC media and Congress and elsewhere in American to cover up for what both parties were doing, subverting Article II of the U.S. Constitution in the 2008 election. Listen to this radio show interview for more details.


Atty Apuzzo & CDR Kerchner on Andrea Shea King Radio Show hosted by Andrea Shea King - Friday, 22 Jan 2010, 9 p.m. EST: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/01/atty-apuzzo-cdr-kerchner-on-andrea-shea.html

Imo, when this subversion of our Constitution in the 2008 election cycle and the massive cover up by people in the highest levels of the RNC and DNC and their elected official contacts, and our government is exposed, this will be a far worse scandal than Watergate. It will be the worst scandal & political crisis and constitutional crisis in America since the Civil War. Who will win the Pulitzer Prize for exposing this travesty to the Constitution, liberty, and justice in America.

I believe this is what has happened in America and the reason for the cone of silence about Obama's citizenship issues since the start of the 2008 election cycle and it continues to this day. It is a national disgrace and a threat to our freedom and liberty and the survival of our Constitution and Republic. We do not know Obama's true legal identity. He has hidden and sealed all his early life records. What is he hiding? How can we trust this man usurping the Oval Office to protect America from foreign influence at the highest levels. He bows to Saudi Kings! He backs far-left dictators in Central America like Castro and Hugo Chavez in stifling freedom and Constitutional government in Honduras. Maybe he saw what could happen to him in the Constitutional crisis down there. Who is Obama loyal too? We do not know who he really is. The eligibility issue must be fully and openly discussed in the Main Stream Media, the Congress, and in our Courts. Our liberty and freedom is in the balance.

God bless and protect America in the coming test of our very core freedoms this year as this cover up is further exposed.

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr. , Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff , Kerchner v Obama & Congress
For more information on the lawsuit: 
To help the cause, please visit and donate at: http://protectourliberty.org
Posted by cfkerchner at 1:31 PM 0 comments 


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 17:50
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
S?bado, 23 de enero de 2010
Jueves, 21 de enero de 2010



Since early 2007 I have been working on my seventh documentary of a series about exposing the American people to the truth about communism in Cuba.  This one is about Che.  I first presented the proposal to taxpayer-supported PBS, as expected they rejected it.  PBS “won’t air a documentary like this,” was the answer given to my advisor in this project.  This was not the first time that the "progressives" at PBS reject my projects to educate the American public.  Apparently they rather to keep them ignorant about left-wing regimes.


This documentary titled Che: The Other Side Of An Icon. is an exploration of the origins, motivations and resulting actions of Ernesto “Che” Guevara de la Serna. The film profiles the life of the man killed in Bolivia, as well as “Che”, the icon, who lives on today.  It presents the real man behind the myth, his legacy and why he has become so popular among the youth, revolutionaries and terrorists of the world.


It explores the dangers of believing in Che's carefully constructed public image, when the facts of his life are anything but saintly.  This documentary it is based on studies from various academic sources who worked with him and knew his family in Argentina and Havana --who were intimately acquainted with Che’s personal and political trajectory.


You can see the 3-min. prologue of the Che documentary titled at: http://www.youtube.com/jaums.   It appears as a third clip below to the right of my YouTube channel page.  When you finish, click on "see all" and all the rest of the clips from my productions open.  Use the slider down and click on "CheRangelRojasLago.m2t" and you can see the 3-min segment of the moving interview of Barbara Rangel and her mother Blanca Rojas talking about the execution of Col. Cornelio Rojas by Che Guevara, ending with a comment from late Dr. Armando Lago.


The story Barbara Rangel and her mother also appears on Glenn Beck's documentary which air on Friday 22, 2010 from 5:00 to 6:00 pm. at FOXNEWS.  I recommend to all Americans viewing this documentary.  The best option against tyrannies is to be informed and educated ahead of time.


Che: The Other Side Of An Icon is not finished yet, but it will be coming on May 2010.


You can see the previews of my other documentaries of this series made with the goal to educate American people about what socialism/communism did to Cuba and its people.  But it can happens anywhere.


My best,


Agustin Blazquez, producer/director


[email protected]



Publicado por Corazon7 @ 17:24
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Mi?rcoles, 20 de enero de 2010

Obama’s narcissism and arrogance will blind him to the message of the Massachusetts victory.

Saying No to Emperor Obama

 By Alan Caruba  Tuesday, January 19, 2010

imageYes, it’s true. The emperor has no clothes. Even in a State where you cannot swing a dead cat without hitting a dozen Democrats, the voters said “No.”

“We don’t want your odious Medicare ‘reform’. We don’t want to be forced to buy insurance. We don’t want a bill that exists only because every sweetheart deal and other form of bribery was used to get it to this point in the Senate.” And, ignored by the media, it was no to amnesty for illegal aliens as well, another issue of Scott Brown’s race.

The significance of the Massachusetts victory for Scott Brown is the repudiation of Barack HusseinObama, his policies, and his performance in office.

It wasn’t the first time the voters sent the White House this message. They told him to buzz off in Virginia and they told him to get lost in New Jersey. This is a tangible voter backlash against profligate spending and excessive taxation.

Come November, the voters, Democrats, Republicans, and independents will come together to clean house in Washington, D.C. It takes no great punditry to see that coming. If the midterms were held tomorrow, the result would be the same.

It is almost beyond comprehension how Obama could have engineered a failed presidency within the space of just one year. He got a lot of help from Speaker Nancy Pelosi, as mendacious and imperious an individual to have ever held that office. He got a lot of help from Majority Leader Harry Reid, a scowling, malicious cockroach whom the voters of Nevada will remove in November.

Obama’s narcissism and arrogance will blind him to the message of the Massachusetts victory. He and his press secretary, Robert “Glib” Gibbs, will put out a statement that will dismiss the historic event as just an aberration, but the aberration is Obama!

So, stand up and take a bow, Massachusetts!

Home to the Pilgrims; 
home to the Boston massacre when British troops fired on protesters in 1770; 
home to the 1773 tea party to protest taxes; and
birthplace of Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Sam Adams, Elbridge Gerry, Josiah Bartlett, Roger Sherman, and John Hancock, signers of the Declaration of Independence!

Those first Americans led the resistance to the greatest power of their day, Great Britain, and its king.

For all the years Obama taught the U.S. Constitution at the University of Chicago Law School, he either never really understood it or never believed it means what it says.

He never understood that real Americans will not be pushed around, cheated of their Constitutional birthright, or be lied to.

They will push back.

A former emperor, Napoleon of France, spent his last days as an exile on St. Helena. It would not surprise me if Emperor Obama spends his on one of Hawaii’s islands.

CFP Tools

Bookmark and Share 

Reader Feedback | Subscribe | Print friendly | E-mail a friend | Contact Us 

Alan Caruba  Bio
Alan Caruba Most recent columns

Alan has a daily blog called Warning Signs. His latest book isRight Answers: Separating Fact from Fantasy.

Alan can be reached at [email protected]
Older articles by Alan Caruba

Tags: OBAMA Massachusetts

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

No To Obamunism

    The People have spoken
"Obamunism" -- Obama and the people around him are are Obamunists -- Obama is the prototypical Obamunist -- a blend of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Che, Capone, Billy Sunday, Boss Tweed , Muhammad, and Tupac -- they are hybrids -- they use all the tools -- whatever will get them power and keep them in power.  power 

An Obamunist believes the orders come from them, the enlightened ones, through the bureaucracy, to the People.  They wrap their stuff up in fancy slogans, but their goal is 
-- and they believe they are entitled to it.

The Constitution says it's the other way around, and Scott Brown's victory sends a powerful message to the Obamunists in Washington -- you're done!

You know?  Whenever America gets in trouble, a guy like Brown happens along.  I'm not sure anyone else could have achieved this victory over the Obamunists.  A higher power just seems to be watching out for this country.

Tags: Obamunism

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:25
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
S?bado, 16 de enero de 2010
January 16, 2010

"Massachusetts Miracle" (Video)

Topics: Political News and commentaries

It's going viral on emails. Watch it, and pass it around.

"On January 19, 2010, expect a miracle." And, indeed, a vote for Scott Brown is a vote for liberty, a vote for Martha Coakley is a vote for the Obama agenda.

America is hoping and praying that Massachusetts' voters realize this and vote and elect Scott Brown to the Senate.

H/t - Michelle Malkin


Tags: Scott Brown Coakley

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:44
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Viernes, 15 de enero de 2010

Bill stems from Obama 'birther' controversy

Comments 48 | Recommend 4

Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services

January 12, 2010 - 3:51PM

Digg| Save| Print| E-mail| Decrease text size Reset text size Increase text size

President Barack Obama

President Barack Obama

The Associated Press

Rep. Judy Burges, R-Skull Valley, right, in a 2008 file photo with then-state Sen. Karen Johnson, R-Mesa.

Rep. Judy Burges, R-Skull Valley, right, in a 2008 file photo with then-state Sen. Karen Johnson, R-Mesa.

Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services

If Barack Obama wants to run for re-election he would need to produce proof of both his U.S. birth and citizenship to get on the ballot in Arizona, at least under a measure being pushed by a state legislator.

Rep. Judy Burges, R-Skull Valley, is crafting a measure to require anyone running for president or vice president to provide proof to the Arizona Secretary of State's Office that they are legally eligible to seek the office. The U.S. Constitution requires the president - and, by extension, the vice president - to be "a natural born citizen."

More to the point, Burges would require the secretary of state to verify, independently, that the information is accurate.

"And if it's not certifiable, then that person's name would not go on the ballot," she said.

Burges told Capitol Media Services the measure is not necessarily about Obama, though she admitted she has her doubts that he was born in Hawaii as he claims and, even if so, that he can show he is a U.S. citizen.

"With what's happening throughout the world, we need to make sure that our candidates are certifiable," she said.

Burges did not support Obama and is not a fan. And she said if, in fact, he is not a "natural born" citizen, that makes him suspect.

"When someone bows to the king of Saudi Arabia and they apologize for our country around the world, I have a problem with that," she said.

The kind of certification Burges wants, though, could be more difficult than simply checking for a valid birth certificate, as the arguments about his legal qualification go beyond whether he was actually born in Hawaii.

A lawsuit filed in federal court in Pennsylvania charged, among other theories, that Obama lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother married an Indonesian man and moved there, and that he failed to reclaim it as an adult. But Judge Barclay Surrick threw out the case without ruling on the legal theory, saying the plaintiff did not have standing to sue.

The U.S. Supreme Court eventually rejected the case.

Burges' bill, if it becomes law, would put the secretary of state in the position of having to determine whether the individual circumstances of a candidate's life disqualify him or her from being on the Arizona ballot.

The two-term lawmaker said her concerns remain about having a president whose citizenship - and, by her reckoning, loyalty - is not clear.

"We want to make sure that we have candidates that are going to stand up for the United States of America," Burges said.

"This is my home. I want to leave my children a better country than I inherited. And the only way I can do that is what I can do as a state legislator."

Burges said her suspicions about Obama go beyond that well-publicized bow in Saudi Arabia.

"Obama has a book and it said, when it came down to it, he would be on the Muslim side," Burges continued. "Doesn't that bother you just a little bit?"

The quote comes from Obama's book, "The Audacity of Hope," in which he writes about conversations with immigrant communities following the 2001 terrorist attacks, especially Arab and Pakistani Americans. Obama said they were fearful over detentions and FBI questioning and were concerned about the historical precedent.

"They need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction," Obama wrote.




Publicado por Corazon7 @ 12:52
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar


Nothing About Obama Is On The Level

Robert Bauer is the chief of the political law group at Perkins Coie, the Seattle law firm hired by the Obama Campaign to prevent the American public from seeing a wide range of Obama's records that could prove, or disprove, his eligibility to occupy the Oval Office under the Constitution's requirement that the president be a "natural born" citizen under Article Two, Section 1 of the Constitution.

Obama continues to stonewall the release his bona fides to the American People.  These documents include his long-form birth certificate, his medical records, passport records, as well as other records that may possibly be relevant, such as records regarding Obama's possible adoption by his Indonesian stepfather or college application and tuition financial aid records which would reveal whether Obama was ever registered as a foreign student. 

Federal Election Commission records show more than $1,650,000 in payments made by Obama for America to Perkins Coie, while the law firm was representing Obama in various court cases which have sought to obtain Obama's long-form birth certificate to determine if he is a "natural born" citizen

The FEC allows elected officials to use campaign funds to pay legal fees only if the action/investigations arise as a result of their tenure in office or campaigns, according to Politico.


The following is information was compiled by FReeper Starwise from the official Federal Elections Commission website for disbursements by the Obama campaign to the law firm of Perkins Coie, Obama's primary law firm in various eligibility suits:


Year-End 2008 Obama for America disbursements to Perkins Coie were:  $173,052.52


Amended post-general election Obama for America disbursements to Perkins Coie were:  $205,323.00


April 2009 Obama for America quarterly disbursements to Perkins Coie were:  $688,316.42


July 2009 Obama for America quarterly disbursements to Perkins Coie were:  $270,754.18


October 2009 Obama for America quarterly disbursements to Perkins Coie were:  $314,018.06


January 2010 Obama for America quarterly disbursements to Perkins Coie are not yet available.


The official FEC website, to which the Obama and other campaigns must report their financial activity, must be taken by even the most skeptical among us as valid documentation of the reported $1.4 or $1.8, or anything in between, figure that the Obama campaign has illegally spent to hide Barack Obama's questionable background from the American People.


Now that Bauer is safely tucked away in the White House, where he has the protection of "executive privilege," Obama has resorted toillegally using Justice Department attorneys to represent him in his ongoing battle to hide his questionable background from the American People.

The use of civil servants to further Obama's coup d'etat is clearly illegal. Torm Howse, the co-founder, and National Board Director of United Civil Rights Councils of America says the statutory law of the United States Code is extremely clear, even often in multiple ways, that:

a)  the Attorney General cannot represent/defend Obama in any challenge that involves a question of his citizenship, for the relevant statutory laws mandate that the AG be on the prosecuting side against Obama, if the AG is involved, at all... In fact, whether intentional or not, Obama and Holder can be hit with "constructive fraud," at the very least...

b)  the AG also *cannot* represent/defend Senators or the Senate body, itself, in these constitutional questions, either... Again, whether intentional or not, you have that "constructive fraud" against the rule of law thing again...

c)  there are various statutory standings provided for even "mere" individual Citizens to sue Obama, Congress, etc.

d)  Obama's "Presidential records" are expressly PUBLIC by mandate of simple written law (and, combined with using AG Holder & U.S. Attorneys, i.e., our *taxdollars*, in an expressly-unconstitutional manner, defending Obama in any citizenship issues, then Obama gets to pay back every single red cent of that $1.7+ million spent so far... plus interest and penalties, naturally... plus, getting deported, or imprisoned, or whatever else...).

Howse has detailed and provided the direct links to all of these applicable federal statutes, 
And if you don't think Obama, his stooge that's running the Justice Department, and the Democrats aren't above perverting the law of the land, just read this -- nothing about Obama, his administration and the Democrats is on the level.

Permalink . . .

Tags: Perkins Coie Obama

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 12:42
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Mi?rcoles, 13 de enero de 2010


Obama’s Presidential Eligibility Scandal?
TUESDAY, 12JANUARY 2010 22:21

Did Hopefor Rising GOP Stars like Bobby Jindal Play a Role in the Obama’sPresidential Eligibility Scandal?

Whenquestions about Obama’seligibility to serve as President arose, Iimmediately recognized that this could be the biggest political scandalin U.S. history, bigger even than Watergate. The allegations, if true,would have created widespread political turmoil and would have had toinvolve people, high up people, ignoring and/or covering up facts. Howcould a young Senator from Illinois have gotten so far, so quickly, innational politics without some in both the Democratic & RepublicanParties taking notice, researching, discoveringdetails of his past and recognizingthat there was a BIG potential problem?Especially, given that every other person in Washington is a lawyer,people knew, the media hadto have known, known both of the problem and itsramifications. After all, it’s the political big league in Washington.

Having alegal background, I decided to do my own research to satisfy mycuriosity and it became abundantly clear that legitimate questionsexisted and continue to exist. Questions regarding interpretationof ArticleII, Section I of the Constitution, questionsof original intent, British/Kenyanlaw, acquisition of citizenship,questions aboutObama’s birthplace, hisadoption, his educational scholarships, hisparent’s foreign allegiance/citizenship,his priorinadvertent admissions,questions about his passport(s), etc., existwith sufficient basis in law and/or fact to warrant seriousinvestigation and judicial review. So, like many others at the time, Isat back and waited for the media firestorm to begin. And I waited, andwaited, and waited. Not a peep from the media, Hillary, McCain orRepublicans. Why?

With anissue this big involving the first competitive African-American runningfor the Presidency of the United States,hisintentional withholding of records and thepossibility that he fails to meet the Constitutional requirements forthe Office, I just knew that every stone would bequickly overturned to get to the bottom of it. Even though it’s commonknowledge that the Americanmedia is pretty much left of center whenit comes to politics and everything else - ‘the story’, thisstory was SO big that I was sure they would not be able to ignoreit. It wasn’t like other political stories the media ignored suchas JohnEdwards’ love child or LarrySinclair’s allegations ofdrug use and sex with Obama. This story went to bedrock, therequirements of who can be President and who can serve as CommanderIn Chief of our military. To mysurprise, next to nothing came from the mainstream media.

Manyexpected Republicans to wait as long as they possibly could beforeraising the issue because of the political/media ramifications. Itseemed certain that they were praying for the media to take the lead sothey could stay on the high road. After enduring eight years ofconstant Bush bashing and constant negative media spin aboutRepublicans, it’s easy to appreciate their concerns. It’s ashame that Republican fear may have trumped their doing the right thingearly on. Had they manned up, we probably would not be in the currentsituation of having our rights and freedoms in jeopardy.

Republicanshad seen the media for a decade artfully portray them as corrupt,uncaring politicians on a reckless spending spree. This portrayal leddirectly to the 2006 Democratic takeover of Congress. Even though, aRepublican spending spree pales when compared to an Obama/Reid/Pelosispending spree. Even though, Republican ‘caring’ has historically meanta limited federal government helping those in need with a hand up inways that would not bankrupt the nation (sustainability) and Democrat‘caring’ has historically meant a growing government trying to baitthose with needs, real or otherwise, into becoming permanentlydependent. What Republicans could count on in 2008 was that themainstream media would likely report everything Republicans dared sayabout this critical Constitutional issue as racism, expressed and/orimplied.

They werescared of the media in 2008. They were in the political wilderness.However, I believe fear was not the only factor keeping Republicansfrom speaking from conviction. Republicans might have been reluctant torock Obama’s boat because their own leadership (those who would havefully understood Obama’s agenda, his past associations and ideology)may have been considering the possibility that losing to Obama mightnot be so bad.

Maybethey realized that if Obama were elected, Americans would likely be sodisappointed and shocked by his policies that Republicans might quicklysweep back in power. Instead of being beaten up for eternity by themedia for spoiling the first African American’s opportunity to reachthe Presidency, they could be seen as adults setting things right aftera rebellious kid’s screw ups. Yes, I think political calculations couldwell have been trumping principles. After all, the Party did have a fewbright stars in waiting such as Gov.Bobby Jindal. They could just bide their time,hope America wakes up as Obama revealed himself and be ready to step up.

Jindal,he’s the young Republican Governor who had a 77%approval rating in 2008. Jindal had taken overthe reigns of Louisiana shortly after the embarrassing formerDemocratic Governor’s performance dealing with Katrina. Louisiana isalso the home of some fairly egregious examples of Democraticcorruption such as Rep.Jefferson’s conviction and Senator Landrieu appearingto sell her vote for $300,000,000 dollarsto Harry Reid. Gov. Bobby Jindal is definitely a rising star in theRepublican Party, a fiscal conservative, principled and someone notclosely associated with President Bush. He is seen as a leader with agreat future. I can certainly see him in the U.S. Senate.

As timepassed, more and more lawsuits were filed (over 50) challenging Obama’seligibility and nothing - nothing from the media, nothing from HillaryClinton, nothing Republicans in Washington, nothing from John McCain.The issue was a hot potato that carried a truckload of political risk.Democrats, who were acutely aware that they risked losing the carefullygroomed dependence of many minority voters, wouldn’t touch it.Politicians of both parties were afraid of the charge of racism - andfor good reason. All they had to do was watch the vicious attacksagainst eligibility attorneys PhilipBergDr. OrlyTaitzLeoDonofrioStephenPidgeon, and MarioApuzzo.

Giventhat many politicians lack backbone, those of us concerned about theissue had little choice but to put faith with the American judicialsystem and hope that they would answer conclusively the questions ofObama’s eligibility. Well, so much for faith. Notwithstanding theiroaths to protect the Constitution, judges apparently wanted nothing todo with this political hot potato either. Courts have been falling allover themselves from the beginning to do every legal contortionnecessary to avoid granting discovery, examining facts and/or applyingthe law regarding this eligibility issue.

However,we are not defeated. Legalchallenges and opportunitiesfor challenges remain and it will onlytake one principled judge to resolve the eligibilityissue. Is Obama a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ eligible to serve asPresident of the United States and Commander In Chief of itsmilitary? But, we all must remember that most judges begin theircareers on the bench as politicians; and so far, politics trump amagistrate’s sworn duty.

Had thewinner of the 2008 Presidential election been Governor Jindal, you canbe sure there would have been endless lines of Constitutional expertsbrought in by FOX, CNN, MS-NBC, CBS, ABC to explain the history of theeligibility provision, the underlying issues and facts relevant to areasoned determination. You see, Bobby Jindal was born in Louisiana in1971 and his parents are Indianimmigrants who came here to attend graduate school,nearly the exact factual situation as Obama’s (accepting a Hawaii birth). Andhad 50+ lawsuits been filed against a Presidential candidate Jindal,the media would have been in a frenzy trying to outdo each other, itwould have been like the O.J. trial. I also believe that both thefederal & state courts would have been decidedly more eager to getto the merits so that they could be seen as protecting theConstitution, the Presidency and apple pie.

But itwasn’t candidate Jindal - it was candidate Obama. So, instead of havingextensive coverage and thoroughly investigating the issue, the mediahas given next to no coverage. And when the mainstream media decides tocover the issue, they do it so they can spin the story to wronglyequate the meaning of ‘citizen’ and a ‘natural born ‘citizen’ - and topaint those raising the issue as idiots. Where are the realjournalists? With the exception of FOX, this is clearly themedia’s ‘thrill up the leg’ political bias trumpingjournalistic principle.

With FOX,I think of them the same way as I think of Republicans. Because FOX isconstantly vilified by Democrats and the left lending media, thispotato was so hot that even they could not risk being wrong or having acourt come to a different conclusion. FOX’s fear trumped theirjournalistic principle.

I wonderif the Republican leadership figured that if they didn’t complain aboutObama in 2008, they would be able to count on Democrats and the Obamamedia not complaining about Jindal’s eligibility issues should hedecide to run in 2012? My first thought was that having such anexpectation would be a fool’s dream. However, I’m not so sure now. Theyall now have a lot of political capital invested in attempting toeffectively rewrite the eligibility provision of the Constitution bysome sort of contorted waiver/estoppel/abandonment theory. It’s allunderhanded and improper; but as long as courts continue to abdicatetheir own responsibilities, who can know what determined politiciansmight accomplish?

The wholemess smells more and more like ‘the players’ in Washington have gottentogether and decided, or implicitly understand, that the issue and theConstitution are to be ignored. Every player appears to be servingtheir own self-interest, burying their principles, avoiding risk, andusing the mainstream media’s avoidance of the issue as political cover.If the mainstream media ever takes the lead and does theirjob, the other players will be forced to do theirs as well.

Evenwhen, reports were coming out in Canada thata radiotalk show host had revealedthat hehis career, familyhad been threatened; the mainstream American media simply ignored thestory. No real investigation, nothing, nada was started. This smellsreally bad.

Regardingthe Democratic leadership, anyone watching the recent antics of NancyPelosi and Harry Reid concerning the healthcare takeover (with theirbuying of votes, conducting the people’s business in secret, notallowing debate or time to actually read the bills, misrepresentations,manipulation of the numbers, and their constant ridicule those inopposition) must realize that it’s not the means that count to thesepeople – only the ends. Therefore, I have no doubt that they would turna blind eye to the possibility that the Constitution might have beenviolated by Obama and those who have attested to his eligibility. Oh,that was NancyPelosi who did that.

RegardingHillary Clinton, she’s an old school hardball politician who isprobably worrying more about her status and legacy now; rather thanactually doing the right thing and demanding that Obama providedocumentation proving that he is a natural born citizen. I guess it’snot a fight she’s willing to take on given that she is also the wifeof the‘first black President’.

Regardingthe mainstream media, all you need to do is check who has been aconsistent donor to Obama & Democratic politicians through theyears. Then check for yourself what they are reporting, what they areleaving out, how stories are slanted, how far are they slanted and thefrequency of displays of bias. There was a study out of, I believe,UCLA around 2004 that found that 18 of 20major media outlets wereleft of center and that Brit Hume and the Drudge Report did indeedprovide the fair and balanced news coverage. Today, the media appearsto have dropped all pretense of being objective.

RegardingJohn McCain, he is also a seasoned politician who probably values hisown legacy more than tackling such a big political nightmare.Especially, given that some havequestioned his own ‘natural born citizen’ status, hemight prefer someone else take the lead.

A fewRepublican politicians havedisplayed courage by trying to introducelegislation that would require that candidates must provide proof thatthey are in fact eligible for the offices they seeking. Of course,Nancy Pelosi is keeping this buried and it will not see the light ofday while she is the Speaker of the House. This type of legislation isextremely important should Republicans gain power in 2010. It cannot beallowed to stand that politicians can willy-nilly change the effect ofthe Constitution without going through the proper process. Talkabout elitism!

RepresentativeNathan Deal has made the boldest direct display of courage todate by sending Obama a letter asking that he provide proof that he isa natural born citizen. Congressman Deal was of course immediately,repeatedly and viciously attacked for doing this one small act toprotect the integrity of the Constitution. However, Rep. Deal’s act isvery important because it provides a proof that a Member of Congresshad specific concerns over Obama’s eligibility to serve. It is thefirst time that a sitting President has been confronted in this way.Well done! History must not be scrubbed to hide Obama’s probablecriminal deception to obtain the Office of the Presidency.

Republicans took the easiest path in2008 because they were fearful and had been relegated to the wildernessin 2006. With the emergence of the grassroots Tea Party revolt,Republicans are now poised to make substantial gains in 2010. I believepeople are looking for genuine, principled, limited government, fiscalconservative leadership. Unfortunately, current Republicans will haveto do this year because they are the best choice for the nation until bettercandidates emerge. However, all candidates shouldtake heed that millions of Americans recognize that they must payattention to what Congress is doing.

And just a friendly reminder, thoseof us who are concerned about the eligibility issue will also be payingattention. Please don’t consider running Gov. Jindal for the Presidencyin 2012. As much as we (I) may like him, he is not a ‘natural borncitizen’ and we (I) will not put our politics above principles foundedin the Constitution!

Putting the country, theConstitution, & the rule of law ahead of politicians’ self-interestwere called for in 2008 - and the call was ignored. Democrats andRepublicans alike failed to answer.

After rereading this piece, Iam more discouraged and fearful that the courts may well let downAmerica, her Constitution and her people by failing to take the bull bythe horns and look at the issue of Obama’s eligibility. (The courtsystem was the only institution that I had a great deal of faith in butit looks like faith has been misplaced.)

It may ultimately fall to themilitary (who deserve to have a Commander In Chief who is in facteligible to serve in that honored position and is legally capable ofissuing ‘lawful orders&rsquoGui?o to utilize the Uniform Code of MilitaryJustice and demand that Obama establish the facts.

May I suggest Section 935. Art. 135. COURTS OF INQUIRYand possibly


Any person who–


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 18:51
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Domingo, 10 de enero de 2010

American Grand Jury constantly receives letters from the Obots trying to explain away the “natural born” clause in the Constitution. These folks spend hours upon hours trying to validate Obama’s citizenship. The problem with their letters is no historical evidence, laws or rulings exist that support the claim that “any” citizen can serve as the President. The fact of the matter is the law of the land is very precise.

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution that clearly 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; 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.”

By the way, for those of you that would suggest the “or a Citizen of the United States” part makes Obama eligible, think again. This is the “grandfather clause” that made it possible for George Washington to be President, not Barry Soetoro.

By far, the biggest claim by the Obots is that Barry is a “citizen” who was born in the United States and that alone makes him qualified. These folks NEVER admit to the fact that “natural born” citizenship requires the person to be born of two US citizen parents.. “parents” as in plural. Obama has admitted in public and in his writings that his father was NOT a United States citizen. The 19 year old mother of Obama who disclosed that the father was a foreign national could NEVER under any circumstances convey “natural born” status upon her son at birth. It didn’t matter where she lived at the time of birth, what her citizenship status was, where the child was born or how many Birth Certificate documents she applied for. Obama simply did not qualify as a “natural born” citizen because his father, Barack Obama Sr., was a British citizen, not a United States citizen.

Maybe this historical information will help you to better understand the meaning of “natural born.” During the post Civil War years many folks were concerned about citizenship and how it applied to their status.

Even the folks back in the days of Lincoln had it right:


Chief Justice Waite, in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), stated:

“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, or natural-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 parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” Here we can see that the U.S. Supreme Court in all three of these cases adopted Vattel’s definition of what a “natural born Citizen” is, and specifically repeated his two U.S.-parent test.

Dred Scott even removed the word “father” and replaced it with the word “parents.”

Vattel’s law:
EXCERPT 2: de Vattel’s Law of Nations circa 1758 Book 1, Chapter XIX, &212:

The natives, or NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 (Act of April 9, 1866) first established a national law that provided:

“All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.” Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866 (14 Stat. 27). Not being subject to a foreign power includes being free from any political and military obligations to any other nation and not owing any other nation direct and immediate allegiance and loyalty. The primary author of this Act was Senator Trumbull who said it was his intention “to make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States.” Additionally, he added if a “negro or white man belonged to a foreign Government he would not be a citizen.” In order for this requirement to be satisfied, clearly both parents of the child must be U.S. citizens, for if one is not, the child would inherit the foreign allegiance and loyalty of foreign parent and would thereby “belong to a foreign Government.”

Rep. John A. Bingham, who later became the chief architect of the 14th Amendment’s first section, in commenting upon Section 1992 of the Civil Rights Act, said that the Act was “simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that 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” (emphasis supplied).

Rep. Bingham said “parents.” He did not say “one parent” or “a mother or father.”

John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866

Obama laughs at the Constitution

Posted by Bob Filed in American Grand Jury, Constitution

Tags: natural born

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 20:42
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

In our struggle to regain our freedoms and restore our Constitutional Republic

The View From the Top of a Mountain

 By Ron Ewart  Sunday, January 10, 2010

image“When you look down at your feet, you see a very narrow horizon.  But when you look up into the sky, you feast on all of Heaven.”   From Ron Ewart’s book, “Stare Deep Into the Cosmos.”
When I was in my 30s, I learned to fly small airplanes.  I suddenly learned why many wives become pilot widows.  Although I never flew as high as Mount Everest (in my airplane you have to go on oxygen above 12,000 feet) the perspective one gets from three-dimensions, well above planet Earth, is not only exciting, it is exhilarating and sometimes intoxicating.  Flying can be an obsession.  It can draw you into the air like a drunk is drawn to alcohol.

Not long after Mt. Saint Helens blew its top off, in one of the most horrendous volcanic eruptions in the lower 48 since God knows when, I decided to take some pictures of the exposed volcano from the perspective of a high-flying bird and took my airplane to the Mountain.  When I was just north of it, my radio crackled from a pilot in one of the helicopters that was circling the area.  He warned me not to go into the crater, or fly even near the rim, as the winds were whipping around 90 miles an hour and would flip my little Cessna six ways from Sunday.  So I was content to fly at about 10,000 feet, back and forth on the north side of the Mountain, looking deep into Oregon and out of harms way.  Like the pilots say, I was flying in CAVU, “clear air, visibility unlimited”.

On each pass I took several pictures over my shoulder through the window, not expecting anything fantastic ..... one hand on the yoke and the other clicking indiscriminately at the blown-out crater.

The picture accompanying this article was one of those I took.  From my perch in the airplane, I could literally see almost 200 miles into Oregon.  Mt. Hood was just behind Mt. Saint Helens and Mt. Jefferson and the Three Sisters were far in the background.  It was a good day to take pictures on high.  I had done it twice before, but the Sun was at the wrong angle both times and all my pictures were washed out.  Never take pictures from the air at high noon.

In any event, the experience got me to thinking about the perspective one gets from being up high and how much more one can see, given the altitude and the wide angle from which you can view your little piece of the world.  When you are on the ground, so many things can obstruct your view and your horizon is very limited.

The same can be true for the problems we face, either personal, regional, national or international.  When our horizon is narrow, one of our problems can obstruct our view of the other problems and can be so overwhelming, that the other problems are totally hidden from view.  We become so engrossed in the problem in front of our eyes, we can’t focus on anything else.  In other words, we lose our perspective and our point of reference.  We can’t see that many of the problems have connecting roots.

People sometimes blow a problem way out of proportion and that expansion of the problem clouds their view of all else.  They become obsessed with it and won’t let it go.  People with clinical depression are prone to this condition.  Their obsession leads them into fear, paranoia and other maladies that destroy their objectivity.  They become lost in a fog of despair, frustration and the mind-numbing feeling of helplessness.  Their horizon of life becomes so narrow, they can see no way to escape it.  And yet, if they were to just go out on a dark starry night, where the lights of the city don’t dim the brilliance of the stars and stare deep into the Cosmos, their horizon would expand exponentially and instead of their head looking down and their horizon being narrow, they would look up into the night sky and feast on all of Heaven.  Suddenly their internal problems should seem small to the external vision of the expanding universe that is played out in a points-of-light display, on a black background.

In our struggle to regain our freedoms and restore our Constitutional Republic, we are prone to take a similar path with those problems that obstruct our view of the solutions that will lead us to where we won’t to go.  We focus on one issue, like Obama’s birth certificate, or abortion, or prayer in schools, or the health care bill, or cap and trade, or the one-world-order, rather than focusing on the solid foundation of our liberties, as contained in the U. S. Constitution that resides on the high mountain of our freedom.  The path to our original freedom came from there and we must return to that path, no matter what it takes.

There can be no half measures here because we are in a war, a war of ideologies ..... one negative and one positive.  The positive ideology leads to freedom.  The other leads to slavery.  But the negative ideology is cleverly wrapped in Motherhood, Apple pie and Chevrolet.  It appeals to our raw emotions instead of our objective intellect.  It makes us want to save an animal frozen in the headlights of an oncoming train, even if our attempts at rescuing the animal has a high risk of killing us, should we try.  Unfortunately, we are trying everywhere and our future is dark, if we continue on this path to destruction.

Rescuing the poor by destroying our financial foundation, that would drive us into national bankruptcy, is insane.  So is giving amnesty to every illegal alien who wants to come here, in that it will only act as a magnet for more to come.  To take on more people onto our “life boat” while we are vulnerable, is an invitation to national suicide. 

Nationalizing the entire American health care industry is not insane, it is treason.  So is passing Cap and Trade legislation.  Destroying our freedoms and property rights to “save the planet” by passing draconian and unconstitutional environmental protection laws, is not good policy, it is the path to slavery.  To make every American a criminal at the airport, is punishing those who would not do us any harm and giving special treatment to those who are doing everything in their power to kill us, while that laugh at us for our weakness.  To remain on the defensive when we are at war, is a recipe for annihilation.  To not take the battle to the enemy is a strategy of losers.

With the Constitution as our Mountain, let us look out upon our nation and save it from sure destruction, perpetrated on a free people by a negative ideology and those with pure evil in their hearts.  Let us do it from the perspective one gets from being on high.  Let our point of reference be freedom and let our direction be on the path to liberty.

CFP Tools

Bookmark and Share

Reader Feedback | Subscribe | Print friendly | E-mail a friend | Contact Us

Ron Ewart  Bio

Ron Ewart, President, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RURAL LANDOWNERS. An organization dedicated to re-establish, preserve, protect and defend property rights

Ron can be reached at: [email protected]


Tags: Constitutional Republic

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 19:19
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

The United States' nightmare of Obama-Reid- Pelosi socialized medicine will just be beginning

Socialized Healthcare is closer to reality than you think

 By Otis A. Glazebrook, IV  Saturday, January 9, 2010

In an article for the 
Heritage Foundation entitled “Congress’s Secret Plan to pass Obamacare” authored by Brian Darling layout a four step plan for Obamacare to hitch a ride on an existing piece of Legislation which has originated in the House using a rare parliamentary procedure.

Steps one and Two have been completed.

Mr. Darling’s scenario for Step Three was to attach Obamacare to an unrelated bill - H.R 1586, a bill to impose a tax on bonuses received by certain TARP recipients. Mr. Reid has instead attached the bill to H.R. 3590, which is entitled: “An Act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, and for other purposes.’‘

This is the cover page from the Christmas Eve Bill passed by the Senate:

This Act may be cited as
In the Senate of the United States,
December 24, 2009.

Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives
(H.R. 3590) entitled “An Act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, and for other purposes.’‘, do pass with the following AMENDMENTS:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:
HR 3590 EAS/PP
2 (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’‘.

Step Three - The Senate has stealthily passed Obamacare under a benign House Bill for cover.
This satisfies the Constitutional requirement that 
finance bills originate in the House of Representatives.—Completed.

The Senate Bill does not now need to reconcile with H.R. 3692 which is the Pelosi version of Obamacare. Therefore the Bart Stupak anti tax funded abortion rant is a useful diversion. Mr. Stupak may have some influence later on if and when the House takes up H.R. 3692 again.

This is why the Republicans have been locked out of the faux Reconciliation Conference. Look for Pelosi to pass an unchanged H.R. 3590 as soon as the House reconvenes.

Step Four - All that is now necessary is for the House to pass, by a simple majority voteto pass the Senate’s reconfigured H.R. 3590 without changes and present it to President Obama for his signature.

Voila! The Democrat’s 50 year old dream of government controlled healthcare is a fait d’accompli!

The United States’ nightmare of Obama-Reid- Pelosi socialized medicine will just be beginning.

Senate Legislative Calendar:
Senate Bill to get the entire Bill in PDF format.
House Bill: H.R. 3590:
House Bill HR- 3962:

Tags: Obama socialized medicine

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 19:01
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Mi?rcoles, 06 de enero de 2010

Ten New Reasons Why Obamacare Can Still Be Killed

 By Phyllis Schlafly  Friday, January 1, 2010

New reasons emerge almost daily as to why Obamacare can and must be defeated.

  1. The American people oppose Obamacare by almost 2 to 1 in the latest CNN poll. Other polls show lopsided opposition to passing either the Senate or House health-care bill. Public opinion is against the bill because of its obscene costs in higher taxes, burdensome debt, anti-freedom mandates, rationing, and reduced care for seniors. The American people have awakened to the fact that Obamacare is transformational legislation that will drag us against popular will into European-style Socialism.
  2. The Democrats’ double-counting of Obamacare’s financial benefits has been exposed as a colossal lie. Harry Reid told the Senate that his bill strengthens our future by both “cutting our towering national deficit by as much as $1.3 trillion over the next 20 years” AND “strengthening Medicare and extending its life by nearly a decade.” The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) refuted that assertion. CBO said the claim that Obamacare would provide these benefits simultaneously “would essentially double-count a large share of those savings and thus overstate the improvement in the government’s fiscal position.”
  3. Obamacare is unconstitutional because of its mandate that all individuals must carry “approved” health insurance, and all businesses must give health insurance to their employees whether or not the company can afford it. “Universal” coverage will be enforced by the Internal Revenue Service with power to punish those who don’t have such a plan. Constitutional lawyers point out that the Commerce Clause does not give Congress the authority to force Americans to buy health insurance as a condition of living in our country because personal health insurance is not “commerce.” The CBO wrote that “a mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action”; the Supreme Court has never upheld any requirement that an individual must participate in economic activity.
  4. Since the Senate bill imposes sharp limits on health-insurance companies’ ability to raise fees or exclude coverage, it likely will force many of them out of business. Obamacare is unconstitutional because it violates the Bill of Rights protections against takings without just compensation and deprivation of property without due process of law.
  5. Other Obamacare provisions blatantly legislate racial and other forms of discrimination. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights sent two letters to the President and congressional leaders warning about the obnoxious requirements for racist and sexist quotas. The Senate bill requires that “priority” for federal grants be given to institutions offering “preferential” admissions to minorities (race, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, and religion). Institutions training social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists, behavioral pediatricians, psychiatric nurses, and counselors will be ineligible for federal grants unless they enroll “individuals and groups from different racial, ethnic, cultural, geographic, religious, linguistic, and class backgrounds, and different genders and sexual orientations.”
  6. Obama’s claim that “everybody” will now be covered creates few winners but lots of losers. Universal health insurance will be achieved by forcing young people to pay the additional costs (insurance for the youngest third of the population would rise by 35 percent), and by restricting and rationing care for the elderly.
  7. According to Robert Samuelson in the Washington Post, the “wild card is immigration.” From 1999 to 2008, 60 percent of the increase in the uninsured occurred among Hispanics, and Obama’s refusal to close our borders will make this problem more costly every year.
  8. Obamacare gives Medicare bureaucrats the power to ration health care by forcing doctors to prescribe cheaper medical devices and drugs. In the recent case of Hays v. Sebelius, the court ruled that Medicare doesn’t have the right to make this rule, but Obamacare takes jurisdiction away from the courts to hear any appeal from decisions of the new Medicare Commission. The “stick” applied to primary-care doctors is imposing financial penalties if they refer too many patients to specialists. The “carrot” is financial rewards to doctors who give up small practices and consolidate into larger medical groups or become salaried employees of hospitals or other large institutions.
  9. The Senate bill contains at least a dozen of what can be described as bribes. Senator Mary Landrieu received a $300 million increase in Medicaid funding for her state (known as the Second Louisiana Purchase), and Senator Ben Nelson received $100 million permanent exemption for Nebraska from the costs of Medicaid expansion.
  10. The Senate bill even has a four-page section artfully written to enable ACORN to get federal health-care grants. This section describes grant recipients as “community and consumer-focused nonprofit groups” having “existing relationships ... with uninsured and underinsured consumers.”

Further reading:
Health Care Reform


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 19:24
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar


by P. Patriot

Nathan Deal, U.S. Representative for Georgia, is running for Georgia Governor in 2010.

(Jan. 5, 2010) — The Post & Email can publicly confirm that on the first of December, last, U.S. Congressman Nathan Deal (GA-R) challenged the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the office of the U.S. presidency.

Todd Smith, Chief of Staff for Representative Nathan Deal of the United States House of Representatives serving Georgia’s 9th district, has confirmed today that Deal has sent a letter to Barack Hussein Obama requesting him to prove his eligibility for the office of President of the United States of America. The letter was sent electronically the first of December 2009 in pdf format, and Mr. Smith said that Representative Deal has confirmation from Obama’s staff that it has been received. The letter did not have additional signatories. It originated solely from Representative Deal.

Now, what does this mean? This is probably the first time in 233 years of American history that a sitting member of the House of Representatives has officially challenged the legitimacy of a sitting president….one full year into his term.

This forever changes the public discourse.

Even if the putative president ignores the challenge, he cannot hide from it, because by doing so he admits his guilt through silence. The question has to be asked near and far, why would a president who has promised greater transparency than any previous administration pay upwards of $2,000,000 of taxpayer money to hide documents that could resolve the matter once and for all time for the cost of $20.00. He has publicly admitted on more than one occasion that his father was NOT an American citizen. This alone disqualifies him from eligibility based on Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 5 of the Constitution, and consequently makes him a usurper.

Representative Deal, understanding full well the magnitude and gravity of the situation and recognizing that it places our country in a national security crisis, has rightfully confronted the issue head-on. The ramifications are so serious that all laws signed by a putative president are null and void, and soldiers sent into war under his command can be tried as war criminals.

Representative Deal is not a “Birther”; rather, he is a “Truther”; one of the millions of others who have been seeking irrefutable proof for over a year and a half!

Not a single lawsuit to date has been decided on the merits of the case, with numerous cases yet to be resolved or dismissed.

To show support for Representative Deal, you may contact him here:

The Honorable Nathan Deal
2133 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-1009
DC Phone: 202-225-5211
DC Fax: 202-225-8272
Email Address: 
WWW Homepage: http://www.house.gov/deal/

© 2010, The Post & Email. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified.

Tags: Obama Congressman Deal

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:32
Comentarios (1)  | Enviar

Happy Obama Day

Joseph Farah says the state of Hawaii should get its act together. 

On the one hand, its health department refuses to release any information about the birth of Barack Obama Aug. 4, 1961 -- no hospital, no attending physicians, no eyewitnesses, no long-form birth certificate.  On the other hand, the president of the state Senate, Colleen Hanabusa, wants to enshrine the date as an official holiday. 

Another legislator, Republican Gene Ward, even wants to create a new park at the location of what he claims was Obama's original home. 

Since the presidential campaign last year, Hawaii state officials have treated the release and confirmation of information about Obama's birth like it was a matter of national security, but, now, with Obama's visit to Hawaii, officials seem to be positioning themselves for political gain by selectively using information about the birth.  For instance, the Kapi'olani Medical Center and the White House have steadfastly refused to confirm Obama was born there.  Yet, both the hospital and Obama have, when it has benefited them, claimed it as Obama's birthplace.

Isn't it curious that the Hawaii legislature is considering a resolution that would designate the rental apartment building on Beretania Street where Obama's grandparents lived on the National Register of Historic Places, but not the hospital at which he was allegedly born?  Why does the hospital officially refuse, to this day, to confirm or deny Obama was born there?  If you were on the board of a hospital where such a historic birth took place, can you think of any reason why you would not want that kind of publicity?  Why has the hospital quietly claimed Obama's birth for local fundraising purposes but adamantly refused to settle all the controversy about the president's birth with a simple, straightforward, unequivocal statement and the appropriate documentation to support it? 

This is not simply a local matter, and phony concerns about personal privacy are ludicrous under the circumstances. 

The Constitution of the United States requires that presidents are natural born citizens -- meaning born in the United States to parents who are citizens.  The only way that fact could ever be established beyond doubt is for the people of the United States to see official documentation.  Given Hawaii's history of slipshod documentation on such matters, that proof could only come from the release of the original, long-form birth certificate, which, to date, has been guarded by state officials like the crown jewels. 

This is a matter in which every American citizen has legal standing and a right to know the truth. 

Obama has run the executive branch of the federal government as a usurper for a year now.  He has been responsible for fundamental changes in the way our government has historically operated.  He has been responsible for guiding the country to the precipice of bankruptcy.  He is on the verge of implementing unconstitutional policies that will affect the lives and most private medical decisions of every single citizen.  He is escalating a foreign war.  He is undermining American sovereignty.  He is making the U.S. government less accountable to the people and the rule of law. 

He is doing all of this and more without providing proof that he is eligible to be president of the United States. 

And the state of Hawaii is at the center of the stonewalling. 

For my part, I am recommitting my energies and resources to the search for verifiable truth on this matter of eligibility.  I don't care what Bill O'Reilly says about it.  I don't care what MSNBC hacks say about it.  I don't care that Republicans in Congress are too intimidated by the media and the political culture to demand proof, as the Constitution requires. 

Only when this issue becomes a matter of popular concern will the truth come out. 


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:27
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Dear Mr. Beck

You are ill-informed on the "Birther" issue.  Barack Obama, by his own admission, was a British subject at birth.  He has never denied having a Kenyan father, who himself was a British subject as a Kenyan native.  This is easily established under the British Nationality Act of 1948.  He is therefore disqualified to run for the office of the President, because the office is not available to subjects of other governments.  The issue is very simple, and very obvious.  Obama himself admitted that he wasn’t a natural born citizen when he debated Alan Keyes in 2004. 

Let’s see you deal with this one.  There is nothing "nutty" about it, and it doesn’t depend on whether his maternal grandmother tried to cover up a foreign birth in Hawaii by placing newspaper notices.  It is as plain as your face.  BHO is a foreign national first, and an American secondarily, if at all.  That is why he thinks there are 57 states; why he doesn’t understand the constitution; why he wants to give us Britain’s health care system (it’s all in the teeth, don’t you know); why he thinks Interpol should have greater authority in the US than US law enforcement; etc.  He is a British subject and has no business holding the office of POTUS. 

If you think you can overlook this constitutional crisis as not part of the Rubicon, you are mistaken.  One constitutional overlook breeds another and the next thing you know, the financial industry is nationalized, the auto industry is nationalized, the health care industry is about to be nationalized, and the energy industry will soon be nationalized. 

Ultimately, it is all going to be okay, because socialism only lasts until other people’s money (OPM) runs out, and binge spender BHO has spent all the money we have and all the money we will ever have for the next several generations.  He spent all of this before he got his socialist healthcare on the table.  He and his wife have partied like Eddie Murphy in The Distinguished Gentleman (1992) since taking office, while he has busied himself with overthrowing the constitutional republic, establishing a new Islamic empire worldwide, disarming and crippling America, and unilaterally dividing Israel and Jerusalem.  The only budget constraint for Obama is ink and paper (and he is working his way around that) and his foreign policy advisor appears to be "mirror, mirror on the wall."  He has bankrupted the nation, which the sleeping Oprah watchers are now discovering for the very first time.  The reality of the bankruptcy will hit home with gusto in 2010.  Not only will we suffer with 30% unemployment, a complete collapse of real estate, and a complete collapse of the dollar, we will also suffer the slings and arrows of dramatic military defeats, as we let this foreigner steer the ship of state.  Most Americans have no idea how bad it is going to get. 

As for Obama: he will be one of history’s most reviled figures -- on a par with Nero -- as a fool who couldn’t even understand that when he denigrated the United States, he was destroying the very state upon which his safety and his legacy depended.  He will suffer dramatic defeat in Afghanistan and Iraq -- it will not be like Viet Nam, and his name will be tarred with it.  It will be more like the disastrous defeat of Xerxes at Salamis, or the Ottomans at Sisek, or the Moors at Tours; a game changing defeat that will forever cement the destiny of the republic known as the United States of America.  Obama will join the other names in history who suffered cataclysmic losses in the lands of Magog. 

His legacy?  A communist, collectivist fool, brainwashed by red diaper doper babies haunting the halls of ivy league academia whose agenda was to bring back the failed Bolshevik revolution worldwide, who brought his fully bloomed ignorance to power illegally in the US because of the needs of his narcissistic ego, whose illegitimacy caused the US to go bankrupt and to suffer its worst military setbacks in the history of the nation in just a few short months.  History will marvel at the foolishness of Americans, and historians will wonder how we as a people could have allowed this to happen.  Then, of course, historians will ultimately conclude that the demise of the greatest nation the world had ever known happened because the watchdogs whose duty it was to warn Americans of such possibilities -- the so-called news media -- conspired with foreign powers and global financial criminals to destroy America from the inside, as a result of their cowardice, malevolence and silence. 

Contributing member: Glenn Beck, who simply could not bring himself to utter the truth about Obama -- that he is a usurper, holding the presidency illegally and unconstitutionally, because he is without a legal birthright.  Let us never forget who shirked their duty to tell the truth in these last hours, and let us not allow history to forget. 

Stephen Pidgeon 

Tea Party Nation -- link requires registration and sign in --which is not a bad thing.



Pidgeon Responds toBeck’s “Birther” Comments

Submitted by Phil on Tue, Jan 5, 201013 Comments

To provide full context forthis story, WorldNetDaily reportedyesterdaythat radio host and Fox News Channel commentator Glenn Beck mockedso-called “birthers” and suggested that Mr. Obama is using theeligibility issue to his benefit:

“There’s always games beingplayed behind the scenes at a talk radio show,” Beck said. “Rush has always called themseminar callers. But instead of being coy with the seminar callers orwith you, I’m just going to expose the game that is going on. Todaythere is a concerted effort on all radio stations to get birthers onthe air.”

“I have to tell you, areyou working for the Barack Obama administration?” Beck scoffed. “Imean, that’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.”

The ongoing dialogue thenspun off into ridicule as Beck caricatured those who question thesitting president’s eligibility with straw-man arguments reminiscent ofjibes made by Obama’s apologists in other news outlets.

Beck defined birthers aspeople who believe Obama was born in Kenya or other foreign country,was raised as a Manchurian candidate and somehow brainwashed HillaryClinton into not exposing his fraud. According to Beck’s running joke,birthers believe someone – maybe Obama’s KGB “control” – preemptivelyplaced Obama’s birth announcement in 1961 Hawaiian newspapers with a“roadmap” of getting an African man into office.

As for Obama producing along-form birth certificate to actually prove his place of birth, Beckquestioned, “Why do that when these people ['birthers'] are sodiscrediting themselves?”

WND goes on regarding theactual questions concerning the eligibility issue, taking note that Mr.Obama could have, in fact, been born in Hawaii (for all anyone knows),but would still have been, at birth, a British subject.

Regardless, Mr. Beck isclearly in the minority in his negative characterizations of those ofus who question Mr. Obama’s bona fides. Numerous high-profileindividuals have specifically regarded the issue as legitimate andworthwhile, including the following list of personalities:

  • Rush Limbaugh(3 times)
  • Sean Hannity
  • Sarah Palin
  • Elizabeth Cheney
  • Lou Dobbs
  • Steve Malzberg
  • Lynn Samuels
  • Camille Paglia
  • Jonah Goldberg

However, the strongestretort, to date, has come from attorney Stephen Pidgeon, one of anumber of lawyers who pushed the eligibility issue in the Judiciary andwho has currently teamed up with attorney Leo Donofrio in representingChrysler dealers regarding the car company’s bankruptcy proceedings andthe quo warranto statute.

In a letter that is makingits rounds across the blogosphere, Mr. Pidgeon blasted Mr. Beck for his“ill-informed” stance (h/t AmericanGrandJury):

 @@[email protected]@


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