Lunes, 28 de febrero de 2011

Share on Facebook

Monday, February 28, 2011

Notre Dame Professor Charles Rice: Obama's eligibility could be biggest political fraud in the history of the world; time for a new approach


Professor Charles Rice on Obama's 'eligibility'?
By Matt C. Abbot

There's been a lot of discussion in certain circles on the topic of President Obama's "eligibility." (Incidentally, Dr. William Oddie cogently argues in a recent commentary that Obama is an enemy of the Catholic Church. Click here to read it.)

Charles E. Rice, professor emeritus at Notre Dame Law School ? and author of the book What Happened to Notre Dame? ? argues that it's time for a new approach on the eligibility issue. His commentary is reprinted below.


Obama Eligibility
By Charles E. Rice

The speculation about President Obama's eligibility goes on and on, with no reliable access to the truth and with no end in sight. It is time for a new approach.

The Constitution provides: "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." Art II, Sec. 1. Neither the Constitution nor any federal law defines the term "natural born citizen." Nor has the Supreme Court provided a definition that covers the questions presented in the Obama case.

In Minor v. Happersett, in 1875, the Supreme Court, made an incidental reference to the issue: "[N]ew citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization. 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." 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875).

The Obama "Fight the Smears" website has published a digital photograph of a short-form "Certification of Live Birth" issued by the Hawaiian Department of Health that lists his place and date of birth as Honolulu on August 4, 1961. At that time, Hawaii's practice was to issue also a long-form Certificate of Live Birth which contains more information, including the name of the hospital, or address of the place, where the birth occurred; the identity of the physician or other "attendant" at the birth; and the signature of the parent or other 'informant" certifying the accuracy of the information, etc. President Obama has not given the permission required by Hawaiian law for release of that long-form certificate.

Numerous lawsuits challenging Obama's eligibility have been rejected by every court involved, including the Supreme Court of the United States. Some are still pending. The rejections have been based on various grounds, including the plaintiff's lack of standing to sue and other specified and unspecified procedural grounds. No court has agreed to decide any of those suits on the merits.

The lawsuits have presented a bewildering array of claims, including, among others, that: Obama was born, not in Hawaii, but Kenya; if he was born abroad, his mother, an American citizen, was legally too young to confer that citizenship on him at birth; the Hawaiian short-form certification of birth published on the Obama website is a forgery; that short-form certification could have been legally issued in 1961 to certify a birth occurring elsewhere than Hawaii; Obama is ineligible because, wherever he was born, he had dual-citizenship since his father was a British citizen and the British Nationality Act of 1948 made his son a British citizen at birth; Obama identified himself as a foreign student at Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard Law School; when Obama traveled to Pakistan in 1981, he did so on an Indonesian passport at a time when Indonesian law forbade dual citizenship, etc., etc.

There is no reason to analyze those lawsuits here in detail. Their lack of success cannot be ascribed simply to a hyper-technical evasion of judicial responsibility. For example, the rule requiring a plaintiff in a federal court proceeding to have a sufficient personal interest, or standing, to bring the suit provides needed assurance that suits will be seriously contested and will seek more than merely advisory opinions. On the other hand, it is fair to say that the Obama controversy involves significant issues of fact and law that deserve some sort of official resolution.

I suggest no conclusion as to whether Obama is eligible or not. But the citizens whom the media and political pundits dismiss as "birthers" have raised legitimate questions. That legitimacy is fueled by Obama's curious, even bizarre, refusal to consent to the release of the relevant records. Perhaps there is nothing to the issues raised. Or perhaps there is. This is potentially serious business. If it turns out that Obama knew he was ineligible when he campaigned and when he took the oath as President, it could be the biggest political fraud in the history of the world. As long as Obama refuses to disclose the records, speculation will grow and grow without any necessary relation to the truth. The first step toward resolving the issue is full discovery and disclosure of the facts.

The courts are not the only entities empowered to deal with such a question. A committee of the House of Representatives could be authorized to conduct an investigation into the eligibility issue. The classic formulation of the Congressional role is Woodrow Wilson's, in his 1884 book Congressional Government:

It is the proper duty of a representative body to look diligently into every affair of government and to talk much about what it sees. It is meant to be the eyes and the voice, and to embody the wisdom and will of its constituents. Unless Congress have and use every means of acquainting itself with the acts and the disposition of the administrative agents of the government, the country must be helpless to learn how it is being served; and unless Congress both scrutinize these things and sift them by every form of discussion, the country must remain in embarrassing, crippling ignorance of the very affairs which it is most important that it should understand and direct. The informing function of Congress should be preferred even to its legislative function...[T]he only really self-governing people is that people which discusses and interrogates its administration. (p. 198)

Wilson later retreated from his affirmation of Congressional supremacy. He said in 1900 that the president, rather than Congress, "is now at the front of affairs." (Congressional Government, preface to 15th edition, 1900, p. 22.) In his 1908 book Constitutional Government in the United States, four years before he was elected to that office, he described the president as "the political leader of the nation." (pp. 67ff.) Wilson's second thoughts on congressional supremacy, however, do not negate Congress' "informing function." The investigatory power has remained as an essential role of Congress.

The Constitution nowhere expressly grants to either House of Congress a general power to investigate in aid of legislation, or in aid of overseeing the Executive Branch. However, the Supreme Court has long recognized that such a power is implied as an essential concomitant to Congress's legislative authority. John E. Nowak and Ronald D. Rotunda, Constitutional Law (2004), 280. See McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 (1927).

The investigative power of Congress has multiple purposes. "The ability to gather information has been regarded as a predicate to effective legislation and as important to providing a legislative check on executive actions. The Supreme Court has explained that Congress thus may conduct 'inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes. It includes surveys of defects in our social, economic or political system for the purpose of enabling the Congress to remedy them.' The power to investigate also includes 'probes into departments of the Federal Government to expose corruption, inefficiency or waste'..... The authority to investigate necessarily requires the power to compel testimony." Erwin Chemerinsky, Constitutional Law (2006), 310. (Internal citations omitted).

It is difficult to imagine, to borrow Wilson's phrase, a more pressing "affair of government" than the question of whether a sitting president obtained his office illegally, and perhaps even by fraud. An investigating body must not prejudge the case. Its concern must be, first, to put the facts on the record and then to consider whatever legislation or other remedy might be appropriate in light of those facts.

The House of Representatives is an appropriate body to inquire into the facts and legal implications of a President's disputed eligibility for the office. The House itself has a contingent but potentially ...Continue reading here;

Visit the Birther Vault for the long list of evidence against Hawaii officials and all of the people questioning Obama's eligibility; [].
?Obama Not a Natural Born Citizen w/Venn Diagram-14Feb2011 Wash Times Natl Wkly pg 5

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 15:40
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Domingo, 27 de febrero de 2011

Share on Facebook


25 Reasons to Impeach Obama

Saturday, February 26, 2011 7:14


25 Obama Crimes the House Should Investigate in 2011


  1. Convicted felon and Chicago real estate developer?Tony Rezko?s purchase of land?adjacent to Obama?s house in Hyde Park, IL. In 2006, Rezko sold a 10 foot strip of his property to Obama for $104,500, rendering the remainder of Rezko?s $625,000 investment too small to be developed and, for all intensive purposes, worthless.
  2. The provision of the Obama campaign donor lists to ACORN in 2007 and 2008, more complete lists than the ones he provided to the FEC. ACORN used the lists to illegally raise money for Obama?s election from donors who had already maxed out their legally allowable contributions.
  3. Widespread voter fraud?including voter intimidation, ballot stuffing, falsified documents, and threats of violence against Hillary Clinton supporters committed by the Obama campaign and ACORN during the 2008 Democrat primary election. For more information see my CFP article How Obama Used an Army of Thugs to Steal the 2008 Democratic Party Nomination.
  4. Obama?s refusal to release his long form?birth certificate?which would show conclusively that he is a dual citizen and therefore not constitutionally eligible to serve as President. Obama?s college records, which have also not been released, would also contain information regarding his dual citizenship status.
  5. Protecting union interests?over those of GM and Chrysler bond holders during bankruptcy proceedings, forcing investors to accept millions of dollars in losses in direct violation of bankruptcy laws, money to which they were legally entitled.
  6. Preferential treatment given to minority and women owned car dealerships by Obama administration officials as part of the auto industry bailout program and the?forced closing?of a disproportionate number of rural dealerships located in areas that did not vote for Obama.
  7. Unsubstantiated firing?of Corporation for National and Community Service Inspector General Gerald Walpin for exposing Sacramento Mayor and Obama supporter Kevin Johnson?s misuse of an $850,000 AmeriCorps grant.
  8. Purchase of Congressional support for the passage of Obama?s healthcare bill including the ?Cornhusker Kickback?, ?Louisiana Purchase? and having the Department of Interior increase water allocations to the Central Valley of California to secure the votes of Democrat Reps. Dennis Cardoza and Jim Costa.
  9. Lying to the American people by promising they could keep their healthcare coverage if they wanted to, when in reality tens of millions will be?forced out of their current plans.
  10. Attempted bribery of Rep.?Joe Sestak?with job offers to get him to drop out of the Senate primary race against Sen. Arlen Specter.
  11. Directing the EPA to unilaterally set carbon emission standards, thus bypassing Congress which opposes Obama?s energy reform bill. For more information see my CFP article?Forget Cap and Trade: EPA Regulation of CO2 Emissions Will Begin in 10 Months.
  12. The Obama administration?s statement that a panel of experts had agreed with their plan for a 6 month Gulf Coast drilling moratorium, when in actuality none of them had supported the measure.
  13. Bullying BP?to set up a $20 billion slush fund to compensate Gulf Coast businesses and residents affected by the oil spill, to be administered by an Obama political appointee without any judicial or congressional oversight.
  14. Implementing a?third oil-drilling moratorium?after the first two were thrown out of court, creating a de facto Gulf Coast offshore drilling ban in opposition to two judge?s rulings.
  15. Establishment of a commission to investigate the Gulf Coast oil spill that contains not one oil industry expert and whose transparent purpose is to push a partisan political agenda rather than investigate the cause of the disaster.
  16. Obama?s policy of?intentionally not securing our nation?s borders, in opposition to Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution which calls for the President to protect states from foreign invasion, in an attempt to blackmail Republican support for comprehensive immigration reform. In essence, Obama is holding border states and residents politically hostage during a time they are being overrun by a narco-paramilitary invasion.
  17. Department of Justice illegal race based policies regarding voter fraud as exposed by former Justice attorney J. Christian Adams. This includes the?dropping of voter intimidation charges?against 2 Black Panthers?brandishing weapons?in front of a voting location in Philadelphia and the stated intention by political appointees to ignore voter crimes committed by African Americans, Latinos and other minorities.
  18. Department of Justice purposefully allowing some states to continue their disenfranchisement of military personnel serving overseas in direct opposition to the 2009 Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act, which was established in response to the more than 17,000 military votes that were not counted in the 2008 election because ballots had arrived after the deadline.
  19. Recess appointment of Donald Berwick?as head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services without even a token attempt to put him through the Congressional nomination process, signaling that Congress?s constitutional obligation to vet presidential appointees means nothing to Obama. The same can be said of the 30+ Obama administration czars.
  20. Spending?$23 million?of taxpayer money through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) tosupport a constitutional referendum?in Kenya in spite of the Siljander Amendment, which makes it illegal for the U.S. to lobby for abortion in other countries. The Kenyan referendum was partially written by Planned Parenthood and is designed to legalize abortion in that nation.
  21. The participation of the Obama administration in the firing of Sherry Sherrod from the USDA without due process because of publicized out of context remarks she made at a NAACP meeting in March 2010.
  22. The White House sham investigation of?BP?s involvement?in the release of the mass murdering?Lockerbiebomber from prison. The Obama administration not only knew beforehand of the Scottish government?s plan to set Abdel Baset al-Megrahi free on ?compassionate? grounds, they even sent a letter to Scottish authorities stating their preference for his remaining in Scotland over his transfer to a Libyan prison.
  23. The canceling of 77 properly filed oil field development contracts approved by the Bush administration by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, preventing the extraction of up to 3 trillion gallons of oil buried under Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and North Dakota, more than enough to end our dependence on foreign oil and supply the U.S. with its energy needs for hundreds of years at current consumption rates.
  24. Investigations by the Department of Homeland Security to determine the political affiliation of people making Freedom of Information Act requests and the subsequent delay and even altogether ignoring of requests made by Republican affiliated individuals.
  25. The hardest to prosecute in court, but worst crime of all that Obama has perpetrated against the American people is the economic tyranny that his socialist policies have?wrecked upon our nation. While Obama has been living the life of a king, including frequent 5 star vacations, dozens of concerts at the White House and endless rounds of golf, all paid for by taxpayer money?the increased transportation and security costs alone are in the millions of dollars?he has called for the rest of us to endure economic sacrifice. The annual trillion dollar deficits and borrowing of 41 cents of every dollar of government spending by Obama is leading to unsustainable and potentially catastrophic debt.

Something to Look Forward to
These 25 crimes are just what I?ve been able to dig up over the past couple of weeks. No doubt there are many more that I have missed or still as yet undiscovered. While any one may be sufficient to impeach Obama, taken as a whole it demonstrates that Obama has little to no regard for the rule of law.

I look forward to a Republican controlled House of Representatives uncovering Obama?s corrupt dealings and exposing this man as unworthy of the office of President

Fred Dardick is the owner and operator of a medical staffing company based in Chicago. Prior to the business world, he worked as a biological researcher at various highly regarded universities in the United States.

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:53
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Viernes, 25 de febrero de 2011

Share on Facebook

Friday, February 25, 2011

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 17:24
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook

Where's the Birth Certificate?-Jerome Corsi


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 13:46
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook



by paralegalnm, blogging at Paralegalnm?s Blog

(Feb. 24, 2011) ? The concept of birthright U.S. citizenship by native-birth alone is a carryover from English law as practiced by the American colonies, but superseded by the 1790 Uniform Naturalization Act that relied on the ?Law of Nation?s? ? 212 description of ?those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.?

The reason ?native-born citizen? is so terribly?conflated in the American psyche as synonymous with ?natural born citizen? is because of over a century of the judiciary ignoring U.S. statute.

The Lynch case (1844) violated the 1790, 1795, 1798, 1802, and 1804 uniform naturalization acts through semantic gymnastics and false logic, implying law and intent that went beyond the clear language of the acts themselves.

Wong Kim Ark (1897) side-stepped the existing requirements of legislated Act by creating a special ?constitutional? citizenship-at-birth. Ark?s violation of jurisprudence?(neglecting to address treaty and equity issues actually within the court?s jurisdiction) completely ignored the 1866 Civil Rights Act?s ?not subject to any foreign power? as precursor to the 14th Amendment?s ?under the jurisdiction thereof? clause. Ark continues in its effect to this day, causing the courts to ignore the conflicts of dual nationality at birth and, through Plyler vs. Doe (1982), forcing states to treat children of even illegal aliens as citizens.

The Judiciary versus Congress; Removing the Redundancy

The constitution clearly enumerates congressional plenary power over uniform naturalization law. However, while Minor vs. Happersett (1874) commented in dicta that a ?natural born citizen? was without doubt a child born of U.S. citizens, the judge in Ark intentionally fabricated a ?constitutional? citizen out of reach of congressional Article I powers.

The judiciary?s misguided reliance on English jus solis principles for citizenship at birth was belied by English law itself, that relied on both ?descent? and ?otherwise than by descent,? i.e., of patrilineal?inheritance, or?just born within English dominion. The courts compounded their error by creating the ?birthright? native-born citizen, which has burdened the states by encouraging illegal immigration.

In addition, judicial error has created a constitutional crisis, for it has justified the son of a British subject, Barack Hussein Obama, to erroneously claim Article II eligibility to the presidency through?native-birth alone.

Congress has the power to correct over one-hundred years of judicial ?legislation? simply by clarifying Title 8, U.S.C. ? 1401(a) with a definition that ?under the jurisdiction thereof? is extended from the 1866 Civil Rights Act?s ?not subject to any foreign power.? The legislative history supports this amendment.

In addition, the current misinterpretation is a gross redundancy; a child ?born in the United States? is obviously within its territorial jurisdiction. The reality is, as defined in the rest of the Aliens and Nationality Act, is the effect of one alien or non-citizen parent who introduces alienage through foreign jurisdiction.

For a more complete, fully-cited?legal analysis, please forward your request to the address below.

[email protected]


? 2011, The Post & Email. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.

5 Responses for ?Fax this Memo to your Congressman?

  1. ksdb says:

    The Wong Kim Ark decision affirmed Justice Waite?s definition of natural born citizen (from Minor v. Happersett). Gray cited the definition verbatim and acknowledged that Waite REJECTED Virginia Minor?s claim of 14th amendment citizenship. Gray wrote that the Supreme Court was ?committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment ?? IOW, this is saying the 14th amendment does NOT apply to natural born citizens (since they are already citizens). Gray further affirmed this by noting that Minor?s citizenship was due to jus soli AND jus sanguinis criteria: ?The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States ??

    The other thing that?s noteworthy about the MInor and WKA decisions is that both technically acknowledged that the concept of being a ?native? is equivalent to being a natural born citizen in that you still need to be born in the country to citizen parents. Gray?s concept of 14th amendment ?citizenship by birth? is a public law class of citizenship, but it is not technically ?native born? citizenship. The modern concept of ?native born? citizenship is based on a superficial understanding of the term, but is not based on the Supreme Court?s actual interpretation.

  2. jtx says:

    Harry H.:

    The very last phrase of your post is undoubtedly correct!!!

  3. SteveinVA says:

    A well written and powerful discussion of the subject.

  4. Harry H says:

    Paralegalnm seems to have fingered the necessary distinctions here, but waiting for a walrus-like judiciary to act appropriately and justly could take a while. And many people will never understand or admit to understanding what they consider the legal niceties of Article II.

    In contrast, everyone can understand that a non-citizen should not be our Commander-in-Chief. Since I believe Obama is not even a citizen, much less nbC, I think the easiest, surest way out of this mess is to indisputably verify where the usurper was born. If by some miracle it turns out Obama was indisputably born in the U.S., the nbC question still has to be answered.

    Congress should take the easiest step first by establishing as a legal fact where our putative president was born. If it can?t even do that, Congress is a useless parasite on the body politic.

    • thinkwell says:

      One thing that is certain, recent revelations (Adams, Abercrombie, Miss Tickly?s blog, etc.) have made it more and more evident that Obama-liar was born somewhere else than in Hawaii. That contradictory fact alone constitutes criminal fraud and should be sufficient legal justification to oust the usurper, regardless of wherever he actually was born.

      Certainly there are plenty of Kenyans (apparently including his step grandmother) who are convinced that he is a native son of Kenya and drew his first brand-spanking-new breath as a Kenyan on Kenyan soil.

      Given that eyewitnesses and university enrollment records placed his mother in Seattle within scant weeks of his purported birth date, and given that he had a great aunt who lived nearby in northern Washington state at that time (the perfect hiding place for a ?very young and very single? mother), it is also quite possible that he was born just over the border from Blaine, Washington in White Rock, Canada.

      In my opinion, these are the two most likely scenarios, but given the dearth of nativity information from the ?most transparent administration ever,? all we know for certain is that, whatever the truth actually is, it would mean the immediate end of the Obama-fraud?s illegal occupation of the Presidency.

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:02
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook


Oh, To Be a Teacher in Wisconsin

How can fringe benefits cost nearly as much as a worker's salary? Answer: collective bargaining.


The showdown in Wisconsin over fringe benefits for public employees boils down to one number: 74.2. That's how many cents the public pays Milwaukee public-school teachers and other employees for retirement and health benefits for every dollar they receive in salary. The corresponding rate for employees of private firms is 24.3 cents.

Gov. Scott Walker's proposal would bring public-employee benefits closer in line with those of workers in the private sector. And to prevent benefits from reaching sky-high levels in the future, he wants to restrict collective-bargaining rights.

The average Milwaukee public-school teacher salary is $56,500, but with benefits the total package is $100,005, according to the manager of financial planning for Milwaukee public schools. When I showed these figures to a friend, she asked me a simple question: "How can fringe benefits be nearly as much as salary?" The answers can be found by unpacking the numbers in the district's budget for this fiscal year:

?Social Security and Medicare. The employer cost is 7.65% of wages, the same as in the private sector.

Associated Press
?State Pension. Teachers belong to the Wisconsin state pension plan. That plan requires a 6.8% employer contribution and 6.2% from the employee. However, according to the collective-bargaining agreement in place since 1996, the district pays the employees' share as well, for a total of 13%.

?Teachers' Supplemental Pension. In addition to the state pension, Milwaukee public-school teachers receive an additional pension under a 1982 collective-bargaining agreement. The district contributes an additional 4.2% of teacher salaries to cover this second pension. Teachers contribute nothing.

?Classified Pension. Most other school employees belong to the city's pension system instead of the state plan. The city plan is less expensive but here, too, according to the collective-bargaining agreement, the district pays the employees' 5.5% share.

Overall, for teachers and other employees, the district's contributions for pensions and Social Security total 22.6 cents for each dollar of salary. The corresponding figure for private industry is 13.4 cents. The divergence is greater yet for health insurance:

?Health care for current employees. Under the current collective- bargaining agreements, the school district pays the entire premium for medical and vision benefits, and over half the cost of dental coverage. These plans are extremely expensive.

This is partly because of Wisconsin's unique arrangement under which the teachers union is the sponsor of the group health-insurance plans. Not surprisingly, benefits are generous. The district's contributions for health insurance of active employees total 38.8% of wages. For private-sector workers nationwide, the average is 10.7%.

Associated Press

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker

?Health insurance for retirees. This benefit is rarely offered any more in private companies, and it can be quite costly. This is especially the case for teachers in many states, because the eligibility rules of their pension plans often induce them to retire in their 50s, and Medicare does not kick in until age 65. Milwaukee's plan covers the entire premium in effect at retirement, and retirees cover only the growth in premiums after they retire.

As is commonly the case, the school district's retiree health plan has not been prefunded. It has been pay-as-you-go. This has been a disaster waiting to happen, as retirees grow in number and live longer, and active employment shrinks in districts such as Milwaukee.

For fiscal year 2011, retiree enrollment in the district health plan is 36.4% of the total. In addition to the costs of these retirees' benefits, Milwaukee is, to its credit, belatedly starting to prefund the benefits of future school retirees. In all, retiree health-insurance contributions are estimated at 12.1% of salaries (of which 1.5% is prefunded).

Overall, the school district's contributions to health insurance for employees and retirees total about 50.9 cents on top of every dollar paid in wages. Together with pension and Social Security contributions, plus a few small items, one can see how the total cost of fringe benefits reaches 74.2%.

What these numbers ultimately prove is the excessive power of collective bargaining. The teachers' main pension plan is set by the state legislature, but under the pressure of local bargaining, the employees' contribution is often pushed onto the taxpayers. In addition, collective bargaining led the Milwaukee public school district to add a supplemental pension plan?again with no employee contribution. Finally, the employees' contribution (or lack thereof) to the cost of health insurance is also collectively bargained.

As the costs of pensions and insurance escalate, the governor's proposal to restrict collective bargaining to salaries?not benefits?seems entirely reasonable.

Mr. Costrell is professor of education reform and economics at the University of Arkansas.

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:49
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook

Friday, February 25, 2011

AFSCME on Wisconsin

The American Federation of State, County
and Municipal Employees propaganda video
on the Wisconsin protests.

Deluded, but they understand the stakes.



Anonymous?Anonymous said...

How utterly sad it is to be a union member. They are spoonfed this propoganda b.s. and have absolutely no clue what they have done to this economy and all non-union workers. So many holes in this video:

1. WI teachers WILL have healthcare. They will just have to contribute to it like everyone else in the private sector.

2. Unions are for political power..bottomline. All of their leadership are paid BIG bucks to lobby and send union dues to political candidates and their pet projects.

3. Unions with collective bargaining give high wages to workers who do not deserve them.

4. Public unions have robbed from the taxpayers yet demand taxpayers pay more and more and more. Just where do they think the money comes from?

America is awake. I applaud Governor Walker and wish him all the success in the world in breaking the collective bargaining process.

Deb in Kentucky U.S.A.

11:33 AM ?
Anonymous?Anonymous said...

to the woman who said "Governor Walker has not walked in their shoes", neither have you walked in mine! You have never had to pay 100% of your insurance benefits as I do every month. And things are so bad for my family right now that I just had to make that payment on a credit card. Why are things so bad, you might ask? Because I'm being TAXED to pay your health insurance. It's not enough that I have to pay 100% of my own, but I also participate in paying the bill for yours and all the other union workers. Get a clue! Government jobs are not like corporate jobs, the money that you get paid comes 100% from our taxes. So every benefit you receive means less money in my pocket. You really don't have anything to complain about. No sympathy here!

11:55 AM ?
Anonymous?larryG said...

MeMeMeMeMe,these idiots are the reason Japan sells more and better cars and why most stuff bought came from another CHEAPER LABOR market.Everything a Democrat or Communist or Union touches turns to shit,and all three are trying to take the stage.God help us and may he be with Trevor and New Zealand at this time.

1:10 PM ?
Blogger?Cobra said...

I remember what I was taught in my marxism classes, when I was behind of the former iron curtain:

"The unions are the the TRANSMISSION BELT of the communist party".

This phrase may even come from Lenin himself.

2:21 PM ?

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

? ? AFSCME on Wisconsin The Progressive Hunter ?
Posted by TMH in Authors, Financial, Politics, Survival, Taxation, Trevor Loudon. By: Trevor Loudon New Zeal. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees propaganda video on the Wisconsin protests. ...
<$I18NPostedByBacklinkAuthor$> @ 3:46 PM
? cbmilne33 ?
My Photo ? Colin Bruce Milne: Gordonton Primary School 1970-3.Kerepehi Primary School 1973-5.Te Awamutu Intermediate School 1975-6.Te Awamutu College 1977-82. Waikato University 1983-90. B.Soc.Sci.(Politics)1988,Waikato University. ...
<$I18NPostedByBacklinkAuthor$> @ 10:51 AM
? Commonsense & Wonder: Union thugs at work. ?
Here's the difference between the faux violence made up by the left wing media and real violence as perpetrated by the unions and Democrats. The teachers are fighting for undeserved privilege. They are not beyond the laws of economics ...
<$I18NPostedByBacklinkAuthor$> @ 9:02 AM
? Commonsense & Wonder: The people don't want to become France where ... ?
I was shocked when I saw this number. The gravy train is really over for public employee unions. Citizens are sick to death of their strikes, threats of strikes, whining, caterwauling, and incompetence. It wouldn't be this bad probably, ...
<$I18NPostedByBacklinkAuthor$> @ 9:01 AM
? Commonsense & Wonder: Will the perpetrators be forced to put some ... ?
This is how the oh so tolerant Democrats/leftists work, claiming to be pure while actually being rotten to the core. You know the reply from the left ill be everybody does it but they're wrong. Posted by jerry at 11:52 AM ...
<$I18NPostedByBacklinkAuthor$> @ 8:52 AM
? Commonsense & Wonder: What an example these teachers/union thugs ... ?
CBS Reports: Mexican Government is hip to Bandidos Gabachos as long as they carry ATF badges, apparently. 23 minutes ago. Walter Russell Mead ? Thucydides Hates ?Realists?. 24 minutes ago. Professor Mondo ? Think of It as a Safety Net? ...
<$I18NPostedByBacklinkAuthor$> @ 8:25 AM
? Commonsense & Wonder: When are the eco-nutters going to be held ... ?
The environmental radicals should be held legally responsible for the damage they cause. We have been held hostage by these people far too long. Want to know one reason your produce is more expensive and more and more comes from outside ...
<$I18NPostedByBacklinkAuthor$> @ 8:11 AM
? Commonsense & Wonder: A glimmer of hope for tolerance. May it ... ?
CBS Reports: Mexican Government is hip to Bandidos Gabachos as long as they carry ATF badges, apparently. 23 minutes ago. Walter Russell Mead ? Thucydides Hates ?Realists?. 24 minutes ago. Professor Mondo ? Think of It as a Safety Net? ...
<$I18NPostedByBacklinkAuthor$> @ 8:01 AM
? Commonsense & Wonder: Good news. ?
CBS Reports: Mexican Government is hip to Bandidos Gabachos as long as they carry ATF badges, apparently. 23 minutes ago. Walter Russell Mead ? Thucydides Hates ?Realists?. 24 minutes ago. Professor Mondo ? Think of It as a Safety Net? ...
<$I18NPostedByBacklinkAuthor$> @ 8:00 AM
? Commonsense & Wonder: Trolling for grant money?

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 8:58
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Mi?rcoles, 23 de febrero de 2011

Share on Facebook

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

The Foundation

"No pecuniary consideration is more urgent, than the regular redemption and discharge of the public debt: on none can delay be more injurious, or an economy of time more valuable." --George Washington

Editorial Exegesis

Wisconsin GOP Gov. Scott Walker

"For Americans who don't think the welfare state riots of France or Greece can happen here, we recommend a look at the union and Democratic Party spectacle now unfolding in Wisconsin. Over the past few days, thousands have swarmed the state capital and airwaves to intimidate lawmakers and disrupt Governor Scott Walker's plan to level the playing field between taxpayers and government unions. Mr. Walker's very modest proposal would take away the ability of most government employees to collectively bargain for benefits. They could still bargain for higher wages, but future wage increases would be capped at the federal Consumer Price Index, unless otherwise specified by a voter referendum. The bill would also require union members to contribute 5.8% of salary toward their pensions and chip in 12.6% of the cost of their health insurance premiums. If those numbers don't sound outrageous, you probably work in the private economy. The comparable nationwide employee health-care contribution is 20% for private industry, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The average employee contribution from take-home pay for retirement was 7.5% in 2009, according to the Employee Benefits Research Institute. Mr. Walker says he has no choice but to make these changes because unions refuse to negotiate any compensation changes.... Wisconsin is running a $137 million deficit this year and anticipates coming up another $3.6 billion short in the next two-year budget. Governor Walker's office estimates the proposals would save the state $300 million over the next two years, and the alternative would be to lay off 5,500 public employees. None of this is deterring the crowds in Madison, aka Mad Town, where protesters, including many from the 98,000-member teachers union, have gone Greek." --The Wall Street Journal


"It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government." --former AFL-CIO President George Meany (1894-1980)

"History comes and history goes, but principles endure, and ensure future generations will defend liberty not as a gift from government but as a blessing from our Creator." --President Ronald Reagan (1911-2004)


"[Public-sector] unions are government organized as an interest group to lobby itself to do what it always wants to do anyway -- grow. These unions use dues extracted from members to elect their members' employers. And governments, not disciplined by the need to make a profit, extract government employees' salaries from taxpayers. Government sits on both sides of the table in cozy 'negotiations' with unions." --columnist George Will

"Unionizing teachers, unionizing state employees is not about better teachers. It's not about better employees. It's about more power for the Democrat Party. It's about institutionalized Democrat Party membership as state and federal workers and employees. How could you get them more loyal to the government than to make 'em union members?" --radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh

"One major reason we're in this fiscal morass is our national media. Forget any real cuts. For decades now, any attempt to even try to trim 'increases in growth' in entitlements like Medicare have been trashed by the media as 'draconian cuts.' Our top reporters have spent the last two years letting Barack Obama spew the insanity that he could add millions of uninsured people to the government's health-insurance programs and simultaneously cut the deficit. Now they're calling him responsible for 'deep cuts.' They truly live in a parallel universe." --columnist Brent Bozell

"The key to what is bound to be hand-to-hand combat in the coming [budget cuts] debate will be whether Republicans can change our 'entitlement' mentality and cause people to focus instead on economic liberty and personal freedom. Can government do more for you than you can do for yourself? If Medicare and Social Security are going broke, why would anyone trust even bigger and costlier government to do better with more of our money? ... Changing the way we think about entitlements, economic liberty and personal responsibility will be a challenge for congressional Republicans. They've tried before and Democrats demagogued them into submission. They will try to re-run the same play this time." --columnist Cal Thomas

"For too long, colleges have abandoned the kind of core curriculum that highlights the story of America's constitutional republic, instead opting for a watered-down, politically correct, and multicultural version that seems to have fostered civic amnesia rather than civic knowledge. What better way to honor Washington's memory than for the American Academy to re-dedicate itself to a more rigorous, demanding, and traditional brand of instruction that restores American politics and history to its proper place in the curriculum. That's the kind of birthday celebration worthy of the Father of our Country." --Dr. Richard Brake, co-chair of ISI's National Civic Literacy Board


The BIG Lie: "Despite what you may have heard about Wisconsin's finances, Wisconsin is on track to have a budget surplus this year." --MSNBC's Rachel Maddow

Polar opposites: "You talk about this being a potential Tea Party movement for the Left." --CBS's Chris Wragge on the Wisconsin protests

Parroting the talking points: "I know there's this Democratic state senator Jon Erpenbach who said today it's not about the money, that this is really about the unions' bargaining rights, and that this is just the Republican governor taking advantage of a budget situation and trying to break the unions with this." --MSNBC's Norah O'Donnell

Race bait: "Like many nice Caucasians, I cried the night Barack Obama was elected. It was one of the high points in American history. And all that's happened since the election is just a sh-- storm of hatred." --Esquire's Scott Raab

Apoplectic media: "The greatest president in history, according to the American people with their limited memory, is Ronald Reagan. Keep in mind, these are not historian rankings. These are people's. By the way, they should insist before anybody participates in one of these ridiculous polls, 'Please list the presidents and then pick the best.' Don't just go with the ones you can remember. It's like the greatest movie of all times was the one I just went to." --MSNBC's Chris Matthews, who didn't have a "thrill" go up his leg this time

Newspulper Headlines:

At Least the Obama Administration Is Getting Serious About Spending Cuts: "Clinton: US to Allocate $150 to Help Egypt Recover" --Jerusalem Post

Another Sunrise: "Large Fireball Sighted Over East Coast"

Find Out in Chapter 11: "Borders Moves Towards Bankruptcy: Are Bookstores Going Away?" --Christian Science Monitor

Heavy Humans Linked to Rains -- Now That Would Be News: "Heavy Rains Linked to Humans" --The New York Times

Questions Nobody Is Asking: "Do You Have a Question for Lady Gaga?"

Bottom Story of the Day: "Obama Says He'd Stop Adding to Debt, But That's Not True" --McClatchy Newspapers

(Thanks to The Wall Street Journal's James Taranto)

The Demo-gogues

Good question, but the answer is no: "Are we dealing with our budget in a serious way and reducing spending?" --Barack Obama

Verbal gymnastics: "I would make the argument, one, that instead it is an incentive to do right, that it is not penalizing because penalty is punishment. You're not punished if you have health insurance, in fact. And so you are, in fact, incentivized to have health insurance, rather than take the negative, which is to suggest that because we have a penalty you are being punished." --Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX)

Nothing to see here: "Social Security has contributed not a single penny to the deficit. So we can talk about entitlements as long as you eliminate Social Security. Because Social Security is not part of the problem we have in America with the deficit." --Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid

Banging on the high chair: "Unfortunately, Speaker Boehner seems to be on a course that would inevitably lead to a shutdown. That's reckless ... and I hope he'd reconsider. ... These [spending] cuts are very painful, and many in our caucus didn't want to go along with those. ... I understand that Speaker Boehner is being pushed by the hard Right. But it's wrong wrong; it would hurt innocent people; hurt the economy; and we hope we can come to the table and negotiate without shutting the government down." --Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)

Putting the foreign in foreign policy: "I think it is absolutely clear to say number one, that it's been American policy for many years that [Israeli] settlements were illegitimate and it is the continuing goal and highest priority of the Obama administration to keep working toward a two state solution with both Israelis and Palestinians." --Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

Village Idiots

Invalid comparison: "This is a Martin Luther King moment, this is a Gandhi moment. When we fight, we win. We fight in Montgomery, we win. We fight in Selma, we win. ... We march in Madison, Wisconsin, we win." --race hustler Jesse Jackson demonstrating that it's really yet another Jesse Jackson moment

Strained explanation: "The stimulus package, recovery act, uh, contained within it goals. To improve, to basically, as part of a number of measures that were taken to, uh, prevent a staggering economy from collapsing into depression. To save or create jobs. To invest in, uh, areas where, uh, uh, future growth, uh, would help drive, uh, the overall economy -- and, uh, those goals have been met. ... The bigger point is, there was a crisis that had to be responded to, uh, and, uh, this president did that by leading, and, uh, and we believe it worked." --new White House Press Secretary Jay Carney when asked if the stimulus package was oversold upfront

Breaking news from Gore's latest speech: "[Global warming] is a forest issue. It's a political issue. It's an economic issue. It's a national security issue. It's a jobs issue. But at bottom, it is a moral issue. And we have to be willing to stand up and do the right thing." --Al Gore

That's racist! "Kids always act up the most before they go to sleep. And when I see the Tea Party and all this stuff, it actually feels like racism's almost over. Because this is the last -- this is the act up before the sleep. They're going crazy. They're insane. You want to get rid of them -- and the next thing you know, they're ... knocked out. And that's what's going on in the country right now." --comedian Chris Rock

Short Cuts

"Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority leader Harry Reid argued Thursday over whether Democrats or Republicans should get the blame for a U.S. government shutdown. Both guys have misread the public mood. They should be arguing over who gets the credit." --comedian Argus Hamilton

"They're calling the Middle East uprisings the 'Jasmine Revolution.' Historians say it's the first revolution that could double as a new scent of Febreze." --comedian Conan O'Brien

"At the union protests in Wisconsin, several doctors were on hand to write fake excuse notes for teachers who called in sick to attend the rallies. Wonder if this is some of that medical waste, fraud, & abuse that Obamacare was supposed to fix?" --former Senator Fred Thompson

"First lady Michelle Obama said, 'Let's Move!' Who knew Democratic politicians in Wisconsin and Indiana would take her literally? Faced with stifling debt, bloated pensions and intractable government unions, liberal Midwestern legislators have fled those states -- paralyzing Republican fiscal reform efforts. Like Monty Python's Brave Sir Robin and his band of quivering knights, these elected officials have only one plan when confronted with political hardship or economic peril: Run away, run away, run away." --columnist Michelle Malkin

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:17
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook

Send to a FriendWhat do you think?More Newt
February 23, 2011? Vol. 6, No.8Follow us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Printer friendly
NEWT'S Library
To Save America book image IMG for America At Risk DVD
Help Scott Walker Today
by Newt Gingrich

It is vital that every one of us help Governor Scott Walker today.

In Madison, Wisconsin, we are witnessing a profound struggle between the right of the people to govern themselves and the power of entrenched, selfish interests to stop reforms and defy the will of the people.

In 2010, Wisconsin Republicans ran on a clear agenda of reforming government to gain control of spending. This agenda included many reforms to state government employee pay.

These reforms were desperately opposed by the Democrats and union bosses during the campaign and a full and vigorous debate on the merits of these reforms took place in the months before the election.

Then came the moment for the people of Wisconsin to make their choice ? Election Day. And thanks in part to this bold agenda, the people of Wisconsin chose to switch control of the governorship, assembly and senate to Republicans.

The people of Wisconsin sent a clear message. They elected leaders that promised to change the way government operated in Madison. The will of the people was expressed through the ballot box, exactly how it is supposed to work in a representative democracy.

However, through a campaign of intimidation and cowardice, the government employee union bosses and the Democratic Party that is beholden to them, are trying to thwart the will of the people.

Every Democrat in the Wisconsin Senate, exploiting a rule that requires a quorum when voting on fiscal matters, has fled the state to prevent a promised government union reform bill from receiving a vote.

Worse, the government employee unions, with the backing of the Democratic Party - including the White House political operation, Organizing for America - have further paralyzed Wisconsin through a series of protests at the state capital.

Furthermore, while most state workers have shown up for work during the protests, some schools have been forced to close without enough teachers reporting. News stories have emerged that teachers have been receiving phony doctor?s notes to justify their absence.

This deliberately organized chaos has one goal - to intimidate Governor Walker and other elected reformers into abandoning the people of Wisconsin?s calls for reform.

A Fight over a Fundamental Question: Who?s In Charge?

The showdown in Madison is precisely the crisis between elected self government and organized self interest seeking to impose their will through intimidation which led Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, during the coal miner?s strike of 1984-85, to warn, ?No government or no people can surrender to that kind of mob violence or intimidation, because if we did democracy would be finished.?

This capacity for government employee unions to blackmail the American people is exactly what President Franklin Delano Roosevelt worried about when he warned in 1937:

?All government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining?cannot be transplanted into the public service?The very nature and purpose of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations?Their employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.?

We are witnessing one of the most important struggles in modern America.

At stake is a fundamental question of elected government: who?s in charge?

Governor Scott Walker and Wisconsin Republicans, after receiving a clear mandate from the people of their state, have placed the very legitimacy of representative self government on the line by demanding profound reform of government unions.

Going in, Scott knew this would become a life and death struggle with the forces of the old order.

As Milwaukee County Executive (the only Republican elected there in modern times, Scott won three times) he learned that every major reform designed to save money or improve services would be opposed by the government employee union leadership. Indeed, throughout the United States, government employee unions have been consistent advocates for raising taxes and against reforms to save money and improve service.

From this experience, Scott concluded the only way to make government affordable and enable Wisconsin to attract new jobs was through fundamental reform of state government employee unions.

Callista and I helped launch the Scott Walker for Governor Campaign with a huge event in Milwaukee. During the following year I campaigned with him and heard him make the case for reforming the government unions.

At an event in October 2010, I remember Scott vividly describing the stakes, saying we can no longer function as a society ?where the public employees are the ?haves? and the taxpayers who foot the bill are the ?have-nots.??

When the people of Wisconsin voted last November they knew exactly who they were electing.
Governor Scott Walker's union reform proposals today are precisely the union reform platform he campaigned on for all of 2010. Furthermore, the Governor's proposals were validated by the Republican state legislative successes.

It is in this context of fairly won elections in which Wisconsinites consciously chose reform over the status quo that the government employee unions and Democratic Party have decided they would side against the people.

President Obama's support for the government union bosses is a fundamental betrayal of the principle of self government. The leadership and resources the Democratic National Committee is putting into anti-reform demonstrations and other activities proves what a reactionary, anti-reform force the Left has become.

As Goes Wisconsin??

This showdown started as a Wisconsin story, but the decision by the national Democratic Party and the intense media interest has made it national in scope.

Government employee union leaders know they are losing the battle for public opinion and that reform is coming. A Clarus Poll found that 64% of the American people do not think government employees should be represented by unions.

A victory for the forces of reform in Wisconsin would provide enormous energy on government reform efforts to balance budgets in Ohio, New York, New Jersey and elsewhere. It will also extend to other issues like meaningful education reform.

However, a defeat for Walker and the reformers would embolden those who seek to preserve the status quo. Yesterday, borrowing a play from their brethren in Wisconsin, Democrats in the Indiana House fled their state to prevent a vote on a measure that would make Indiana a right to work state.

That?s why it is vital for all who voted in favor of reforming government, wherever you live, to support Scott Walker and the Wisconsin reformers.

The most important way you can help is by articulating the case for self government and government reform to your friends and neighbors.

Call your Senators, Congressmen, Governor and state legislators to urge them to stand with the reformers in Wisconsin.

Call talk radio and write letters to the editor.

And if you have friends in Wisconsin, contact them and convince them to be on the side of reform.

Click here for some facts and figures about the sensible reforms Governor Walker is proposing.

Your Friend,
Newt Gingrich

P.S. I was on Fox and Friends yesterday talking about the implications of the Wisconsin government employee union showdown. Watch it here.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:26
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Martes, 22 de febrero de 2011

Share on Facebook

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Dr. Ronald Polland: Obama's Two Minute Warning; Forged Obama's Birth Certificate

Via Dr. Ronald Polland; - Obama's Two Minute Warning -

Game over, Barack Obama. This 2-minute video will destroy your birth certificate fraud.

You were not born here. You are not a US citizen. Your FORGED BIRTH CERTIFICATE, fabricated by Annenberg Factcheck, proves you are a liar, a fraud, an imposter, and an illegal alien.

The FIRST EIGHT SECONDS of this video buries your rabid liberal media in their own lies.

They demanded that conservatives accept what the Hawaii Governor said about you and your birth certificate.

We do - now you and your gullible supporters must do likewise.

The former Governor said that requesting a Presidential candidate to show his or her birth certificate to prove eligibility is a legitimate question for Congress.

Mr. Obama - or whatever your is real name - you had seven years to prove who you are, and you refused to do so.

Obama must go, NOW. - Dr. Ronald Polland - Source. Previous reports from Dr. Polland here and here.?

Flashback from the Right Side of Life; - Meet the only 2 people to ever "examine" Obama's SHORT-FORM COLB's. -

The two employees who were granted access to Obama?s bogus Certification of Live Birth (COLB) are NOT document examiners or experts. Joe Miller has a Ph. D. in Political Philosophy ? so he?s a political operative ? while Jess Henig has an M.A. in English Literature ? I?m not sure her dye-job is a political or esthetic statement.They are a couple of partisan Obots ? just what you?d expect ? Jess took the photos presented on their webpage and did all of the writing, while Bob basically held the COLB open for Jess to photograph ? suitable work for a Ph. D.

Those two are completely unqualified to perform any kind of forensic examination of any document, and knows it ? and so do Henig and Miller.

FactCheck does say their, ?representatives got a chance to spend some time with the ?birth certificate,? and we can attest to the fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago.? In my mind, that clearly shows they were working with and for the Obama Campaign and that Obama and his people are involved in this lie. Much more here.

And this; - Blogger manipulates birth certificate image, undermining Obama claims - Jay McKinnon, a self-described Department of Homeland Security-trained document specialist, has implicated himself in the production of palpably fake Hawaii birth certificate images similar to the one endorsed as genuine by the Barack Obama campaign, and appearing on the same Daily Kos blog entry where the supposedly authentic document appears. Much more here and here.

And this oldie; Hawaii Officials refuse to verify president's online COLBs images released by Obama's campaign and In response to a direct question from WND, the Hawaii Department of Health refused to authenticate either of the two versions of President Obama's short-form Certificate of Live Birth, or COLB, posted online ? neither the image produced by the Obama campaign nor the images released by Janice Okubu, the public information officer for the Hawaii DOH, also had no explanation for why Dr. Fukino's initial press release last October and subsequent press release also avoided declaring the posted images to be of authentic documents., an organization funded by the same left-leaning Annenberg Foundation that also employed Barack Obama and former Weatherman radical bomber Bill Ayers, produced a short-form Obama COLB that was very different in appearance than the campaign released. Source. And much more here.

Visit the Birther Vault for the long list of evidence against Hawaii officials and all of the people questioning Obama's eligibility; [].?
The Citizenship Status of Our 44 Presidents
List of U.S. Presidents - Eligibility under Grandfather Clause (GFC) or Natural Born Citizen (NBC) or Seate...
Irrefutable Proof that Obama is Not Eligible to be President of the United States, the Facts Don't Lie!
Obama Not a Natural Born Citizen w/Venn Diagram-14Feb2011 Wash Times Natl Wkly pg 5

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 14:02
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook

SHAME ON THE STATE DEPARTMENT: The Mario Marroquin Story ? How War Veterans and Other Citizens ?Born In A House? Are Denied Passports Despite Having Birth?Certificates.

In an act of unparalleled hypocrisy and disgrace, Obama?s Department of State continues to deny passports to some US citizens who were ?born in a house? on US soil ? and not in a hospital or other ?appropriate medical facility? -? despite the fact that they possess long form birth certificates featuring more factual proof of birth in the US than President Obama?s COLB.


Mario Marroquin is a one hundred percent, service connected, Disabled American Veteran who served two tours of duty in Vietnam and another in Desert Storm.? He was born in Alice, Texas in 1942 and has resided there his entire life.? Mr. Marroquin?s father was also born in Alice, Texas.? And he too resided there his whole life.? Mario?s grandfather was also born in Alice, Texas.? Mario informed me that his family has lived in Texas since before there was a United States.

Mario Marroquin gave ten years to his country.? As a result, he was exposed to Agent Orange in Vietnam and now has cancer, diabetes, chronic respiratory illness, and a host of other ailments all of which are diagnosed to have been caused by the vile chemical exposure.

When Mario was born in Alice, Texas in 1942, a long form birth certificate was issued to his parents ? in their home ? by the medical doctor who delivered him into this world.? Mario presented this birth certificate to the military as identification when he enlisted and it was accepted by the government as proper ID.

In 2000, Mario applied for a US Passport because he wanted to fulfill a dream to visit Peru and to see the Incan ruins.? But the State Department denied his passport application because he was born in a house.? Had he been born in a hospital and birthed by that same medical doctor, there would have been no problem.? But since he was born in a house, the State Department claimed that his parents were required to bring the BC to a courthouse for registration despite the fact that the medical doctor who signed it was authorized to issue birth certificates for children born at home.

The State Department never returned Mario?s birth certificate to him.? And they continue to deny him a passport.? To this day, he is not considered a citizen by the State Department.? He is deeply hurt and insulted that the US Government would strip him of his citizenship and confiscate his birth certificate, the same document accepted by the military when he enlisted.

So Mario began a letter writing campaign to state and federal representatives.? But nobody returned his letters.

Then, on August 16, 2008, Manuel De La Rosa from KIII, an ABC news affiliate, issued a report on Mr.? Marroquin.? While the video report has been removed from the web site, the text of the story was reprinted by VA Watchdog, and mentioned at Democratic Underground.

There are very few details listed in the one paragraph report, so I contacted Mario Marroquin yesterday, Sunday Feb. 20, 2011.? We spoke for more than an hour on the telephone and Mario graciously answered my questions, provided a few documents by fax, and agreed to allow me to publish his story.

Among many other decorations, Mario Marroquinn?s unit was awarded the prestigious Presidential Unit Citation. ? And he has been honorably discharged three times.? He votes in every election.? It is undeniable that this man has led a more? patriotic life as a US citizen than most of us ever will.? But when he applied for a US Passport in the year 2000, he was denied because the State Department determined his birth certificate ? which was good enough for the military ? was not good enough to establish US citizenship despite the fact that his family has lived in Alice, Texas for multiple generations.

Finally, after trying to establish his US citizenship for more than nine years, on December 16, 2009, Senator John Cornyn wrote back to Mr. Marroquin indicating that he had made an inquiry with the State Department:

?Thank you for providing me with your signed Privacy Form.? I have made an inquiry on your behalf and will contact you again as soon as I receive a reply.

I appreciate having the opportunity to represent you in the United States and to be of service in this matter.?

On December 30, 2009, Mario wrote back requesting that Senator Cornyn sponsor him for citizenship, stating:

?Please let me know if you can help a disabled vet be recognized as a citizen.?

Unfortunately, Mario Marroquin has not heard another word from Senator Cornyn or the State Department.? And his birth certificate remains confiscated in the hands of the State Department.

Before I go any further, I want to add that Mr. Marroquin told me, ?I?m not a birther, Leo.?? And I told him that I am not a birther either.? Readers of this blog know that I believe Obama was born in the United States but that despite his place of birth, the President was a dual citizen owing allegiance to a foreign nation and that is why I do not believe he is eligible.

Regardless, the President, who is Commander In Chief, should be under at least as much scrutiny to prove citizenship as veterans of foreign wars.? Since, as you will see below, a COLB from Texas or California isn?t prima facie proof of US citizenship according to the State Department, the President ought to submit to the same exact scrutiny as the citizens of Texas and California.? A true Statesman would step up and put the issue behind him and the nation rather than drag it out for America to suffer over and be distracted by.? This is especially true in light of the double standard which is established in this report.

While President Obama has not offered a single document to prove that he wasn?t born in a house, the State Department continues to deny Mario a passport because he was born in a house.? The Marroquin family is well known in Alice, Texas for over a hundred years.? This is not the case of a fake midwife delivery.? This veteran was ? without question ? born in Texas and that birth was documented on a long form birth certificate signed by a licensed medical doctor.

On the other hand, we have President Obama, a dual citizen at birth, born ? exactly where???? Somewhere in Honolulu apparently.? Birthed by whom?? We have no idea if it was a doctor, midwife or whatever.? We just don?t know.? Yet he is eligible to be President and to command our armed forces, while Mario Marroquin is denied a passport.? That?s hypocrisy defined.

Obama?s State Department fails to recognize Mario as a citizen despite his offering a long form birth certificate, a doctor?s signature and multiple witnesses to his birth in Texas notwithstanding his valor in the line of duty protecting this nation.?? The State Department is practicing its very own form of birtherism.?? The State Department doesn?t feel comfortable giving Mario and others like him a passport to travel out of the country with.? The reason cited in a video interview with a State Department representative is?wait for it?national security.? Please look at the picture above of Mario Marroquin -? a man whom the State Department considers a potential national security threat -? NOT ELIGIBLE FOR A PASSPORT -? NOT A CITIZEN ? NOT PROPERLY DOCUMENTED.

Who?s guilty of being an insane conspiracy theorist now?


Esmerelda Cazares.

On August 20, 2010, KGET TV-17 ran a story about Esmerelda Cazares, another war veteran, born in Los Angeles, birthed by a mid-wife.? She has lived in the?U.S. her whole life, but the government won?t allow her a passport because they say she doesn?t have enough proof of citizenship.? Cazares had been trying to get a passport issued for five years when the story ran on KGET, but because her Los Angeles birth certificate ? issued by the? county of Los Angeles ? was delayed, she was denied a passport.

Unfortunately for Cazares, her delayed birth certificate, Social Security card and service in the US military are not enough to prove her citizenship to Obama?s State Department.

ANOTHER RED FLAG = birth records registered a few days after birth.

President Obama?s COLB has just such a red flag.? According to his COLB, he was born on August 4th, 1961.? But that same COLB lists ?date filed by registrar? as August 8th, 1961.? Since his COLB is delayed by less than one year, the State Department won?t automatically reject it as a fraud, but it?s still a red flag.

On January 2, 2010, Jazmine Uloa wrote an article published by The Brownsville Herald concerning a class action suit brought against the Customs and Border Patrol by persons held for long hours at ports of entry in South Texas and denied entry into the country after they presented US birth certificates registered by midwives.? Towards the end of that report, Uloa mentions that midwife birth is not the only red flag used by the State department:
?Others whose applications remain in question are U.S. citizens, mostly seniors, who have delayed birth certificates, or documents registered a few days after their births as was customary in the past.?

(This article by Juloa was republished in its entirety by Thomas Esparza, Jr., a Board Certified Immigration and Nationality Law Specialist.)

Obama?s COLB contains a red flag since it was registered a few days after his birth.? And the COLB doesn?t indicate if he was born in a hospital, a house, or a midwife?s office.

Silvario Vasquez and Felix Rodriguez.

On August 29, 2009, Time Magazine ran a video report concerning the plight of US citizens born in Texas by midwives.? The story highlighted the State Department?s denial of passports to two veterans. One of them ? Silvario Vasquez ? had been a US Customs and Border Patrol agent for 29 years.? Furthermore, his birth certificate was good enough proof of citizenship for him to have been drafted and sent to Vietnam, but it wasn?t good enough for the State Department to recognize him as a citizen and grant him a passport.

The Time Magazine video actually shows the official long form birth certificates of Mr. Vasquez and another war veteran, Felix Rodriguez.

Time also interviewed Brenda Sprague, Deputy Assistant for Passport Services, on behalf of the State Department.? She comments that due to various midwife scandals in the past, people from border communities ? including veterans of foreign wars ? were required to provide extra proof of US citizenship:
?So suddenly people in the border communities were faced with this need to document themselves, and they had birth documentation which was, on its face, not as simple or compelling as it might have been.?

Mr. Vasquez was particularly upset because, as he points out in the video, he was drafted at the height of the Vietnam war based upon the federal government?s awareness of his citizenship status and birth certificate.

The official comments by the State Department are hypocritical in the extreme considering the failure of President Obama to completely document the circumstances of his birth with the American people. The State Department sure seem like a bunch of rabid birthers to me.? They are citing the same issue as birthers ? national security.? Here is the Obama administration?s official position as stated by Sprague to Time:

?In the aftermath of 911, a decision was made that we had to take steps to regularize the documentation requirements for crossing our land borders? This is not a moral judgment, this is a legal judgment.? And my heart goes out to people who are caught in this?Nevertheless, people get passports who are US citizens.? Not because they?re good people, and not because they love America.? Because they are US citizens.?

National security. Those who question Obama?s eligibility to be Commander In Chief are ridiculed by main stream media stooges and certain members of the House and Senate while decorated war veterans are left groping around in the dark begging to be recognized as US citizens.? The State Department won?t give them a US Passport and won?t acknowledge that they are US citizens -? in the cause of national security.

All of this goes on under the guidance of President Obama whose birth records contain red flags the State Department sometimes marks for extra scrutiny.

Compare the amount of evidence produced by Mario Marroquin to what Obama has offered and it?s not even close.? Mario Marroquin and others like him have proved that they are US citizens with their blood and their birth records and established community histories.? Some, like Silvario Vasquez (who was finally granted a passport after his story got legs) were drafted based upon these documents, but their applications were flagged for denial by the State Department.? That is the absolute pinnacle of bureaucratic depravity.


The following was posted at the Baby Center Community blog on August 27, 2010:

4 of my siblings and I were born at home and of course received a state of TX birth certificate.

My older sister recently applied for a passport and sent in all of the paperwork including a copy of her birth certificate as required. ?She received a letter back from the passport office that since she was not born in an ?appropriate medical facility? her birth certificate was not valid proof of U.S. citizenship. ?WTH!

?Appropriate medical facility??? What?s that?? I can?t find any federal regulation for it.? But when concerned citizens ? aka birthers ? point out that there is no evidence in Obama?s COLB that he was born in a hospital, the anti-birther response has always been that no law requires a person to be born in a hospital. ? But in practice, the Obama State Department will tag birth in a house as a red flag.

Now consider that former Hawaii elections clerk ? Tim Adams ? has signed an affidavit swearing he was told by his supervisors in Hawaii that no long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate existed for Barack Obama Jr. in Hawaii and that neither Queens Medical Center nor Kapi?olani Medical Center in Honolulu had any record of Obama having been born in their medical facilities.

If Obama wasn?t born in a hospital, that?s a big red flag for the State Department.? And in Mario Marroquin?s case, that fact alone was enough to deprive him of a passport and official status as a US citizen.


The following was posted in the Missouri ?City-Data Forum? on March 1, 2010:

I am looking for the name of my midwife who practiced in Mountain Home Arkansas in 1984. I am needing to get info regarding my daughter?s birth for her passport because they are not excepting her birth certificate.

We have moved many times and I cannot find any records with her name on it. I birthed my daughter in the basement of a church in Gainesville, Missouri.

So the State Department?s policy of red flagging birth certificates of people born in a house appears to be nationwide, not just in Texas and California.

The bogus mantra spouted by main stream media propagandists like CNN?s Anderson Cooper ? that a COLB is universally accepted as proof of US citizenship for passport issuance ? is unequivocally false propaganda bunk.? All one needs to refute said bunk is the Department of State website, which states:

*A certified birth certificate has a registrar?s raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal, registrar?s signature, and the date the certificate was filed with the registrar?s office, which must be within 1 year of your birth. Please note, some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes.

See that reference to ?short (abstract) versions of birth certificates?, that?s a direct reference to a COLB.??

? 51.42 of the Federal Regulations lists the required documentary proof for a passport as follows:

? 51.42?? Persons born in the United States applying for a passport for the first time.

(a) Primary evidence of birth in the United States. A person born in the United States generally must submit a birth certificate. The birth certificate must show the full name of the applicant, the applicant?s place and date of birth, the full name of the parent(s), and must be signed by the official custodian of birth records, bear the seal of the issuing office, and show a filing date within one year of the date of birth.

Taken at face value, this appears to qualify any person with such a COLB for a passport.? However, if you read the regulations a bit further:

? 51.45?? Department discretion to require evidence of U.S. citizenship or non-citizen nationality.

The Department may require an applicant to provide any evidence that it deems necessary to establish that he or she is a U.S. citizen or non-citizen national, including evidence in addition to the evidence specified in 22 CFR 51.42 through 51.44.

By reading ? 51.45 in conjunction with the State Department?s reference to not accepting ?short (abstract) versions?, the propaganda being force fed to the nation ? which alleges universal acceptance of COLB?s is proof of US citizenship for passport purposes ? is exposed as fraud by the Government?s own regulations.? While some COLB?s may pass the smell test, if your COLB is from Texas or California, it definitely will NOT be accepted as proof of citizenship without further scrutiny.

Passport Visa is?a professional?expediting?company officially recognized and registered?with the U.S. Passport Agency.? At their web site, it states:

?Applicants born in California or Texas MUST submit a Long-Form Birth Certificate; short forms or abstract birth certificates are UNACCEPTABLE

The stories of Mexican-American citizens denied passports because they were born to midwives in Texas and California are certainly well known.?? And the Obama administration continued to deny a passport to all persons birthed in Texas and California by midwives until the ACLU sued them.

The Government eventually settled the case by waiving extra fees for those forced to re-apply, and by promising to take a closer look at these passport applications, rather than simply rejecting them outright as frauds ? which had been the policy all along.? But a short form abstract (aka COLB) from Texas or California is still not considered prima facie proof of citizenship.

As a result of the ACLU?s law suit, the government agreed to take a closer look into such an applicant?s birth history and to provide screeners with a uniform review procedure that subjects these applicants to greater scrutiny.? But official policy still holds that a COLB from Texas or California, by itself, does not establish US Citizenship.

This is because ?51.45 gives discretion to the State Department to require more evidence of US citizenship than is listed in 51.42 for those who set off red flags with passport screeners.? But it?s important to note that 51.45 also gives discretion to the State Department to accept whatever evidence it deems necessary to establish citizenship.? So if the State Department wanted to, it could provide Mario Marroquin and other veterans holding long form birth certificates with passports.


Please hold candidates for President up to the same standards as is required by the State Department for all citizens.

Texas is one of the states which has drafted legislation ? House Bill 295 ? requiring an original birth certificate for listing candidates for President and VP on ballots.

Since the Obama administration won?t honor the COLB?s of person?s born in Texas, why should Texas honor Obama?s COLB?

Please contact legislators in those states with pending birther bills and forward this report to them.? The sentence above provides an important soundbite.? Any votes sitting on the fence might be interested.


Please call on Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn to help Mario Marroquin and other veterans have their US citizenship status restored in the nation to which they have risked their lives in protection thereof.

Happy Presidents day.? Comments are open.

by Leo Donofrio, Esq.

Pidgeon & Donofrio GP

Old Federal Building
3002 Colby Avenue, Suite 306
Everett, Washington 98201

contact: [email protected]

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 13:54
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Lunes, 21 de febrero de 2011

Share on Facebook

Obama Assaults Democracy by Rejecting Popular Consent

?By Kelly O'Connell??Sunday, February 20, 2011

imageDoes the ?Will of the People? matter when government is run by a cadre of demigods? After all, is it really immoral to force Americans to do the good and avoid the bad? Contra, one can argue the very cornerstone of US constitutional theory is summed up in the doctrine of Consent of the Governed, since without acknowledging the popular will, every other act by government is tyranny. Yet, former constitutional instructor Barack Obama constantly ignores and even flouts this principle in action.

Remember the Declaration?s immortal words:


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.?That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed?

In ignoring America?s convictions, the current administration forfeits legitimacy, because each act done against consent furthers bitter reaction to non-representational government. For example, 75% of Americans want Obamacare amended. Yet the liberals in power treat us as children. Such a posture is an inversion of historic European Natural Law doctrines of self-government. Does Obama believe himself so wise to want all rights of the people vested in him for safe-keeping? Hasn?t this idea been attempted already in the USSR?

The following essay examines Obama and the Consent of the Governed.

I. History of Popular Consent: Vox Populi

According to the Dictionary of the History of Ideas, the notion of Popular Sovereignty, ie Will of the People, is traced back to at least the Demos of ancient Greece, or democratic assembly. Famously, the right to vote belonged to free, native male citizens of the city of Athens, leaving out more persons than had the franchise.

Ancient Rome had a fascinating political development, beginning with a kingdom, evolving into a Republic, adding elements of democracy, then lapsing back to tyranny via an emperor. Popular votes were held, and would-be rulers understood elected positions were more likely if one balanced gravitas with levitas, or a regal bearing offset by the common touch.

During the Middle Ages, much political philosophy developed in the Church, and by individual writers like Marsilius of Padua and Machiavelli. Probably every important modern idea on the state emerged at least in outline during this period.

As already mentioned, the general idea of social contract has its own story:

The history of the social contract covers three compelling elements, according to Sir Ernest Baker, in Social Contract, Locke, Hume, Rousseau. The first is Roman Law, the second are biblical teachings, and the third, Aristotle?s Politics. Writes Baker,

?Very large elements of political liberalism were based on a conflation of three sources?the teachings of the Bible, the doctrines of Roman Law, and the principles of Aristotle?s Politics. The Bible taught that the powers that be are ordained of God; but it also taught that David made a covenant with his people. It was the doctrine of Roman Law that quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem (?That which pleases the prince has the strength of law? ); but it was also the doctrine of Roman Law that the reason why this was so was that ?the people, by the Lex Regia passed into regard to his authority and power. The principle of Aristotle?s Politics might seem to favor a monarchy of the one best man; but they also favored a clear distinction between the king and the tyrant, and they endorsed the right of the masses not only to elect the magistrate but also call him to account.?

II. Locke & Constitution

The Declaration was composed as an introduction to the Constitution. Cornerstone to the American theory of the rule of law, was inverting the singular authority of a king, or a cabal of legislators, into empowering ?The People.? This idea developed from centuries of European ferment before use against royal tyranny, most famously in the American Revolution.

Father of the Enlightenment, John Locke, is rightly regarded a prime mover of the US Declaration and Constitution. Some passages of the Declaration are almost word-for-word renditions of Locke?s Second Treatise on Government, the most influential original source of modern political ideas. Locke is also a colossus of classical liberalism.

Locke was able to achieve the almost impossible?becoming the greatest advocate for Conservative government stability, while allowing the possibility, or even duty, of rebellion against the rule of tyrants. Even more impressive, Locke was able to square this with his Puritan theological constructs.

For example, consider Locke?s Second Treatise on Government, Chapter 19, Sec. 221: ?Of the Dissolution of Government.?

There is therefore, secondly, another way whereby governments are dissolved, and that is, when the legislative, or the prince, either of them, act contrary to their trust. First, The legislative acts against the trust reposed in them, when they endeavour to invade the property of the subject, and to make themselves, or any part of the community, masters, or arbitrary disposers of the lives, liberties, or fortunes of the people.

And from Sec 226:

Thirdly, I Answer, That this Doctrine of a Power in the People of providing for their safety a-new by a new Legislative, when their Legislators have acted contrary to their trust, by invading their Property, is the best fence against Rebellion, and the probablest means to hinder it. For Rebellion being an Opposition, not to Persons, but Authority, which is founded only in the Constitutions and Laws of the Government; those, whoever they be, who by force break through, and by force justifie their violation of them, are truly and properly Rebels.

This language on principled revolt is echoed in the Declaration:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government?

III. Obama, Natural Law & Communism

A. Obama?s Litany of Self-Referential Rule

There is a long list of unpopular Obama decisions, which most Americans could probably name with great accuracy. As the following poll numbers show, Americans simply do not like Obama?s policies. Consider:

ObamaCare?75% of Americans want it changed. Half oppose Obama?s new budget spending; 67% favor states enforcing immigration laws?with 48% favoring beefed up borders, opposing Obama?s position; Only 25% favor Obama?s Treasury Sec Timothy Geithner & DOJ chief Eric Holder; Just 31% believe Obama?s America is headed in the right direction; 55% think Obama did not cut enough spending in new $3.7 trillion dollar budget; 57% believe the bailouts were bad for the US; On Obama?s high-speed rail program, 46% reject; 27% want an electric car in the next decade; 68% believe Big Gov & Biz work against Americans; 80% think terrorism a bigger threat than war; 75% believe ObamaCare will cost more than promised; Only 33% believe ObamaCare must be funded if not repealed; Just 21% want Obama?s Internet regulations; 66% want Gov spending trimmed by 10%; Only 27% see USA as inherently racist; 29% believe Barack claim repeal of ObamaCare will increase deficit; Over half think taxes can be cut while budget balanced; 56% see Israel as an ally, Only 18% believe Obama myth greatness of America came from government; etc., etc. etc.

The issue we must examine now, dreary it may be?is whether Obama?s unpopular positions are deplored because they are a dose of bitter, but healthy medicine? Are they likely to solve our problems in the here and now? Further, will his policies accomplish anything in the longterm? Unfortunately, Barack?s disastrous ideas almost universally are not good for the present, or future.

So, not only is Barack repeatedly making unpopular choices, but they are decried for being disastrous ideas defended by stupid, leftist rhetoric.

B. Natural Law Government Model

There is a Natural Law political model. In fact, it is the same one used by our Founders. Said Massachusetts patriot James Otis about the Natural Law in 1764,

The rules of moral conduct implanted by nature in the human mind, forming the proper basis for and being superior to all written laws?

Such theories are founded upon Consent of the Governed, rule of law, with a government of separated powers, and limited state might, a default towards freedom, and a capitalist economy where all persons can develop their talents in the marketplace.

Says Thomas Jefferson on the Natural Law:

The moral law to which man has been subjected by his Creator, and of which his feelings, or conscience as it is sometimes called, are the evidence with which his Creator has furnished him. The moral duties which exist between individual and individual in a state of nature accompany them into a state of society? their Maker not having released them from those duties on their forming themselves into a nation.

C. Progressive?s Arrogant Leadership

One of the most notable aspects of Communist rule, were crazy decisions made by arrogant, smug, and very often mentally unhinged rulers, such as Stalin, Lenin and Mao, who between them killed at least 150 million innocents. But what is the hallmark of such humanistic government?

  1. Autocratic and typically uninformed decision-making (like Mao?s Great Leap Forward, whose ill-advised policies killed perhaps 40 million Chinese).
  2. Refusal to accept tradition as meaningful. Therefore experience is treated as a laughingstock.
  3. Failure to use success as a goal; and substitution of political dogma in its place.
  4. Utter fixation on leadership via philosophical innovations, instead of statecraft or logic.
  5. Dismissal of the notion of Human Rights.
  6. Refusal of Popular Sovereignty, or any actual democratic processes.
  7. Banning of any religious expression, or biblical groups.
  8. Usurpation of the Arts and Sciences as tools of the deified State.
  9. Refusal to allow opposition, or any genuine free speech.
  10. Demonizing of various powerful opponents, until outlawed, or killed.
  11. Commandeering of procreation as a State defined undertaking.
  12. Rise of pseudo-leadership by demagogues.
  13. Ultimate ruination of the economy and society.

Whatever Obama?s model, or vision of the future, it does not appear to include a robust economy, military, or strong American international presence. Therefore, in his contempt for all things USA, he appears to be aping Marxist plans.

IV. Summary: Consent, the Foundation of Political Legitimacy

Pollster Rasmussen reports ?just 28% believe federal government today has the consent of the governed.? This creates several problems for Obama. First, most Americans do not experience government as representational. This is dangerous because it breeds a fatalistic and cynical populace increasingly disconnected from Washington, and all that implies.

Second, it forces a constitutional crisis. For, despite Barack?s poisonously smug demeanor in every setting, and claims of constitutional mastery, this creates a de facto lawless regime. For if Obama is continually defying the will of the people at every turn, he has created an anti-constitutional tyranny, and therefore must be stopped.

In conclusion, we have a constitutional, Natural Law duty to see Obama driven from office by impeachment. Because the only moral government, according to our Constitution, is one that derives its legitimacy from the Consent of the Governed, an idea Barack had refused to honor since gaining office.

(8) Comments
Kelly O'Connell ?Bio

Kelly O'Connell Most recent columns

Kelly O?Connell is an author and attorney. He was born on the West Coast, raised in Las Vegas, and matriculated from the University of Oregon. After laboring for the Reformed Church in Galway, Ireland, he returned to America and attended law school in Virginia, where he earned a JD and a Master?s degree in Government. He spent a stint working as a researcher and writer of academic articles at a Miami law school, focusing on ancient law and society. He has also been employed as a university Speech & Debate professor. He then returned West and worked as an assistant district attorney. Kelly is now is a private practitioner with a small law practice in New Mexico.

Kelly can be reached at: [email protected]

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 13:09
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook




The left likes to call it the ?birther? issue.???The term birther is used as a derisive term by the left, much as truther is.???Of course the difference is truthers beliefs are based on a paranoid ideology, where as the birther issue is based on facts.


I prefer to call it the eligibility issue, not the birther issue.??Whether you agree or not, the people who are pushing the eligibility issue are on our side.??It is certainly counter-productive to deride them like liberals do.


Recently a whole stream of Republicans have come out, at the prompting of the drive by media, to reassure us that Obama is a citizen and oh, yes, he is a Christian too.?


Last Sunday, at the prodding of David Gregory on Meet the Press, or as Rush likes to call it, Meet the depressed, Boehner said, the State of Hawaii had said he was born there, that was good enough for him.?


Karl Rove, not a friend of the Tea Party, pushed the RINO line that Obama is a citizen and Sarah Palin, at a meeting in Long Island, a few days ago, also denounced the eligibility issue.???Palin ended her remarks on the subject by saying, ?let?s stick with what really matters.?


This issue does matter.


There are three variations on the eligibility issue.??Two are based on undisputed facts.??The third is in dispute.


The most commonly reported of the eligibility challenges is the claim that Obama was actually born in Kenya, not Hawaii.???I believe, based on the available evidence, that it is more likely than not, Obama was actually born in Hawaii.???Obama has spent a lot of time and (other people?s) money, keeping his original birth certificate out of sight.?




Jack Cashill is one of my favorite writers and he has a theory which I think makes sense, that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii, but there is something else on his birth certificate that would destroy the myth of Barack Obama.??(See his website, the law, there is a presumption that if a party has exclusive access to a piece of evidence and will not release it, the evidence must be adverse to their position.


The second eligibility issue is the claim that because Barack Obama?s father was a Kenyan, a British subject at the time of Obama?s birth, he is not a natural born citizen.


The third is the argument that because Barack Obama was adopted as a child by an Indonesian and moved to Indonesia, he is not an American citizen.???Under the law at that time, if an American child was adopted by a citizen of another country and moved to that country, he lost his citizenship.???He could regain his citizenship by applying at an American Embassy when he was 18, but would then be treated as a naturalized citizen and thus ineligible to be President.?


What is stunning about all of this is the mainstream Republican reaction to the eligibility issues.?


The RINOs turn their noses up at the people who want the answers, which, incidentally is 60% of Republican voters.??They turn their noses up at the Tea Party movement.??Yet, they do not take a moment to consider why this is important.


If Barack Obama is proved to be ineligible to be President, everything he has done is wiped out.??Obamacare is gone.??The START treaty is gone.??The liberal lunatics Obama has appointed to the Federal Judiciary, including the two he has put on the Supreme Court are gone.


Much of the damage Obama has done to this country can be undone.??Unfortunately, the Country Club Republicans remain clueless.?In their minds, the Democrats are simply the lower class versions of themselves.??They do not understand that if the party of treason has its way, America will be forever changed and ultimately destroyed.


The Courts have so far brushed aside all of the eligibility claims.??None have been addressed on the merits under the claim that Americans lack standing to challenge the issue.???Recently, the Supreme Court has given some indication it may consider one of the issues.??We can only hope.


What are the chances of success???Who knows?


Why do football teams run the flea flicker play????It does not work all of the time, but when it does, the results are spectacular.??Why should conservatives all hope this works out???Because this wipes out almost everything the Obama regime has done.??We get a do over.


You would think, even the RINOs who want to denigrate the eligibility issue could figure this one out.

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 12:03
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Domingo, 20 de febrero de 2011

Share on Facebook

Obama, Dems and Union Thugs: Elections Matter Only If Democrats Win


by Sher Zieve, ?2011

The Coat of Arms of the State of Wisconsin represent "diversity, wealth and abundance of resources"

(Feb. 20, 2011) ? Lest anyone outside of the USA (and some badly educated within it) think that what is happening in Wisconsin is American (aka Jeffersonian) ?democracy?? it is not.? What is now occurring in that State and is threatened to occur in other US States is nothing more than Union thuggery; a thuggery inspired and supported by the US Dictator-and-Marxist-Organizer-in-Chief Barack Hussein Obama.

Note:? For our overseas affiliates, this is a prime example of the Marxist-Leninist-Obama-and-minions ?leadership? mindset of ?Elections only matter if we win!? Otherwise, we can forcefully overthrow them.? The rights and desires of the voters mean nothing if we?re not in power!?

With the latest support of his political thugs in Wisconsin, Obama has?once again?come out against a US State.? The last one was Arizona.? See?here?s the problem, folks.? We?re broke and Obama and his Unions made us that way!?? In unprecedented modalities, The Obama cabal has transferred Trillions of OUR dollars out of the country in order to give it?we strongly suspect?to their one-world governance buddies (aka New World Order).? Note:? Obama gave his New World Order speech in Berlin on 24 July 2008.

The problem many of our States now face is there is no more money left to play with and darned little to pay the bills.? However, Obama and the teachers? unions (and as many other Union members as the thugs could bus in from outside of Wisconsin?on taxpayer money) are screaming, shouting and tacitly threatening violence if Wisconsin private sector employees do not continue to work harder in order to pay for Union members lifestyles.? In fact, in a MacIver Institute study the average compensation for a Milwaukee Public School teacher was shown to top $100,000.00?and that?s for nine months only!?? But, still Teachers? Union avarice and corruption rear their ugly heads as the teachers continue to refuse to work until the State of Wisconsin (that is without funds largely due to Obama and his Unions who have bled the State dry) bow to their inane demands and have now even hired Marxist ?doctors? to write medical excuses for their absences from work.? This is criminal, folks.? But, a totally criminal enterprise is what the Marxist-Democrat Party has now become.

Since The Obama beast arrived?tragically?and took up residence in OUR country?s White House, this is what many of us have become?bands of thugs attempting to suck our country?s blood when they have already bled us dry.? And now, Harry Reid and his master Obama are also demanding their same wild spending?that got us in this mess in the first place?continue.? Note:? You folks who voted for and still support these crooked imbeciles must be so proud.

Our country is dying and Obama, the Marxist-Leninist Democrats and their insatiable Union thugs?whose motto is apparently ?everyone except us? must suffer and support us!??continue their now-treasonous siege on our country.? It?s time to stop them?one way or another.? Otherwise, we all die.? The problem, of course, is that too many refuse to see truth.? But, then, that?s always been the biggest problem for humankind.


? 2011, The Post & Email. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 13:54
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook


by Robert Quinn


Barack Hussein Obama has not released any of his personal records, including an original birth certificate. He also claims a British father, which would seem to have made him a British citizen at birth. How, then, could be qualify as a "natural born Citizen" to be President of the United States?

(Feb. 20, 2011) ? Neil Abercrombie, Dem. Governor of Hawaii and long-time friend of Obama family members, said he would obtain Obama?s original Hawaiian Department of Health Birth Certificate (Certificate of Live Birth) to settle the Presidential issue for good. Two weeks later, he now says that no Birth Certificate was found in Hawaii?s records, only a ?written notation? mentioning Obama?s birth. Shades of the 1940′s ?Kilroy was here? fad; a ?written signature put on buildings, bridges, trains, etc. to satirically imply a mystical figure had been there! Hawaii?s fruitless search did serve one useful purpose, making a lie of Obama?s previous statements that the ?Certification of Live Birth? (COLB) which he posted on the Daily Kos website was a ?true copy? of the Health Department Birth Certificate, now apparently non-existent.

A 1961 Hawaiian ?Certificate of Live Birth? had approximately 42 points of required info while Obama?s COLB had about 13, glaringly lacking a birth hospital name, birth certificate number, doctor?s name, witnesses names, etc. I cannot over-emphasize the significance of the next sentence.? Obama, a Constitutional teacher, clearly knew beforehand that his limited COLB was either fraudulent or only able to confirm ?naturalized citizenship? status and that Our Constitution (Article II, Sec. 1) limited Presidential eligibility to natural-born ?Certificate of Live Birth.? If, as Obama said, his COLB was a copy of the Hawaiian Birth Certificate, both documents would have been COLB?s and both thereby unacceptable for eligibility purposes. Also, the Hawaiian Director of Health, Dr. Chiyome Fukino (ret.), declared in 2008: ?I have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has (then Senator) Obama?s original birth certificate on record, in accordance with State policies and procedures.? What ?policy or procedure? enables one to see and verify a document which appears to have never existed? In fairness, when Obama recently asked: ?Should I paste my birth certificate on my forehead?? I sympathized with him since he already had produced four different versions of it (?if at first you don?t succeed, try, try again?) and could not possibly fit all four on his forehead.

The Plot Thickens

I previously wrote eight letters on this issue, sending them to thousands. In addition, all mentioned in these letters received copies but none challenged or even acknowledged my words. I am no scholar, but after eighteen years of writing I have found that many deny truth by their silence. The Media silence is a notable shame. With few exceptions, they treat Obama?s birth certificate issue as a non-issue. They ridicule the now over 50 percent questioning his legitimacy in nationwide polls, using ?birthers? as a dismissive term to ridicule faithful Constitutional Defenders. They call challengers ?fringe groups, radicals, racial bigots (are you listening, Alan Keyes?), or treasonous, misguided people. For about twenty-five dollars Obama might have put this issue to rest by producing a ?Certificate of Live Birth? for verification of authenticity, but instead chose to spend millions in legal fees (not counting Court costs) to prevent such disclosure, and now Hawaii cannot find any legitimate record of his birth. Suggestion: Try the name Soetoro, or maybe Kenya could help if ?dual citizenship? is mentioned.

Bill O?Reilly of Fox News, who claims to be ?fair and balanced,? was anything but when speaking on this issue.? Using Megyn Kelly as a foil, he denigrated anyone questing Obama?s eligibility, using such arguments? such as ?If Hawaiian newspapers publish a birth announcement, it must be true,? a false statement which doesn?t even address the distinction between a ?naturalized? and ?natural-born? birth.? Didn?t he know anyone could prepare a ?Certification of Live Birth? (COLB) and use it to advise newspapers of a ?birth?, or that a COLB can never be used to confirm a ?Natural-born? citizenship status? Ignorance sometimes is excusable, but parading it as informed intelligence is not. O?Reilly also opined that Army Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, a Bronze Star recipient of 18 years? military service, including Afghanistan, who now sits in a prison for standing up for the Constitution, was politically motivated. I see?a dishonorable discharge, loss of salary, pension, all benefits and now serving six months in Leavenworth Prison. What a great resum? for someone seeking later political office! When O?Reilly ends his programs with ?We?re looking out for you,? I wonder if Lt. Col. Lakin sometimes thinks ?I wish that were true.? O?Reilly is a tall man but is he tall enough to stand up for a man he wrongly put down? Incidentally, my thanks go to those in the media who have faithfully reported this issue, particularly WorldNetDaily, the many radio and Internet organizations and all the individuals using these outlets for adding their voices to the rising crescendo demanding that truth and transparency be served.

Truth and Justice?? Wayside Discards?

Copies of my eight above-mentioned letters were sent to all nine members of the Supreme Court. Not one responded or even acknowledged them (9 x 8 = 72 copies).? Was it something I said?? I can only pray that they draw from truths therein to honestly serve Justice. Sadly, however, recent lawsuits challenging Obama?s eligibility (Col. Gregory Hollister-Air Force-ret., and Commander Charles Kerchner (Navy-ret.) were dismissed by the Court without comment, apparently ignoring any challenges to Obama?s legitimacy by either plaintiff, both of whom had requested that Justices Sotomayor and Kagan recuse themselves from the Court deliberations since both were nominated to the Court by Obama and Justice Kagan formerly was the Solicitor General whose name appeared on Justice Department documents concerning Obama?s eligibility. Talk about having vested interest in a Court decision! If neither recused themselves nor did the Court, was Justice blind? No?.it just shut its eyes. I still have faith in a Supreme Court but it?s not located on Earth.

?The Only People Who Don?t Want to Disclose the Truth are Those with Something to Hide.?

Those words were uttered by Obama and appeared in a Newsday newspaper on L.I., New York? on August 22, 2010.? Globe Magazine twice offered $100,000 to the United Negro College Fund if Obama disclosed the Hawaiian Birth Certificate to the Public.? Both offers were ignored?something to hide?? All other requests for disclosure of that document and school records, etc. were also denied?.something more to hide? He who kept promising ?transparency? to crowds now dreaded the consequences of keeping his promises so he simply removed all his records from the public eye, becoming the man who never was & taking the art of secrecy down to a new low. How can he possibly run for re-election in 2012 when the entire Country will be aware that his ?Certification of Live Birth will still not be accepted as proof of ?Natural-born? citizenship? He fooled the Nation once ? never again!

In a previous letter I asked: ?What Price The Presidency?? Obama has answered that question by the terrible treatment inflicted on Lt. Col. Lakin, as defined herein. For eighteen years Lt. Col. Lakin faithfully served the Army. He advanced to leading flight surgeon, charged with caring for Chief of Staff Casey?s pilots and air crews. Last year, when serious doubt intensified nationwide regarding Obama?s eligibility, the Colonel wrote to his superiors of his concerns.? After one year with no response, he then wrote twice directly to Obama. Only after no responses (Obama?s trademark) did the Colonel refuse an order to return to Afghanistan and was then court-martialed and sentenced to prison. At his trial the presiding judge warned him not to ask for any Obama documents (birth certificate, etc.), for they might prove ?embarrassing to the President.? Was this a trial or a lynching?

Fast forward to Christmas 2010 and picture a contrast in travel arrangements which took place. Obama was flown to Oahu for a vacation while Lt. Col. Lakin was taken (under guard) to Leavenworth, Kansas Federal Prison for incarceration. Two similar-sounding words but separated by a great chasm!? One man deliberately sacrificed another man?s freedom, or was it a Country?s, to continue an unparalleled deception. America must correct this injustice. We must raise our voices for Truth and Vindication of Lt. Col. Lakin.? He carried the banner as far as he could. Now it?s in our hands.

Special Note: Due to time and health restraints, I have never used my e-mails to recommend financial support for any cause, but now I make an exception. I once told Lt. Col. Lakin, who had thanked me for my assistance, that I and others simply pass ammunition up to him on the front line. Well, his front line is now his home and family. Below, you will note a website set? up to help save his family from financial ruin because the man who once offered (with no preconditions) to meet with the Iranian President who had threatened to destroy our Country, had no time to respond to two letters from a ?natural-born? American citizen and defender of our Country. Please help Lt. Col. Lakin in whatever manner you can.

? 2011, The Post & Email. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 13:49
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

February 20, 2011

The Battle of Wisconsin

By Jim Yardley
The evolving legislative crisis in Wisconsin?has illuminated the political symbiosis of the Democrat Party and Big Labor.? Not just the public sector unions, but all unions acting in concert to dominate the political fortunes of Democrats.?

Richard Trumka, the head of the AFL-CIO, graced Madison, Wisconsin with his presence.? Trumka, who rose from being a miner and active member in the UMW union in Pennsylvania to becoming head of the largest labor organization in the country in 1995, has a history of being confrontational. In front of a crowd of some 25,000 union supporters, he supplied a remarkably accurate dramatization of Vladimir Lenin railing against the "fat cats" and "corporations." ?Trumka apparently views them as the sole motivating force behind the attempt of Governor Walker and the Republican majorities in the state's Assembly and Senate to balance their state's budget.

Wisconsin is no better off financially than any other part of the country, and it is struggling to maximize the public services it is able to provide to its citizens, while avoiding the only alternative available to them.? The alternative would be to maintain the generous pension and healthcare levels currently enjoyed by Wisconsin's teachers, police, firefighters and other public employees, and balance the budget by laying off hundreds, if not thousands, of state workers.? The ones with lower seniority, who are not protected in the same way union officials are protected from layoffs.

Into this cauldron of heated rhetoric, supplied free of charge by the unions with assistance reported to have been provided by the Democratic National Committee and the President's campaign arm, Organizing for America, President Obama himself has weighed in, stating his belief that the plans of Governor Walker and the Wisconsin legislature are an "assault on unions."?

One of the motivations for President Obama to insert himself in this dispute is the simple matter that unions bankroll Democrat candidates and Mr. Obama has already said that he plans on raising $1 billion for his re-election effort in 2012.? The website lists the top campaign contributors for the period 1989-2010.? The aggregate political contribution by unions to Democrats during this period was a total of $480,000,000.? That's nearly half a BILLION dollars.? As the old saying goes, he who pays the piper, calls the tune.? For a half a billion dollars, the unions should expect a full blown symphony.

Perhaps an observation by Hans A. von Spakovsky, a Senior Legal Fellow of the Heritage Foundation and a former member of the Federal Election Commission, will help put the claims by Mr. Obama and Mr. Trumka that the union workers in Wisconsin are both oppressed and that unions themselves are under assault into some context.? Mr. von Spakovsky has noted that:

From 2001 to 2010, Wisconsin taxpayers paid more than $8 billion for state employee health care coverage, while state employees contributed only $398 million, less than 5% of the total costs. From 2000 to 2009, taxpayers paid $12.6 billion for public employee pensions, while the employees only contributed $55.4 million, less than 0.5% of the total cost.

This means that, with a population of about 5,500,000 people, the average annual costs to each Wisconsin resident for public employee healthcare and pensions have been $140 and $250 respectively.? Not per family.? Per citizen.? For a family of four, that means a total of $1,560 each and every year in an additional tax burden.?

This is what Mr. Obama and Mr. Trumka view as union members being oppressed and why unions are trying to intimidate lawmakers and Governor Walker, and by proxy, every citizen of Wisconsin.?

It should also be noted, in the spirit of recognizing clueless irony, the Democratic Senators in Wisconsin, who are currently fugitives from Madison, are in hiding as part of a concerted effort to prevent the pertinent legislation from coming to a vote.? This sounds remarkably like the accusations of "obstructionism" hurled by Democrats in Washington against their Republican colleagues who tried to hobble the passage of Obamacare.?

Another contrast between Wisconsin and Washington was on display during Governor Walker's press conference Friday evening.? After making a relatively short statement of the situation as he saw it (which took about 10 minutes or so), the Governor took several questions from the assembled media.?

What then is different in Madison from what we see every day in Washington?? Two things, in fact.?

First, the Governor was actually able to give straightforward answers to the questions.?

Second, there wasn't a teleprompter in sight.
34 Comments on "The Battle of Wisconsin"

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 12:52
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Viernes, 18 de febrero de 2011

Share on Facebook

ou are here: Home / *Articles of the Gulag* / Truthing Up, in the Face of Marxist Spawned Power in Wisconsin

Truthing Up, in the Face of Marxist Spawned Power in Wisconsin

On, Wisconsin! On, Wisconsin!
Plunge right through that line!
Run the bill clear through that crowd,
Get out of debt this time! (U rah rah!)

On, Wisconsin! On, Wisconsin!
Or it?s Cloward-Piven time.
Fight! Fellows!- fight, fight, fight!
Or it?ll be our behinds!

I imagine you are aware of all those greedy capitalists, demonstrating to get all their cushy pension money without sensibly contributing to it, over in Moscow, Wisconsin.

Sorry for the bad typing; make that government workers, in Madison.? ?Kill the bill!? they shout and likely spit when they do.

Fightin' Bob La Follette, protester to the ends of his hair

I live forty-some miles northwest of Mad City, in the town where the nation?s first Progressive Party presidential candidate, Robert La Follette married his leftist, feminist wife, in 1881.? Yeah, 1881.? Politically precocious, we are, here in Badgerland.? ?Fightin? Bob? learned his social justice from U of W president, John Bascom, who came from Andover Seminary (essentially of the same United Church of Christ denomination as the so reverent Jeremiah Wright).? Congregationalists stem from the Puritans, whom, as the name implies, were soft on utopianism and legalistic perfectibility.

The point to make is that Marxism made inroads very early here in Wisconsin, including within the state and region?s labor movement.? Just a little more on that.

Barry Obama?s hero, Harold Washington was not America?s fist socialist, big city mayor.? That distinction goes to Emil Seidel, elected as Milwaukee?s Marxist boss in 1910, the same year that Victor Luitpold Berger was elected America?s first socialist representative in Congress.

Marxist U.S. Rep. Victor Berger

It was Berger that gave union leader Eugene Debs a copy of Das Kapital and won him over to Marxism.? Debs became the Socalist Party?s candidate for president in 1912, with Mayor Seidel his VP candidate.? However, their Socialist Party of America chose not to run their own candidate for president in 1924, eagerly backing La Follette, instead.

Those names are just the tip of the top of the iceberg. Extensive information on the Wisconsin front on the Marxist war against American freedoms is available in numerous books and at the Wisconsin Historical Society. The collection is enough to satisfy those much more skeptical than our state?s Sen. Joe McCarthy.

With numerous socialist operations headquartering in neighboring Chicago and with the influx of European immigrants, at or shortly after the turn of the Twentieth Century, Wisconsin became saturated with a small but stubborn and increasingly subversive minority of Marxists.? Concomitantly, the University of Wisconsin became a center for the weakly meandering but strongly stated thoughts of discontented dead German intellectuals from the atheistic end of the enlightenment through industrial ages.

What a state, as Yakov Smirnoff would say.

And get this.? Before our apostle of Marxism, Victor Berger became a politician he was a newspaper editor and? a school teacher.? What Mark Twain would say is, ?History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme.?

And now we have teachers and other government workers, some likely third and fourth generation Marxists, calling in, sick to demonstrate.? They are dragging high school kids along, though according to interviews, many fail to understand why they have come.? One precocious eighteen year old does understand and did something about it.? On the first day of heavy demonstrations in the rotunda, he made his own sign that firmly said, ?Students for Walker.?? Trevor Schumann, for what he did, was featured in the evening news.


Video 2/15, Fox News 6, Milwaukee,?Protestors turn out by thousands to protest budget plan?


Schumann: ?And I knew I would be a fish swimming against the current here.? But, I wanted to create a dialogue, so that people who wanted to express their views would have to do so with actual facts instead of just being with like minded people.?? If not already aware, he is learning that while Marxists feed like piranha off the dialectic, they have no desire for honest dialogue.? And, facts are problems to such group-thinkers, since they are not on the same side.? I wonder if Schumann knew the Marxist Organizer in Chief himself, Barack Obama was pushing the protests and building the ranks of ersatz proletariat, through his Organizing for America ? the same for Iowa and Eugene Debs? own Indiana.? The putative president warns the vetted Governor Walker against an ?assault on the unions.?? Of course he does.

The next day,? Tea Party activists accosted a number of Wisconsin?s fugitive prog senators, who obstructed the vote on the bill by fleeing the state.? That was in Rockford, Illionis? Clock Tower Inn.? Nowhere to run, baby.


Video 2/16, ?Wisconsin Senators found in Illinois?


Counter protests have now begun, thank you, Trevor.? Information is featured in Facebook.? If you belong to one pro-liberty group or another, you should be able to find information about these doings, at their sites.? Andrew Brietbart and Herman Cain are among those who will be protesting in Madison for freedom from Cloward-Piven ruin.? I think I will join them. Meanwhile, the Marxist union bosses are trucking in the throw weight of Richard Trumka, communist collaborator and head of the AFL-CIO.

Are you in driving distance of Madison, Columbus, or Indianapolis?

What are you doing, this weekend?

Email, network, or bookmark this page. To use a service not shown below, click *More*:


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

Share on Facebook

[Milwaukee, Wisconsin] MacIver News Service ?

For the first time in history, the average annual

compensation for a teacher in the Milwaukee

Public School system will exceed $100,000.?

That staggering figure was revealed last night

at a meeting of the MPS School Board.

The average salary for an MPS teacher is $56,500.

When fringe benefits are factored in, the annual

compensation will be $100,005 in 2011.

MacIver?s Bill Osmulski has more in this video report.




Wis. governor: GOP won't be 'bullied' by union bill protesters

By Jordan Fabian - 02/18/11 07:55 AM ET

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) says his party has been emboldened by massive protests against his controversial budget plan.

Walker said demonstrators who filled the state capitol building in Madison and the boycott by state Senate Democrats ? some of whom fled the state in protest ? have steeled the resolve of members of his party.

"If anything, I think it's made the Republicans in the Assembly and the Senate stronger," he told Fox News's Greta Van Susteren in an interview Thursday night. "They're not going to be bullied. They're not going to be intimidated."

Walker also fired back at President Obama, who sided with the public employees, saying on Fox News Friday, "We are focused on balancing our budget. It would be wise for the government and others in Washington to focus on balancing their budgets, which they are a long way off from doing."

The unrest in Wisconsin has attracted attention from national lawmakers and political figures, who have incorporated the state's tussle over Walker's budget proposal into the debate over the federal government's fiscal woes.

Public-sector workers are upset with the plan, which calls on them to pay to receive pension and health benefits and removes collective bargaining rights for some.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) issued a statement backing Walker's proposal, saying governors like Walker "are daring to speak the truth about the dire fiscal challenges Americans face at all levels of government, and daring to commit themselves to solutions that will liberate our economy and help put our citizens on a path to prosperity."


AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, meanwhile, has called the plan an "assault" on the middle class and compared Walker's plan to drastic cuts House Republicans in Washington want to make.

"This federal budget madness echoes pound-foolish actions we're seeing in state after state, where Republican legislators and governors elected with lucrative CEO support are ignoring the jobs crisis and playing politics as usual with the lives of working families," he wrote in a Huffington Post op-ed.

Asked if he has the authority to retrieve them out-of-state, Walker said, "That's a really big question for us.

"I mean, the bottom line is very ? very much similar to when you've had redistricting battles, lawmakers go to other states, as well, from other states," he said. "I think in Texas and Oklahoma years ago, that happened. Again, I hope it doesn't get to that. That would be ridiculous."

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 15:50
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook

Cuban Filmaker Stonewalled in Trying to Tell the True Story of ?Che?

Agustin Blazquez has produced a compelling film that demolishes the radical heartthrob?s reputation as a brave guerrilla fighting on behalf of the oppressed.
February 17, 2011 - by Mary Grabar

Among Ernesto ?Che? Guevara?s final requests before he was executed by Bolivian forces in 1967 was that a message of hope be sent back to Fidel Castro: the revolution would come to America.

Che immediately became the martyr for the radical left, with his image seized by American protestors of the 1960s. Since then another, cultural, revolution has taken place. Wikipedia catalogs references to him worldwide from restaurant names, to advertising campaigns, to music, to pop culture. His image adorned an Obama Texas campaign office in 2008. Che?s image is now displayed by average college students and even toddlers. No one blinks an eye when a student garbed in clothing bearing his iconic upward gaze takes a seat in my classroom. Students get their fashion cues from music, movie, and sports stars, and follow professors who display Che on office doors and websites, and teach courses about him. Students can find online guides to writing papers about the 2003 New York Times bestselling translation of Che?s Motorcycle Diaries, which was made into the 2004 box office hit.

Those who document the reality of the Castro regime, however, do not find themselves well received in the academy. For example, Juan J. Lopez once taught at the University of Illinois at Chicago but was denied tenure in spite of a teaching award and a well-received book published by The Johns Hopkins University Press titled Democracy Delayed: The Case of Castro?s Cuba. Lopez had escaped Cuba with his parents and moved to the United States in 1967.

Agustin Blazquez who wrote about Lopez?s predicament in 2002 also is a Cuban exile frustrated by the artistic/academic community that, while ostensibly worshiping all that is ?Latino,? shuns those who expose the communist Castro regime. In Cuba, Blazquez had been apprehended twice on bogus charges, and saw the inside of El Castillo del Principe prison that he calls a ?dungeon.?

In 1965, at the age of 21, he used the offer of an acting school scholarship in Canada to request an exit permit and managed with some finagling of the communist bureaucracy to leave. After living in Spain and Canada, Blazquez arrived in the U.S. in 1967.? He was greeted with warmth by Americans ? except those in the art world.

He learned that grants and prizes for documentaries in his series ?Covering Cuba? would not be forthcoming. The latest, and seventh, titled Che: The Other Side of an Icon, was produced on a budget of $14,000. Only about $4,000 of that was from a non-profit that he had started himself. He had submitted a more typical budget of $494,000 to CPB-PBS (Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Public Broadcasting System). Blazquez had no success with the publicly supported organization, nor did he with the taxpayer-supported American Film Institute in his other projects. In fact, he could not even get an airing on POV (Point of View), the program created by PBS specifically for the purpose of airing ?controversial? films.

Still, Blazquez, by changing his approach and scaling back, and doing his own editing on his own equipment, has managed to produce a compelling film that demolishes the radical heartthrob?s reputation as a brave guerrilla fighting on behalf of the oppressed.

Testimony comes from survivors, relatives of victims, and scholars. For example, Jaime Suchliki, history professor and director of the University of Miami?s Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies, presents U.S. concerns about ?many Vietnams? in the region. Antonio Jorge, chief economist of the Ministry of Treasury, from 1959 to 1960, who received Guevara?s requests for government funds in person, testifies to Che?s looting of the government as National Bank president.

The Argentinean-born Che?s contemptuous attitudes towards Cubans, blacks, and peasants are revealed by those who knew him and are backed up in his own writings. Wheelchair-bound Margot Menendez, whose brother was executed, describes the treatment she and other women received as they waited futilely to visit relatives in prison. Strip searches and arbitrary cancellations are recalled. So are the beatings by guards when the women rushed ?Che?s? car as it entered the prison yard. Blanca Rojas recalls learning of her father?s execution by seeing it on television the same night she gave birth to her son. The dramatic footage is shown of Col. Cornelio Rojas ? made an ?example? ? who stands tall and defiant up to the point when the gun shots in the head bring him down.

Journalist Humberto Fontova recounts Che?s 1962 terrorist bomb plot that would have likely exceeded the devastation of 9/11. It was planned to explode in New York City?s shopping district on the day after Thanksgiving, the busiest shopping day of the year. The plan was foiled by the FBI.

Fontova exposes ?Che? not only as a sadistic killer but as an incompetent revolutionary. Che, who had inherited his father?s social and ethnic pretensions as an Argentinean of mixed European heritage, as well as his mentally unstable mother?s radical tendencies, had severely bungled his work as the head of banking and as minister of industries in collectivizing farms. It was then that? Castro sent him to what he knew would be his death in Bolivia, for Che could not even ?put compass to map.?

Nevertheless, the narrative put out in a press release by the AFI for the 2008 film by Steven Soderbergh simply titled Che, describes Che ?galvanizing poor peasants into a military force that can take on trained professionals.? The same AFI turned down Blazquez?s third film on Elian Gonzalez, the young Cuban refugee who was forcibly sent back to Cuba under President Clinton after his mother had drowned during their escape.

Contrary to AFI?s depiction, Che?s delight was in shooting? 240 defenseless victims, some as young as 15. Political prisoners say the real number is much higher. Che also delighted in having people and their children rounded up off the street and forced to watch executions.

Such facts and testimonies presented in a straightforward manner show the real ?Che.? One sees the horror melded over the decades into a resigned sadness in the faces of family members of his victims. Such understated testimony should make any Che-t-shirt-clad student pause.

But to get an airing on a college campus is no easy task. The dissenting intellectual on today?s campus, if he gets past the gatekeepers, is met with stonewalling. Dead silence is what mostly greeted Blazquez when he contacted over 100 campuses for the screening of his first film. Subtle impediments in the form of? last-minute room changes and announcements torn off walls were placed in his path at the two campuses where he did manage to get permission to air his documentary.

Nor could he make headway with PBS that has a division for ?educational media.? The late Reed Irvine in 1996 recounted Blazquez writing directly to 65 public television stations after getting nowhere with PBS, but getting only four responses ? all rejections.

Blazquez then testified at a hearing before a House of Representatives appropriations committee about PBS. Still, the censorship and bias continue. In 2007, Blazquez charged PBS with airing the documentaries of Castro-collaborator Estela Bravo, a native New Yorker, who has lived in Cuba since 1983 as a member of the pro-Castro privileged elite. He documented instances of PBS airing other documentaries that showed individuals maligning the Cuban exile community as ?the right-wing fringe? and the ?Miami mafia.?

Despite the hostility, Blazquez is working on his eighth documentary. It?s about an exiled Cuban-American ballad singer who has similarly found American TV and show business doors closed to her.

The DVDs in his ?Covering Cuba? series are sold at or here.

Mary Grabar earned her Ph.D. in English from the University of Georgia and teaches in the Atlanta area. She is a Pushcart Prize-nominated poet and published fiction writer. Visit her website and get on her mailing list at Mary blogs at the


Buy this video at

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:49
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Jueves, 17 de febrero de 2011

Share on Facebook

Jeffrey Toobin Issued False Legal Statements to Anderson Cooper Regarding Vattel and the 14th?Amendment.

With natural born citizen legislation racing through 11 state legislatures, truthful legal analysis is more important than ever.? False statements issued on CNN yesterday via an Anderson Cooper interview with Jeffrey Toobin demand correction.? CNN, should they not immediately correct the false statements, will be privy to the stench of propaganda.

Jeffrey Toobin, alleged to be a ?CNN Senior Legal Analyst?, gave a clearly false description of Vattel?s definition of? ?natural born citizen?.? Toobin stated that the Vattel definition requires a person to be born in the United States to parents who were also born in the United States.

That is absolutely false.

Vattel?s definition only requires that a person ? to be considered a ?natural born citizen? ? be born in the United States to parents who were citizens.? One does not have to be born in the United States to be a citizen.? Persons born in foreign countries may become US citizens via the naturalization process despite their place of birth.

If a person is born in the US ? of immigrant parents who were not born in the US but who have become US citizens prior to the child?s birth ? that child is a natural born citizen according to Vattel.? Vattel?s definition of natural born citizen, contained in his treatise, ?The Law of Nations?, which ? according to Ben Franklin ? was with the framers at all times as they wrote the US Constitution, states that a person only needs to be born of parents who were citizens.? It does not require that the parents be born in the United States.

This definition by Vattel was re-stated by the US Supreme Court in the case of Minor vs. Happersett.? Here is the exact language from the US Supreme Court in the Minor decision:

?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. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.?

So here we see the US Supreme Court stating that persons born in the US to parents who are citizens are themselves natural born citizens. ? Nowhere does it state that the parents must be born in the US.? The following definition is attributed to Vattel:

?The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.?

This does not impose a requirement that the parents must have been born in the country.? To this definition, Jeffrey Toobin falsely stated:

?What Vattel said was natural born citizens means you were born in the United States and your parents are also born in the United States.?

Furthermore, Toobin contributed additional false legal analysis when he stated:

?But the words of the Constitution have been interpreted many times by the Supreme Court, and what it means is born in the United States.?

That is unequivocally false.

First, to be a ?citizen?, the 14th Amendment requires that a person be born in the US (or be naturalized in the US) and? that a person be ?subject to the jurisdiction thereof?.? Despite erroneous popular belief, there is no US Supreme Court decision which states that simply being born in the US is enough to entitle a person to US citizenship.? That is a legal myth to which Toobin is also guilty of spreading false legal analysis.

Second, the 14th Amendment does not define ?natural born citizen?, it only defines ?citizen?.? Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution makes a clear distinction between a ?citizen? ? who is eligible to be a Senator or Representative ? and a ?natural born citizen? -? who is eligible to be President.

Toobin has therefore issued clearly false legal statements.? Either these are lies for propaganda purposes, or he?s just a terrible legal analyst.

If Anderson Cooper would like to have a serious debate between myself and Toobin, or any other so called ?Senior Legal Analyst?, I would be happy to oblige.

And if legislators in the State of Montana ? or any other state ? would like legal guidance on this issue, I would also be happy to oblige.

Please contact me at:

[email protected]

Leo Donofrio, Esq.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 14:43
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook

Birth Certificate and college, passport records

Obama lied ? Isn?t that the real story?

By Dr. Laurie Roth??Thursday, February 17, 2011

For over 2 years now, Obama,? most politicians, and the majority of the media have demonized and marginalized the questioning and concerns about Obama and his ?mystery? birth certificate.? You know,? the one along with all his College and Passport records he has paid nearly $2,000,000 to hide.?

I have interviewed a host of people the last two years who have sued Obama and had strong reason to believe he was not born in the US.? These people include Phil Berg,?, and Alan Keys, former Ambassador to the UN.? By now you and I have tracked the building case that Obama was born in Kenya.? At we see signed affidavits from Obama?s Step Grandmother,? two Pastors verifying this was so, and statements on a US radio show from the former ambassador to Kenya,? also verifying Obama was born there.? It also came to our attention the various statements from members of Kenyan parliament also stating he was a ?son of the soil?? and born in Kenya.?

Even with all the endless pointing toward Kenya as a birthplace we still have no conclusive proof of a long form birth certificate being produced anywhere.? Instead we saw early on Hawaii and Obama release a ?Certification of Live Birth.?? There were also announcements in two newspapers commenting on Obama?s birth.? This document was the one Obama?s campaign released during his presidential race.? Why not the real birth certificate?? According to Hawaiian rules,? the ?Certification of live birth?? is given to those not born in the state.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Even with all the evidence pointing away from Hawaii, it has been strangely quiet and sometimes hostile toward anyone looking at the sea of growing facts against Obama being born in Hawaii.? I recall hearing more than a few put downs and insults from the big Talk show hosts on Fox and other shows.?

Remember the story that Doug Hagmann and Judi McLeod, editor of broke with a published article and on my show?? Doug reported that he was contacted by a top and recognizable host who reported anonymously that he/she had been threatened to avoid the Obama eligibility subject, even to address it in a balanced,? pro-and-con manner.? It was strictly off limits?.or else their job, career, and perhaps sponsors would be hurt in some way.? As Judi and Doug continued to dig,? they found many threats to folks working at networks and shows to avoid this subject, or else.? It doesn?t take rocket science to notice how quiet it has been in the media coverage in the face of growing concern in the polls, evidence mounting against Obama?s being born in Hawaii and simply a HUGE COVERUP.?

The only sound that flows out from any of the Talk show big boys is mocking of what they call the `birthers?.? In my view it appears that most talk show hosts are living in fear and have sold out to protect their money pile and career.? Screw over the truth and constitution because you might be called a few names in the process of uncovering it.

While at CPAC recently,? I was able to interview Dr. Jerry Corsi who is just releasing his latest book,? ?Where?s the Birth Certificate.?? Corsi has gone to Kenya and dug through every contact and record available in Hawaii to create a well documented fact trail regarding Obama and his birthplace.? Jerry told me that the real story which he has completely verified and will be covered in his book is that Obama lied.?

Though we don?t have a long form birth certificate yet proving the exact location of Obama?s birth,? we 100% know from all records available,? the Hawaiian Governor Neil Abercrombie?s statements, (I have seen and have the birth certificate?I don?t have it)? hospital records and other supporting documentation that Obama was not born in Hawaii.? The real story is that Obama lied.? He was not born there,? so where was he born and why would he lie? Regardless of where he was born,? common sense says he is covering up a large whopper of some kind,? or he wouldn?t have lied in the first place,? nor spent nearly 2 million dollars hiding it and other revealing records.

This week Bob Unruh of had a revealing article over viewing the polls taken over the last few years of people who question Obama?s eligibility.? There are all kinds of polls you can dive into, but the bottom line is that the suspicions are growing.? Right now only 3 out of 10 in the GOP believe Obama was born in the US.? Even liberal Chris Matthews, who has chronically bashed the Birthers, said on his show that he was perplexed by the growing tide of questioning regarding Obama?s eligibility.
In May 2010, a WND/Wenzel Poll stated that 55% wanted Obama to release all his records and qualifications and if it is proven he is not qualified he should be removed as President and all the bills he signed made null and void.

How is this just a racist and birther issue?? There are at least 12 states pursuing legislation to push bills to require proof of citizenship for the 2012 election.? Obviously the concern has been growing among the states, no doubt in part due to the Judicial branch ignoring many lawsuits on this subject so far.?

Perhaps someday before I die,? our TV and print media will also wake up and smell the putrid coffee dramatically pointing to the birthplace lies by this President and constitutional crises this has created.? It is my strong belief from the growing evidence that President Obama was born abroad and is not constitutionally eligible to be President,? be commander and Chief nor sign any bills into law.? Wake up, America.

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 14:30
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Mi?rcoles, 16 de febrero de 2011

Share on Facebook

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

The Citizenship Status of Our 44 Presidents

By: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
February 14, 2011
Revised February 16, 2011

A famous Holmesian dictum provides that "a page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U.S. 345, 349 (1921) (Holmes, J.). There have been 43 Americans that have served as President (not including Barack Obama). Ten were born before 1787. Until Martin Van Buren (who was born in 1782 or six years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence) became President in 1837 (making him the 8th president), all the Presidents had been born before 1776 to parents who, undoubtedly, at the time considered themselves to be loyal subjects of one of the British Kings. The president following Van Buren, William H. Harrison (the 9th president), was also born before 1776 to parents who were British ?natural born subjects.? All Presidents born before July 4, 1776, were born British ?natural born subjects.? Those early presidents were naturalized to become ?Citizens of the United States? through the Declaration of Independence and by adhering to the American Revolution. These presidents included Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Adams, Jackson, and Harrison. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, allowing anyone who was a ?Citizen of the United States? at the time of the adoption of the Constitution to be eligible to be President, grandfathered these presidents to be eligible. All presidents born after 1787, except for Chester Arthur and Barack Obama, met the ?natural born Citizen? criteria, i.e., born on U.S. soil to a mother and father who were themselves U.S. citizens at the time of the President?s birth. Neither Arthur nor Obama were ?natural born Citizens? at the time of birth. Arthur was born to an alien father who also made his U.S. citizen mother an alien. Obama was born to a non-U.S. citizen father who never became a U.S. citizen and,?being here only on a temporary student visa, was never even an immigrant. There have been 46 Americans that have served as Vice-President (not including Mr. Biden). Ten were born before 1787. All Vice-Presidents born after 1787, except for Chester Arthur, met the ?natural born Citizen? criteria. Fourteen Vice Presidents have gone on to be President.

Some believe that John Tyler was our first "natural born Citizen" President. They believe that a President had to be born after the adoption of the Constitution in 1787 in order to be a ?natural born Citizen.? Since Tyler was born in 1790 in Virginia, they conclude that he was the first President to be a ?natural born Citizen.? I do not agree with this approach to determining who our first "natural born Citizen" President was.

The citizens made the Constitution and their government. The Constitution and government did not make the citizens. The citizens had the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness granted to them by nature and their Creator and not by the Constitution or government. On July 4, 1776, our first Americans declared independence from Great Britain and created the new American community of free and independent states. July 4, 1776 is therefore the critical date which established American citizenship. The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, the first constitution of the United States, which went into use in 1777 and which were formally ratified on March 1, 1781, officially recognized the nation as the "United States of America." Hence, all those who helped create the new nation became its members and therefore its citizens. These were the first "Citizens of the United States," which Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 grandfathered to be eligible to be President provided they were born before the adoption of the Constitution.

Hence, anyone born after July 4, 1776 in the U.S. to parents who became "Citizens of the United States" as a result of the Declaration of Independence and by adhering to the American Revolution was born in the country to U.S. citizen parents and therefore a "natural born Citizen." The First Congress in the Naturalization Act of 1790 even extended the ?natural born Citizen? status to persons born abroad to U.S. citizen parents. The Third Congress, through the Naturalization Act of 1795, repealed the 1790 Act and declared such children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents to be considered as ?citizens of the United States? and not ?natural born Citizens.?

The first President to be born after July 4, 1776 in the U.S. to parents who became "Citizens of the United States" on July 4, 1776 was Martin Van Buren, who was born in 1782 in New York. He was therefore the first President to be a "natural born Citizen." Tyler was the second President to be born under these birth circumstances which makes him the second President to be a "natural born Citizen."

Let us now examine how President James Buchanan, who had an Irish father, Woodrow Wilson, who had an English mother, and Herbert Hoover, who had a Canadian?mother, were ?natural born Citizens.? As we have seen, President Thomas Jefferson, whose mother was born in England, and Andrew Jackson, whose parents were both born in Ireland, were grandfathered to be eligible to be President. Chester Arthur, not being either grandfathered or a ?natural born Citizen,? will be treated separately.

When determining whether a child born in the U.S. is an Article II ?natural born Citizen,? the question is not whether the parents of the child are foreign born. Rather, the question is whether they are ?citizens of the United States? at the time of the child?s birth in the United States. In Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875), our U.S. Supreme Court, providing the same definition of a ?natural born citizen? as did Emer de Vattel in his The Law of Nations, Section 212 (1758), but without citing Vattel, and not in any way referring to the English common law, 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. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens."

Id., 169 U.S. at 679-80. So as we can see, the Supreme Court told us that a ?natural born citizen? is a child born in the country to citizen parents. See also, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 708 (1898) (distinguished between a ?natural born Citizen? and a ?citizen of the United States? and cited Vattel and quoted his definition of ?natural born Citizen? as did Minor v. Happersett but relied on the English common law to define a born ?citizen of the United States? under the 14th Amendment).

The status of being ?citizens of the United States? can be acquired by the parents by either being ?natural born Citizens? or by becoming ?citizens of the United States? by naturalization under an Act of Congress or treaty or if born in the U.S. under the 14th Amendment. The case of Perkins v Elg 307 U. S. 325 (1939) makes the point and shows how a child born in the U.S. to naturalized parents was declared a ?natural born Citizen.? The central question in the Perkins case dealt with whether the Elg child lost her U.S. birth citizenship status because of the acts of her parents and not because of anything she elected to do or some treaty or Act of Congress. But the case is also important in understanding the meaning of a ?natural born Citizen.?

Under out naturalization laws, citizenship can be derived from a close relation to a family member. Historically, a number of U.S. laws have provided for the automatic naturalization of children or wives (not husbands) of naturalized U.S. citizens. In some periods of our history, these laws provided that married women derived citizenship from their husband and had no control over their status. Under the Act of 10 February 1855, a woman automatically became an American upon marrying a U.S. citizen or following the naturalization of her foreign husband. Kelly v. Owen, 74 U.S. 7 Wall. 496 (1868). The 1922 Married Women's Act (or the Cable Act) finally severed the link between naturalization and marital status for most women.

Marie Elg's parents emigrated from Sweden to the U.S. in 1906. In that same year, Mr. Elg naturalized and became a U.S. citizen. Under the then existing naturalization laws (Act of 10 February 1855), his wife automatically became a U.S. citizen through the U.S. naturalization of her husband. Hence, when Marie Elg was born in the U.S. in 1907 both her mother and father were U.S. citizens. Marie Elg was therefore a child born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents. The Court found that ?[o]n her birth in New York, the plaintiff became a citizen of the United States. Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27; Fourteenth Amendment, ? 1; United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649.? Additionally, the lower court found Elg to be a ?natural born Citizen.? The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed this finding. The Court therefore gave a child born to naturalized ?citizens of the United States? the right to run for President. The U.S. Supreme Court in Elg therefore once again affirmed the American common law definition of a ?natural born Citizen? which is a child born in the country to citizen parents, a definition that was confirmed during the Founding by Emer de Vattel in his The Law of Nations, Section 212 (1758). On the other hand, no U.S. Supreme Court decision has found a child born to one or two alien parents to be an Article II ?natural born Citizen.?

So as we can see, a ?natural born Citizen? can be produced by being born in the U.S. to naturalized parents who are ?citizens of the United States.? Also, under our old naturalization laws, once a woman married a U.S. citizen, she herself automatically became a U.S. citizen derivatively from her husband. These laws apply to show that three of the six Presidents listed were ?natural born Citizens.? Jefferson was not a ?natural born Citizen? but, adhering to the revolution, was a ?citizen of the United States.? Under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, he was grandfathered to be eligible to be President. Jackson, also became a ?citizen of the United States? by adhering to the revolution and also grandfathered to be eligible to be President. Buchanan?s father naturalized to become a ?citizen of the United States? prior to his son?s birth. Wilson?s mother became a ?citizen of the United States? when she married her husband who was a ?citizen of the United States.? Hoover?s mother became a ?citizen of the United States? when she married her husband who was a ?citizen of the United States." So except for Jefferson and Jackson who were grandfathered, all these presidents were born in the U.S. to parents who were at the time of their birth ?citizens of the United States.? They were all ?natural born Citizens.?

The only exception to all this, apart from Barack Obama, is Chester Arthur. Chester Arthur (1881-1885), was born on October 5, 1829 in Fairfield, Vermont. His father, William Arthur, when eighteen years of age, emigrated from Co. Antrim, Ireland. His father did not become a naturalized U.S. citizen until 14 years after Chester Arthur?s birth. Chester Arthur?s mother, Malvina Stone, was born April 29, 1802 in Berkshire, Franklin, Vermont. Hence, Chester Arthur was born to a father who was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth. Because the citizenship of the wife merged into that of the husband, this made Arthur born to an alien mother and father. He was therefore born with dual citizenship of the United Kingdom and the United States. It is believed that Chester Arthur lied numerous times about his past to hide the fact that when he was born his father was not a U.S. citizen and to therefore obfuscate his ineligibility to hold Vice-Presidential and Presidential office. What is most telling is that Chester Arthur also burned all personal records just prior to his death. Chester Arthur was challenged during his Vice Presidential bid on the ground that he was not born in the United States. No one challenged Chester Arthur on the ground that even if he were born in the United States, he was still not an Article II ?natural born Citizen? because of his father?s foreign citizenship at the time of his birth which also made his mother an alien. Hence, the Chester Arthur example is not and cannot be treated as any precedent since the nation was not aware of the truth about his father?s and mother?s non-U.S. citizenship status at the time of his birth. Gregory J. Dehler, Chester Alan Arthur: The Life of a Gilded Age Politician and President, Published by Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2006, ISBN 1600210791, 9781600210792, 192 pages; Also see the research done by attorney Leo Donofrio on the Chester Arthur issue which can be found at

The Founders and Framers wrote the Constitution in a way that best provided for the protection of our unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.? They sought to do that by giving us a constitutional republic and providing for the survival and preservation of that?republic. ?In the governmental scheme that they gave us, they provided for the Office of President and Commander in Chief, a singular and all-powerful office involving the concentration of both civilian and military power into one person. ?Because of such concentration of power in one individual, the Framers recognized that such offices also presented great risk to the republic and its people. ?They therefore gave us the ?natural born Citizen? clause as one basis for eligibility to such offices. ?Through the ?natural born Citizen? clause, they instructed us that such power must fall into the hands of a person who can be trusted with it to the greatest degree possible and that such guarantee is of much greater importance to the survival and preservation of the constitutional republic than the fleeting politics and personal favor of having one person necessarily occupy that office. ?What is profound is that the Founders and Framers put their trust in ?Nature and Nature?s God? and not in political and legal institutions to accomplish that end. ?

For more information and research on the meaning of an Article II ?natural born Citizen,? please see the many essays at this blog,

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg, NJ 08831
Tel: 732-521-1900
Fax: 732-521-3906
? 2011 Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

P.S.? A copy of this report may be downloaded at at this link:

P.P.S.? Cross link to a report by CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) on the citizenship status of all 44 presidents:


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 17:02
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook

WND Exclusive

Shock poll: 'Birthers' rule

Astonishing number of citizens don't believe president's story

Posted: February 15, 2011
6:33 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh


President Barack Obama pauses as he listens to a question during a news conference in the East Room of the White House in Washington

A new poll is shocking the political powers in Washington with indication that only 3 in 10 members of the GOP believe that Barack Obama was born in the United States.

With the issue still disputed in a number of court cases and under review by nearly a dozen states considering laws that presidential candidates document their constitutional eligibility, the poll by Public Policy Polling found that only 28 percent of the Republicans surveyed believe Obama was born in the U.S. while 51 percent do not.

Another 21 percent say they are not sure.

Order it now! The definitive look at Barack Obama, in "Where's the Birth Certificate?" by Dr. Jerome Corsi.

"Any thought that the birther theory has been put to rest can be thrown out the window," Dean Debnam, the president of the Democratic-leaning polling firm, told Politico.

"That view is still widely held in Republican circles," he said.

Chris Matthews, host of "Hardball" on MSNBC, discussed the stunning poll numbers on his program tonight, perplexed by the growing tide of those questioning Obama's eligibility.



It was only a few months after Obama's inauguration that a WND/Wenzel Poll showed that 51.3 percent of Americans said they were aware of the questions raised about Obama's constitutional eligibility for office. Only 18.7 percent said they were not and another 30 percent were unsure.

At that point, 58.2 percent of the GOP said they were aware of the controversy.

Polls since then have shown Americans to be increasingly skeptical of Obama's official narrative:

  • A survey by Angus Reid Global Monitor, a division of Vision Critical Group, in October 2009 found three in 10 people in the U.S. believed Obama to be a foreigner.

    "While only 13 percent of Democratic Party supporters believe Obama was not born in the U.S., the proportion rises to 25 percent among independents and 51 percent among Republican Party backers," the report said.

  • Then in January 2010, another WND/Wenzel Poll revealed on the one-year anniversary of Obama's tenure in office that fully one-third of Americans refused to believe Obama was a "legitimate president," with another 15.8 percent saying they were not sure.

    Barely half the voters, 51.5 percent, said they believed the president legitimate even though he had not yet produced the documentation proving his constitutional eligibility. Even 14.6 percent of the Democrats said they did not consider him legitimate.

  • In May 2010, a WND/Wenzel Poll revealed that 55 percent of Americans wanted Obama to release all records relating to his childhood and his education, including "college records, Harvard Law School papers, passport records, travel records, and other similar documentation."

    "Asked what should be done should it be found that Obama does not meet the qualifications to be president, 59 percent said he should be removed from office, and 35 percent said all bills signed into law by Obama should be repealed," the poll's analysis revealed.

  • By last June, other media were beginning to put their toes in the waters of the controversy. A 60 Minutes-Vanity Fair poll revealed only 39 percent of respondents believe Obama was born in Hawaii as he claimed in his book.

    "A shocking 63 percent ? very nearly two-thirds of us ? went out on a limb and stated for the record that we believe in the United States. It's enough to make you proud to be an American ? or 63 percent proud, at any rate."

    But that figure included those who said they believe he was born in Kansas or some other unknown state, which still would conflict with Obama's story.

  • Last August, a poll by CNN said 6 of 10 people were uncertain Obama was born in the U.S. The poll said only 42 percent believe Obama "definitely" was born in the U.S.

    The CNN report said that, "Hawaii has released a copy of the president's birth certificate ? officially called a 'certificate of live birth.' And in 1961 the hospital where the president was born placed announcements in two Hawaiian newspapers regarding Obama's birth."

    However, the online image released by the Obama campaign during his presidential race actually is called a "Certification of Live Birth," and those documents under the rules in the state of Hawaii were available for children not born in the state.

The newest poll from Public Policy Polling revealed 51 percent of 400 Republican primary voters disbelieve Obama's claims to be eligible constitutionally to hold the office of president and another 21 percent said they were not sure.

According to the poll, GOP voters also are putting Mike Huckabee at the top of the national field of candidates? for the GOP nomination for president in 2012, following by Mitt Romney.

The Politico report editorialized: "A 51 percent majority of national GOP primary voters erroneously think President Obama wasnot born in the U.S. 28 percent know that he was."

Questions about Obama's eligibility to be president have been exacerbated by his refusal to answer questions and release ordinary background documentation and his extraordinary legal maneuvers to keep his background hidden.

The Constitution requires a president to be a "natural-born citizen," which is not the same as a "citizen."

Fritz Wenzel of Wenzel Strategies has warned, "Simply put, this question about Obama's legitimacy as president is undermining everything he does in the minds of millions of Americans."


Sponsored Link: The Most Important Day in America in 50 Years... It?s Coming in 2011.This day will change everything about our nation and your day-to-day life.Watch the eye-opening video presentation here...

Related Offers:

Make yourself a walking billboard! Wear the T-shirt that demands eligibility proof from Obama ...

The hottest book in America is the one that exposes the real Obama and all his men (and women)! Get your autographed copy only from WND!

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

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

Have you signed the petition that started it all?

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

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

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

Previous stories:

CNN's bad news for Obama: 6 of 10 doubt U.S. birth story

Not even 4 in 10 believe Obama birth story

Poll shocker! Majority wants Obama records

Just 51% of Americans believe Obama eligible

'3 in 10 Americans believe Obama foreigner'

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


Bob Unruh is a news editor for

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:50
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Martes, 15 de febrero de 2011

The Mount Vernon Statement

The Mount Vernon Statement
Constitutional Conservatism: A Statement for the 21st Century

We recommit ourselves to the ideas of the American Founding. Through the Constitution, the Founders created an enduring framework of limited government based on the rule of law. They sought to secure national independence, provide for economic opportunity, establish true religious liberty and maintain a flourishing society of republican self-government.

These principles define us as a country and inspire us as a people. They are responsible for a prosperous, just nation unlike any other in the world. They are our highest achievements, serving not only as powerful beacons to all who strive for freedom and seek self-government, but as warnings to tyrants and despots everywhere.

Each one of these founding ideas is presently under sustained attack. In recent decades, America?s principles have been undermined and redefined in our culture, our universities and our politics. The self-evident truths of 1776 have been supplanted by the notion that no such truths exist. The federal government today ignores the limits of the Constitution, which is increasingly dismissed as obsolete and irrelevant.

Some insist that America must change, cast off the old and put on the new. But where would this lead ? forward or backward, up or down? Isn?t this idea of change an empty promise or even a dangerous deception?

The change we urgently need, a change consistent with the American ideal, is not movement away from but toward our founding principles. At this important time, we need a restatement of Constitutional conservatism grounded in the priceless principle of ordered liberty articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

The conservatism of the Declaration asserts self-evident truths based on the laws of nature and nature?s God. It defends life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It traces authority to the consent of the governed. It recognizes man?s self-interest but also his capacity for virtue.

The conservatism of the Constitution limits government?s powers but ensures that government performs its proper job effectively. It refines popular will through the filter of representation. It provides checks and balances through the several branches of government and a federal republic.

A Constitutional conservatism unites all conservatives through the natural fusion provided by American principles. It reminds economic conservatives that morality is essential to limited government, social conservatives that unlimited government is a threat to moral self-government, and national security conservatives that energetic but responsible government is the key to America?s safety and leadership role in the world.
A Constitutional conservatism based on first principles provides the framework for a consistent and meaningful policy agenda.

  • It applies the principle of limited government based on the
    rule of law to every proposal.
  • It honors the central place of individual liberty in American
    politics and life.
  • It encourages free enterprise, the individual entrepreneur, and
    economic reforms grounded in market solutions.
  • It supports America?s national interest in advancing freedom
    and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that
  • It informs conservatism?s firm defense of family, neighborhood,
    community, and faith.

If we are to succeed in the critical political and policy battles ahead, we must be certain of our purpose.

We must begin by retaking and resolutely defending the high ground of America?s founding principles.

February 17, 2010

Edwin Meese, former U.S. Attorney General under President Reagan

Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America

Edwin Feulner, Jr., president of the Heritage Foundation

Lee Edwards, Distinguished Fellow in Conservative Thought at The Heritage Foundation, was present at the Sharon Statement signing.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council

Becky Norton Dunlop, president of the Council for National Policy

Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center

Alfred Regnery, publisher of the American Spectator

David Keene, president of the American Conservative Union

David McIntosh, co-founder of the Federalist Society

T. Kenneth Cribb, former domestic policy adviser to President Reagan

Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform

William Wilson, President, Americans for Limited Government

Elaine Donnelly, Center for Military Readiness

Richard Viguerie, Chairman,

Kenneth Blackwell, Coalition for a Conservative Majority

Colin Hanna, President, Let Freedom Ring

Kathryn J. Lopez, National Review

Tom Winter, Editor in Chief, Human Events

Morton Blackwell, President, The Leadership Institute



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

Share on Facebook


Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Public Policy Polling: Majority of Republicans Doubt Obama's Eligibility to be President; That Would Be 72% Bill 'Pinhead' O'Reilly!

Via the Public Policy Polling and Some; - Romney and the Birthers - By Tom Jensen -

Birtherism is alive and well within the GOP ranks, and their 2012 nominee preferences tell a story about the difficulty Mitt Romney faces in trying to appeal to an electorate that's a whole lot further out there than he is.

Birthers make a majority among those voters who say they're likely to participate in a Republican primary next year. 51% say they don't think Barack Obama was born in the United States to just 28% who firmly believe that he was and 21% who are unsure. The GOP birther majority is a new development. The last time PPP tested this question nationally, in August of 2009, only 44% of Republicans said they thought Obama was born outside the country while 36% said that he definitely was born in the United States. If anything birtherism is on the rise.

How does this impact Romney? Well among the 49% of GOP primary voters who either think Obama was born in the United States or aren't sure, Romney's the first choice to be the 2012 nominee by a good amount, getting 23% to 16% for Mike Huckabee, 11% for Sarah Palin, and 10% for Newt Gingrich. But with the birther majority he's in a distant fourth place at 11%, with Mike Huckabee at 24%, Sarah Palin at 19%, and Newt Gingrich at 14% all ahead of him. That pushes him into a second place finish overall at 17% with Mike Huckabee again leading the way this month at 20%. Palin's third with 15%, followed by Gingrich at 12%, Ron Paul at 8%, Mitch Daniels and Tim Pawlenty at 4%, and John Thune at 1%. ...Continued here;

Via Roll Call; - Majority of Republicans Doubt Obama's Birthplace - By Kyle Trygstad -

A slim majority of Republicans are still in disbelief that President Barack Obama, now in his third year in office, was born in the United States and therefore is legally eligible to be president, according to a poll by the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling.

The survey looked at whom these ?birthers? prefer in the 2012 Republican presidential primary contest. Among the 51 percent of Republicans who think Obama was born outside of America, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee was preferred by 24 percent, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin by 19 percent, former Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) by 14 percent and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney by 11 percent. ...Continued here;

Attorney Mario Apuzzo: All presidents born after 1787, except for Chester Arthur and Barack Obama, met the ?natural born Citizen? criteria. -Details here.?

Commander Charles Kerchner: List of U.S. Presidents - Eligibility under Article II Grandfather Clause (GFC) or Natural Born Citizen (NBC) Clause or Seated due to Election Fraud -Details here.

House Speaker John Boehner Refuses to Denounce Birthers - 2/13/2011 - Source.

Chris Matthews: Apparently Obama Does Not Have Hawaiian Long-Form Birth Certificate - 1/31/11 - Source.

Bonus: In 2007 on MSNBC Chris "Old School Birther" Matthews said Obama was born in Indonesia and has Islamic background, Got Hypocrite!? -Details here.

New Washington Times Ad: Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen of the United States - 14 Feb 2011 Wash Times Natl Wkly pg 5 -Source, embedded below...

Visit the Birther Vault for the long list of evidence against Hawaii officials and all of the people questioning Obama's eligibility; [].
The Citizenship Status of Our 44 Presidents
List of U.S. Presidents - Eligibility under Grandfather Clause (GFC) or Natural Born Citizen (NBC) or Seate...
Irrefutable Proof that Obama is Not Eligible to be President of the United States, the Facts Don't Lie!
Obama Ineligible/Support LTC Terry Lakin - Wash Times Natl Wkly 2011-01-03 2 Pg Ctr Fold-pgs 20&21

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 17:05
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Lunes, 14 de febrero de 2011

Share on Facebook

Monday 3-4p Eastern and Online - Right Click Here to Open Live Stream/Feed.

TLAF Radio Beginning on Feb 14, TLAF will be broadcasting on
America's Web Radio each Monday from 3-4pm US Eastern. Shows will be available for downloads and online listening.

To listen to the TLAF Radio Show visit America's Web Radio at;

Bold Ventures Radio

Lieutenant Colonel Terrence ("Terry") Lakin most recently served as Chief of Primary Care and Flight Surgeon for the Pentagon's DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic. He was also the lead Flight Surgeon charged with caring for Army Chief of Staff General Casey's pilots and air crew. LTC Lakin, selected for promotion to Colonel, is a native of Colorado, whose residency is Tennessee.

Since 2008 LTC Lakin has asked through his chain of command and his Congressional delegation for proof that President Obama is Constitutionally eligible to serve as his Commander-in-Chief. He has explained to his superiors that he cannot understand how his Oath of Office to protect and defend the Constitution does not allow military officers to pursue this proof of eligibility.

Terry has been court martialed through his pursuit of confirmation of Obama's of eligbility to act as commander of our armed services.

  • 6 months in prison
  • Total forfeiture of all pay and allowances
  • Dismissal from the Service

All he wanted was the truth. Instead he got prison.

Terry is standing up for the nation. He needs the nation's help.



Publicado por Corazon7 @ 13:40
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Viernes, 11 de febrero de 2011

Share on Facebook

Is it time to call for Impeachment? Line them up?Obama, Holder

  • February 3rd, 2011 2:44 pm ET

How much do Americans have to bear of the blatant dishonest and outright destruction of America by Obama and his minions? ?Impeachment at ?the federal level is guided by , Article Two of the United States Constitution (Section 4) that states that "The President, Vice President, and all other civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeaching, while the United States Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments. The removal of impeached officials is automatic upon conviction in the Senate.

Obama is racking up the high crimes, he?s proven he?s very good a bribing Democrats, ask Blagovich and his involvement with Obama, before he was even sworn in, Pay to Play scams.? Obama had to hide behind Bill Clinton when he got caught offering a Sestak a cushy White House job not run for the Senate

Obama?s White House minions fraudulently rewrote the BP oil spill report, wrote hundreds of waivers from Obamacare as campaign support payoffs, contempt of Federal Court as to the Gulf oil moratorium.? Ironically more contempt charges coming for Obama: he?s ignoring the Federal courts again over Obamacare being struck down by a Regan era judge.

It is no wonder that Obama thinks he can get away with anything.? Dems and Republicans let them man run for President without providing meaningful documentation that he was eligible to be President.? Common sense dictates that Obama had to misspend campaign contributions to hide his school records and past life.? He?s spent more on legal fees that he has made from his books and he was spending the money on hiding his past before he even received big money from his publisher.? Who paid for his legal expenses?? Many suggest they were paid with campaign funds.

Holder has failed to pursue any of the above offenses.? He let the Black Panthers go scot free even after the Justice Department had won its case. One has to remember that Holder is a bad man with a checkered past. Holder represented Chiquita and Sean Hannity investigated Holder represented Chiquita.

?Chiquita admitted their wrongdoing to the Justice Department and hired and extremely influential man to bail them out, former deputy attorney general, Eric Holder.? Holder had left the DOJ after the Clinton administration and was now in private practice. On March 19, 2007, with Holder as lead counsel, Chiquita pleaded guilty to one count of, quote, "engaging in transactions with a specially designated global terrorist organization.? Holder then brokered what some call a sweetheart deal in which Chiquita only had to pay a $25 million fine over five years, yet not one of the half dozen company officials who approved the payments would receive any jail time.?

Holder despite pleas from the GOP has failed to investigate the Pigford Scandal. The Scandal involves More than 92,000 blacks have signed up for reparations from the Obama USDA after the Pigford case was extended this past year. Alarmingly that is five times the number of blacks who were actually farming during the time period in question and would possibly qualify for the reparations. Don?t forget this is the same guy who testified to the Hill that he hadn?t read the eleven page Arizona bill before he criticized it to the press!

Obama has betrayed America on many occasions and has sold us out to the Chinese and Muslims. (Ask Egypt?s Mubarak) ?The definitions of treason are the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign, a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state, or the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery. ?One could say to Congress: Take your pick Congressmen!

Click here to find out more!

By Gregory Dail

Gregory is a staunch conservative who has been involved with local and national politics in Central Florida since 1980. He currently publishes the...

Read more

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 14:12
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook

Reelection Slogan for Obama & Co: We Bring Down Governments?



by Sher Zieve, ?2011


The Muslim Brotherhood's slogan is "Islam is the solution"

(Feb. 11, 2011) ? The Obama regime is now the unsurpassed and most bizarre combination of outward stupidity and hidden (by the media and others) pure evil intent ever to rule over the citizens of the United States of America.? Starting with the stupidity factor?perhaps just to throw us off?Obama?s Director of National Intelligence (Intelligence?? Really?) James Clapper has again placed his foot in it and this time, it was both feet.? Note:? In December 2010, Clapper told ABC?s Diane Sawyer that he wasn?t aware of the UK terrorist arrests; arrests that had been all over the network and cable news channels.

Then, on Thursday 10 February 2011, The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence interviewed Clapper, asked him about the current chaotic situation in Egypt and then about the Muslim Brotherhood that is attempting to seize power of the Egyptian government.? Seemingly clueless?yet again?Clapper said this about the Brotherhood:? ?The term ?Muslim Brotherhood? is an umbrella term for a variety of movements, in the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried Al Qaeda as a perversion of Islam.?? First and foremost, the Muslim Brotherhood is not and never has been secular?hence the name ?Muslim? (and not ?Secular?) Brotherhood.? The MB is considered by every viable expert on terrorism and the Middle East to be the Mother of all Islamic terrorist organizations.? Far from eschewing violence?let alone condemning Al Qaeda?the Muslim Brotherhood has as some of its progeny Al Qaeda, Hamas, the radical Muslim Students Organization and Islamic Society of North America and the unindicted 9/11 co-conspirator CAIR.

Director and editor of ?The Third Jihad:? Radical Islam?s Vision for America? Wayne Kopping writes: ?It was the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood that inspired Osama bin Laden?s deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri and the 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The Muslim Brotherhood ideology lies at the heart of the Hamas charter that calls for the derailing of any Israel-Palestinian peace process and the destruction of Israel. And the Muslim Brotherhood ideology promulgates the fatwas (religious edicts) of Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Brotherhood?s spiritual leader, who deems it a religious duty for Muslims to fight Americans in Iraq.?? However, Obama?s and his Clapper want us all to now believe the MB no longer supports violence or its perverse religion.? Note:? It?s frightening to realize that even I seem to know more about Islamic terrorists than our ostensible Director of National Intelligence.

And?in the meantime?as I and others have reported, the Obama regime has been heavily involved in working to bring the Mubarak government to an end and to replace it with the terrorist MB group.? As reported by Jodi McLeod, in 2009 Obama?s Code Pink and his friends and benefactors terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn were in Egypt ?coincidentally.?? Training sessions for a revolution, perhaps?? We believe so.? Then, as I reported on 5 February Obama-Google?s ?head of marketing for the Middle East Wael Ghonim flew into Egypt to join the opposition to Mubarak. Ghonim is now reported to be the ?spokesman? for the opposition.?? And now the plot thickens and sickens with Cliff Kincaid?s expos? of the Podesta?s (John Podesta former Chief of Staff for President Clinton and CEO of the radical leftist Soros-funded Center for American Progress with his brother Tony Podesta) involvement in the current Egyptian fiasco.? In his article ?Soros-paid Scribes Cover Their Tracks in Egypt? Kincaid writes:? ?WND?s Aaron Klein has broken the news that the Soros-led International Crisis Group (ICG) issued a 2008 report urging Egyptian government acceptance of the pro-terrorist Muslim Brotherhood.?? One way or another, it looks like all roads lead to the Soros-Obama team.

The evidence directly implicating corrupt US leaders (including John Podesta) and the Soros-Obama & Co team in heavily assisting (if not fomenting) and training the opposition (Muslim Brotherhood) to the Egyptian government toward bringing it down (undoubtedly for profit?) appears to be piling up?higher and higher.? We in the USA are now living under a completely criminal government enterprise.? Obama & Co are in the process of bringing down the USA?and now Egypt.? They must be extremely proud of their accomplishments.? Their pure evil is magnificent to view!? What?s the next country in their sites?? Will it be the United Kingdom?? Obama has already betrayed them within the last week.

Have Obama & Co now officially turned mercenary in that they will consider the most lucrative offers in their latest endeavor ?We Can Help YOU Bring Down Governments??? How much longer will we put up with this, America?? How much longer?


? 2011, The Post & Email. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 14:02
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Jueves, 10 de febrero de 2011

Share on Facebook

Thursday, February 10, 2011

Video Evidence: Barack Hussein Obama's BIRTH is NOT Registered in Honolulu, Hawaii by Online Search Evidence; Maya Soetoro's birth IS!?


*Maya Soetoro*

This is a very interesting video. It is well worth the 8 minutes. Note: Funny how Obama's stepsister Maya Soetoro's birth pops up as registered in Hawaii when she was actually born in Indonesia. I wonder why Obama's name comes up Hawaii-less... Hmmmm...

Via InvestigateBarry; - Barack Hussein Obama's BIRTH is NOT Registered in Honolulu, Hawaii by Online Search Evidence - US Birth Records Check for Barack Obama and 5 others prove Barack Hussein Obama was not registered in Honolulu Hawaii -Source. Hat tip to Rob.

Visit the Birther Vault for the long list of evidence against Hawaii officials and all of the people questioning Obama's eligibility; [].?

Check out the different Obama COLBs posted online by Obama's campaign. Also, if you missed it, meet the only 2 people to examine the COLB(s), and one of them wasn't Bill O'Reilly or Anderson Pooper;

1) Daily Kos COLB;

2) Fight the Smears COLB;

3) COLB with seal;

4) COLB without seal;

All should view the research compiled at this site;

Confirmed: Hawaii Department of Health is Aiding and Abetting Obama & Gangs Forged Certification of Live Birth, Got Final Nail in the Coffin!? -Details at Source.

Flashback from the Right Side of Life; Meet the only 2 people to ever "examine" Obama's SHORT-FORM COLB's.

The two employees who were granted access to Obama?s bogus Certification of Live Birth (COLB) are NOT document examiners or experts. Joe Miller has a Ph. D. in Political Philosophy ? so he?s a political operative ? while Jess Henig has an M.A. in English Literature ? I?m not sure her dye-job is a political or esthetic statement.They are a couple of partisan Obots ? just what you?d expect ? Jess took the photos presented on their webpage and did all of the writing, while Bob basically held the COLB open for Jess to photograph ? suitable work for a Ph. D.

Those two are completely unqualified to perform any kind of forensic examination of any document, and knows it ? and so do Henig and Miller.

FactCheck does say their, ?representatives got a chance to spend some time with the ?birth certificate,? and we can attest to the fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago.? In my mind, that clearly shows they were working with and for the Obama Campaign and that Obama and his people are involved in this lie. Much more HERE.

And this; - Blogger manipulates birth certificate image, undermining Obama claims - Jay McKinnon, a self-described Department of Homeland Security-trained document specialist, has implicated himself in the production of palpably fake Hawaii birth certificate images similar to the one endorsed as genuine by the Barack Obama campaign, and appearing on the same Daily Kos blog entry where the supposedly authentic document appears. Much more HERE and HERE.

And this oldie; Hawaii Officials refuse to verify president's online COLBs images released by Obama's campaign and
In response to a direct question from WND, the Hawaii Department of Health refused to authenticate either of the two versions of President Obama's short-form Certificate of Live Birth, or COLB, posted online ? neither the image produced by the Obama campaign nor the images released by Janice Okubu, the public information officer for the Hawaii DOH, also had no explanation for why Dr. Fukino's initial press release last October and subsequent press release also avoided declaring the posted images to be of authentic documents., an organization funded by the same left-leaning Annenberg Foundation that also employed Barack Obama and former Weatherman radical bomber Bill Ayers, produced a short-form Obama COLB that was very different in appearance than the campaign released. Source. And much more HERE.

Forgery is nothing new to the Obama campaign, via Debbie Schlussel; Obama?s Selective Service Draft Registration Raises Serious Questions.
Did President-elect Barack Hussein Obama commit a federal crime in September of this(last) year? Or did he never actually register and, instead, did friends of his in the Chicago federal records center, which maintains the official copy of his alleged Selective Service registration commit the crime for him?
It?s either one or the other, as indicated by the release of Barack Obama?s official Selective Service registration for the draft. The full investigative report is HERE.

And via Give us Liberty; EXPLOSIVE...more proof that AKA OBAMA is a fraud and very likely not even an American citizen!... - Obama conspiracy ? It?s no longer just a theory - A man who fails to register with SS before turning 26 may find that some doors are permanently closed. This is a must read HERE.

Bonus; CONFIRMED: Published Bogus Fact Regarding Obama?s British/Kenyan Citizenship. We can report that it has been conclusively established ? the report contains false information. ? Inaccuracy #1: Obama?s Kenyan Citizenship did not expire on Aug 4, 1982. was absolutely wrong when they reported Obama?s Kenyan citizenship expired on Aug 4, 1982. ? Inaccuracy #2: While Obama?s status as a British citizen may have been short lived, failed to state that his status as a British subject was not short lived. Research has discovered multiple legal mechanisms which have the potential to establish that Obama is now a full citizen of Kenya as well as the United Kingdom, the European Union, the Commonwealth of Nations and the Republic of Indonesia. Source.

Confirmed: - Democratic Party of Hawaii would not certify in 2008 that Obama was constitutionally and legally eligible for the Office of President - Source.

Visit the Birther Vault for the long list of evidence against Hawaii officials and all of the people questioning Obama's eligibility; [].
A Catalog of Evidence - Concerned Americans Have Good Reason to Doubt that Putative President Obama Was Bor...
Hawaii Sr Election Clerk-Obama Not Born in any Hawaii Hospital-Wash Times Natl Wkly-20100621 Pg 5

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 21:50
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook

Mr. Senator: ?Show Me? the Proof!


Sen. Roy Blunt was elected in 2010 and formerly served in the U.S. House of Representatives

February 9, 2011

Senator Roy Blunt
Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C.? 20510

Dear Senator Blunt:

I am grateful for your reply to my letter of January 7 regarding eligibility requirements, but I am disappointed in your response for several reasons.

1.? You must be an honorable man, but you completely ignored the fact that at the time of his birth, Barack H. Obama II owed allegiance to Great Britain. That is not disputed, it is admitted by Obama himself.? Thus you failed to respond to the central point of my letter:? because Obama?s father was a foreigner, Obama II is not a ?natural born Citizen? (nbC), regardless of where he was born, and is therefore ineligible for the presidency.? I pointed out that nbC is different from plain citizen, but you write as if the only question is whether Obama was born in Hawaii.? It is impossible for someone born with foreign allegiance to be nbC.

2.? You quote Article II, Section 1 and then say it is up to the states and the courts to determine eligibility.? You completely ignore my argument that Section 3 of the 20th Amendment calls for Congress to act after an unqualified person has been elected to the presidency.? No state has the power to in effect override or nullify the MANDATE of Article II, Section 1.? Senator Blunt, you solemnly swore to ?support and defend the Constitution? and to ?bear true faith and allegiance to the same,? but now you violate your oath by saying that ensuring eligibility per Artilce II is someone else?s job.? That seems unworthy of an honorable man.

3.? You deceptively defend your evasion of your duty by saying that ?courts have jurisdiction? over eligibility, that ?several courts have dismissed cases questioning President Obama?s citizenship,? and that ?on December 8, 2008, the Supreme Court turned down an appeal? in this matter.? You imply that our courts have duly searched for the truth and examined the evidence, but that implication is false, since the courts have never permitted a trial of truth but have instead denied the plaintiffs ?standing,? even going so far as to say it is up to Congress?i.e., YOU, honorable sir?to handle the matter.

4.? You, having the honor of representing the ?Show-Me State,? have let yourself be fooled into accepting Obama?s online computer-generated COLB as proof of Obama?s Hawaiian birth, although that digital image of a purported secondary document lacks specific verifiable documentation such as hospital and doctor?s name, doctor?s signature, and raised seal of the state.?? Again, you ignored my statement that there is ?abundant and credible evidence that Barack H. Obama II was actually born in Kenya.?

With my previous letter to you dated September 12, which you did not answer,? I enclosed a copy of Obama?s Kenyan birth certificate with these comments, which I now ask you to consider thoughtfully:

Unlike the purported secondary document from Hawaii, which Hawaii has never verified as authentic, the Kenyan Certificate of Birth is a primary document that bears a certificate number, states a hospital of birth, is signed by the doctor, signed by the supervisor of obstetrics, signed by or for the chief administrator who released the document on Feb. 19, 2009, has the imprint of baby Obama?s foot, and bears an official seal.

It does not take an expert in document authentication to see that the Kenyan birth certificate ranks much higher in face validity than the possibly forged document produced by Obama?s own campaign office in 2008.

If there is any question that our Commander-in-Chief is a foreigner, Congress should immediately investigate the facts and hold open, fair hearings to definitively ascertain the truth.

5.? You have been furthered snookered into accepting the Annenberg Public Policy Center as being some sort of legitimate authority on document authentication, whereas the actual source for the pseudo-validation of Obama?s COLB was, a two-person leftist website that is a political arm of the Annenberg Foundation.? This is the same foundation that funded the Chicago Challenge, run by Obama and unrepentant terrorist William Ayers, so it can hardly be considered an objective source of truth.? I wish you were wise as well as honorable.

6.? I appreciate your offer to converse further on Facebook, but as your constituent I am asking you to take action on my behalf.? Specifically, I ask that you do whatever is needed to have a congressional committee fully and fairly investigate Obama?s eligibility.? If a congressional committee finds that president-elect Obama is not eligible per Article 2, Section 1, I ask you to sponsor a bill or joint resolution saying Obama suffers from a constitutional disability for office in that he does not qualify for the office and that therefore Section 3 of Amendment XX is hereby invoked.

Amend. 20, Section 3 states ? . . . OR [emphasis added because that "or" is key] if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President . . . until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.?

Clearly the Framers of the Constitution foresaw the possibility of removing an unqualified President AFTER he had been elected. And it does not require impeachment and a trial. The common argument that since Obama won the election we have to live with it is false.?? Congress should hold hearings and determine once and for all two things:

A. Was Barack Obama born a citizen of the United States? (This has never been established as a legal and verifiable fact.? Don?t play ostrich. Make Obama show his authentic, long-form, doctor-signed, officially sealed birth certificate.? Show me, Senator, that you are not a coward.)

B. Is Barack Obama a natural born Citizen as that term was used in the Constitution? (In answering this Congress might well request an opinion from the Supreme Court, sans those justices appointed by Obama.)

Finally, may I say that as a Senator you are greatly superior to both Claire McCaskill and Robin Carnahan.? You are the best Missouri has to offer this country, as I hope you will soon demonstrate by acting honorably in this matter of great consequence to us all.


Harry Hunter

Editor?s Note: The above letter was sent after Mr. Hunter received the following from Sen. Blunt:


Letter received by constituent from Sen. Roy Blunt's office

The text of the letter reads:

Thank you for contacting me regarding citizenship and eligibility requirements for public office.? I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your concerns.

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

As you may know, President Obama?s campaign released a copy of his certification of live birth in June of 2008.? The Constitution gives power to the states to determine a candidate?s eligibility to run for office and the courts have jurisdiction to oversee this process.? Hawaii?s health Department, Registrar of Records and the Univeristy of Pennsylvania?s Annenberg Public Policy Center have verified the authenticity of his certification of live birth.? Several courts have dismissed cases questioning President Obama?s citizenship and on December 8, 2008, the Supreme Court turned down an appeal asking the court to consider the citizenship status of President Obama.

On July 17, 2009, during my time in the House of Representatives, H. Res. 593 passed with my support.? This resolution recognizes and celebrates the 50th anniversary of Hawaii?s entry into the Union as the 50th state and honors President Obama?s birth in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.? Again, thank you for contacting me.? I look forward to continuing our conversation on Facebook ( and Twitter ( about the important issues facing Missouri and the country.? I also encourage you to visit my website ( to learn more about where I stand on the issues and sign-up for my e-newsletter.

Sincere regards,

Roy Blunt


? 2011, The Post & Email. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 14:07
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook

WND Exclusive

11th state eyeing proof

of Obama's eligibility

Lawmaker files new bill to

require presidential candidates

be qualified

Posted: February 09, 2011
10:35 pm Eastern



Obama on the campaign trail

WASHINGTON ? And then there were 11.

The push at the state level to ensure no future president enters office under the cloud of suspicion that he or she might not be constitutionally eligible is growing.

At the request of a local tea-party group, Tennessee state Sen. Mae Beavers has filed a bill that would require presidential candidates to show an original birth certificate establishing constitutional eligibility for the office before getting on the ballot beginning in 2012.

Beavers told a local television station she said she wouldn't comment about whether or not she believes Obama meets the test because she has no personal knowledge about whether or not he can prove it. She said, however, this legislation would erase all concerns in future elections.

"We just want to make doubly sure in Tennessee if we put someone on the ballot, they are qualified to run," said Beavers.

That makes 11 state legislatures now considering such bills ? with several of them well on the way to passage.

Order your copy of Jerome Corsi's upcoming blockbuster, "Where's the Birth Certificate? The Case That Barack Obama Is Not Eligible to Be President," autographed from the WND Superstore and be among the first get this historic book when it is released this spring.

There is Arizona's HB2544, Connecticut's SB391, Georgia's HB37, Indiana's SB114, Maine's LD34, Missouri's HB283, Montana's HB205, Nebraska's LB654, Oklahoma's SB91, SB384 and SB540, and Texas; HB295 and HB529.

New Hampshire last year adopted HB1245, but it requires only a statement under penalty of perjury that a candidate meets the qualification requirements of the U.S. Constitution, which is something similar to what the political parties already state regarding their candidates.

Other plans were considered last year in Texas, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Missouri, Minnesota, Maine and Arizona, and Arizona's probably got the closest to law, falling a "pocket veto" short in the state Senate, despite widespread support.


This is the one that could change the game. A plan in Arizona to require presidential candidates to prove their eligibility to occupy the Oval Office is approaching critical mass, even though it has just been introduced.

The proposal from state Rep. Judy Burges was brought forth with 16 members of the state Senate as co-sponsors. It needs only 16 votes in the Senate to pass.

In the House, there are 25 co-sponsors, with the need for only 31 votes for passage, and Burges told WND that there were several chamber members who confirmed they support the plan and will vote for it, but simply didn't wish to be listed as co-sponsors.

The proposal is highly specific and directly addresses the questions that have been raised by Barack Obama's occupancy of the White House. It says:

Within ten days after submittal of the names of the candidates, the national political party committee shall submit an affidavit of the presidential candidate in which the presidential candidate states the candidate's citizenship and age and shall append to the affidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidate's age and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States.

"I think every American should consider it of prime importance to ensure that all candidates for the highest elected position in our nation meet all constitutional requirements," she told WND.

The Arizona bill also requires attachments, "which shall be sworn to under penalty of perjury," including "an original long form birth certificate that includes the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician and signatures of the witnesses in attendance."

It also requires testimony that the candidate "has not held dual or multiple citizenship and that the candidate's allegiance is solely to the United States of America."

"If both the candidate and the national political party committee for that candidate fail to submit and swear to the documents prescribed in this section, the secretary of state shall not place that presidential candidate's name on the ballot in this state," the plan explains.

The governor's office is occupied by Republican Jan Brewer, who has had no difficulty in bringing direct challenges to Washington, such as in 2010 when lawmakers adopted provisions allowing state law-enforcement officers to enforce federal immigration law. The move prompted an immediate court challenge by Washington.


In Connecticut, SB291 has been referred to the Judiciary Committee.

It would require "that candidates for president and vice-president provide their original birth certificates in order to be placed on the ballot."

That is needed to make sure the candidate "is a natural born United States citizen, prior to certifying that the candidate is qualified to appear on the ballot."


In Georgia, HB37 by Rep. Bobby Franklin not only demands original birth-certificate documentation, it provides a procedure for and declares that citizens have "standing" to challenge the documentation.

"Each political party shall provide for each candidate ... original documentation that he meets the qualifications of Article, 2 Section 1, Paragraph 1, and Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 5 of the United States Constitution to serve as president of the United States if elected to such office," it states.

"Any citizen of this state shall have the right to challenge the qualifications of any such candidate within two weeks following the publication of the names of such candidates," it says.


In Indiana it was Sen. Mike Delph who proposed SB114 to require candidates to provide a certified copy of their birth certificate and include an affirmation they meet the Constitution's requirements for the president.

It calls for the candidates "to certify that the candidate has the qualifications provided in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution" and accompany that certification with "a certified copy of the candidate's birth certificate, including any other documentation necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications."

In also provides "that the election division may not certify the name of a nominee for president or vice president of the United States unless the election division has received a nominee's certification and documentation."

On his blog, commentator Gary Welsh observed that state law already requires the elections division to deny ballot access to unqualified candidates:

"However, it makes no provision for requiring candidates to furnish any evidence with their declaration of candidacy to indicate whether they are eligible to hold the office. Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution requires a person to be a natural born citizen, at least 35 years of age and have resided within the United States for at least 14 years in order to be eligible to be president. Under Delph's legislation, no major party candidate will be eligible for the Indiana presidential primary unless they file a declaration of candidacy attesting that he or she meets the constitutional eligibility requirements and furnish the state election's division with a certified copy of the candidate's birth certificate and any other evidence the Commission may require to establish the candidate satisfies the constitutional eligibility requirements."

He cited the "unprecedented" 2008 election, where "the candidates nominated by both major parties for president had questions raised by citizens about their eligibility, which resulted in dozens of lawsuits being filed across the country. Sen. John McCain's birth in Panama where his father was serving his country in the Navy led to lawsuits being filed against his candidacy, while questions about the birthplace of Barack Obama resulted in even more lawsuits being filed challenging his eligibility.


"Obama furnished to what was purported to be a certified copy of his birth certificate [the online certification of live birth], although questions lingered about his natural born status because his father was not a U.S. citizen and persistent Internet rumors that he was actually born in Kenya and not Hawaii as he claimed."

But he said the issue was that neither candidate was "required to furnish any election authority with any document such as a birth certificate ... ."

He said, "After [Sen. John] McCain was nominated at the Republican National Convention, Republican officials filed with the elections division a certificate of nomination that attested both he and his vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, met the eligibility requirements set out in the U.S. Constitution. The certificate of nomination filed by Democratic Party officials for Obama and his running mate, Joe Biden, contained no similar attestation.

"Critics will no doubt poke fun at SB114 and label Delph and those who support it as 'birthers.' To them I say it is no more absurd than the documentary proof required under state law for persons seeking a driver's license, or requiring all registered voters to present a valid picture ID in order to cast a vote in person at an election. And it certainly is no more burdensome than evidence required of ordinary citizens in any number of transactions," he said.

On Welsh's blog, a forum participant wrote, "All I can say is he is the only president in my memory who has not only REFUSED to present medical records, tax records, birth records, college records, etc., but he has hired a battalion of lawyers who vigorously fight every effort to force him to. Why is he so secretive?"


Maine's LD34 calls for a requirement for candidates for public office to provide proof of citizenship.

It states, "A candidate for nomination by primary election shall show proof of United States citizenship in the form of a certified copy of the candidate's birth certificate and the candidate's driver's license or other government-issued identification to the Secretary of State."


The Missouri plan, HB283, by nearly two dozen sponsors, would require that certification for candidates "shall include proof of identity and proof of United States citizenship."


In Nebraska, with LB654, the certification for candidates would "include affidavits and supporting documentation."

That paperwork would need to document they meet the "eligibility requirements of Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States."

It requires an affidavit that says: "I was born a citizen of the United States of America and was subject exclusively to the jurisdiction of the United States of America, owing allegiance to no other country at the time of my birth."


Under Montana's plan by Rep. Bob Wagner, candidates would have to document their eligibility and also provide for protection for state taxpayers to prevent them from being billed for "unnecessary expense and litigation" involving the failure of 'federal election officials' to do their duty.

"There should be no question after the fact as to the qualifications [of a president]," Wagner told WND. "The state of Montana needs to have [legal] grounds to sue for damages for the cost of litigation."

Wagner's legislation cites the Constitution's requirement that the president hold "natural born citizenship" and the fact that the "military sons and daughters of the people of Montana and all civil servants to the people of Montana are required by oath to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States and Montana against enemies foreign and domestic."

But there are estimates of up to $2 million being spent on Obama's defense against eligibility lawsuits. There have been dozens of them and some have been running for more than two years. So Wagner goes a step beyond.

"Whereas, it would seem only right and just to positively certify eligibility for presidential and congressional office at the federal level; and whereas, it is apparent that the federal authority is negligent in the matter; therefore, the responsibility falls upon the state; and whereas, this act would safeguard the people of Montana from unnecessary expense and litigation and the possibility that federal election officials fail in their duty and would ensure that the State of Montana remains true to the Constitution," says his proposed legislation.


In Oklahoma, SB91 would require "proof of citizenship for certain candidates" and take the openness one step further, allowing the public access.

It demands an "original" birth certificate issued by a state, the federal government, or documentation of a birth of a U.S. citizen abroad ...

"Copies of these documents shall be made by the election board and kept available for public inspection pursuant to the Oklahoma Open Records Act.

Pennsylvania (pending)

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

Assemblyman Daryl Metcalfe told WND he is working on a proposal that would demand documentation of constitutional eligibility.

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

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


A bill filed for the Texas Legislature by Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, that would require candidates' documentation.

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

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

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

State Rep. Leo Berman

Berman told WND he's seen neither evidence nor indication that Obama qualifies under the Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural-born citizen."

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

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

At the time the Constitution was written, many analysts agree, a "natural born citizen" was considered to be a citizen born of two citizen parents. If that indeed is correct, Obama never would have been qualified to be president, as he himself has confirmed his father was a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, making Obama a dual citizen with Kenyan and American parentage at his birth.

Other definitions have called for a "natural born citizen" to be born of citizen parents inside the nation.

There have been dozens of lawsuits and challenges over the fact that Obama's "natural born citizen" status never has been documented. The "certification of live birth" his campaign posted online is a document that Hawaii has made available to those not born in the state.

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

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

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

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

Obama even continued to withhold the information during a court-martial of a military officer, Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, who challenged his deployment orders on the grounds Obama may not be a legitimate president. Lakin was convicted and sent to prison.

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

Orly Taitz, the California lawyer who has worked on a number of the highest-profile legal challenges to Obama, was encouraging residents of other states to get to work.

"We need eligibility bills filed in each and every state of the union ... as it shows the regime that we are still the nation of law and the Constitution, that the Constitution matters and state representatives and senators are ready to fight for the rule of law. During the last election there were some 700 more Republican state assemblyman elected all over the country, as the nation is not willing to tolerate this assault on our rights and our Constitution any further," she said.

There also was, during the last Congress, Rep. Bill Posey's bill at the federal level.

Posey's H.R. 1503 stated:

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

The bill also provided:

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

It had more than a dozen sponsors, and while it died at the end of the last Congress, there are hopes the GOP majority in the House this year will move such a plan forward.

There also is a petition, already signed by tens of thousands, to state lawmakers asking them to make sure the next president of the United States qualifies under the Constitution's eligibility requirements.

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

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

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

Farah says all those campaigns are continuing.

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

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

Read more: 11th state eyeing proof of Obama's eligibility

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 13:20
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Mi?rcoles, 09 de febrero de 2011

Share on Facebook


?2011 drkate

Contempt. The willful defiance, disregard, or disrespect of judicial or legislative authority or dignity, especially any disobedience of an order or any conduct that disrupts, obstructs, or interferes with the administration or procedures of a court or legislature.

Lockdown of Honduras Presidential Palace

In June 2009 when then Honduran President Manuel Zeyala showed contempt for and defied a Congressional and Supreme Court order that disallowed him to? modify the country?s Constitution improperly, the national army arrested and sent him into exile.? While the action against Zeyala was constitutionally legal, Obama immediately labeled it a coup ?. His purchased media also complied.? Breitbart has the AP story:

President Barack Obama says the weekend ouster of Honduran leader Manuel Zelaya was a ?not legal? coup and that he remains the country?s president? Obama said he wanted to be very clear that President Zelaya is the democratically elected president?Obama pledged the U.S. to ?stand on the side of democracy? and to work with other nations and international entities to resolve the matter peacefully. emphasis added)

There is no such thing as a ?not legal? or ?legal? ?coup??a coup is always an unconstitutional, unlawful action:

A coup d??tat ( or /ku de.ta/) (plural: coups d??tat), or coup for short (French for overthrow of the state), is the sudden unconstitutional deposition of a government, usually by a small government?s surrender; or the acquiescence of the populace and the non-participant military forces.

We have learned that an Obama tactic is to accuse others of what he is or has done.? While Honduras acted Constitutionally, Obama has defied the constitution at every turn.? Will Obama face the same fate as Zeyala?

This essay discusses the actions of Obama that could be considered contempt of the Constitution or of court orders, any of which could result in his removal ?Honduras-style? or by any other constitutional methods.

Obama?s Coup Deflected

When Obama accused Honduras of a coup in June 2009, it had been a few months into Obama?s? coup of the Presidency?where he knowingly and with malice aforethought breached Article II of the Constitution. Obama?s coup was orchestrated with the acquiescence of the populace as a result of the media, national parties, and Congressional black out of information, and with the? non-participation of the military but likely collaboration of certain military members-those, for example, who would set up, railroad, and jail Terry Lakin.

In contrast, the Honduras government and its army acted properly in preventing Zeyala from orchestrating a coup where he would remain in office in violation of the constitutional term limits.

Its ironic that while Obama was pointing ?coup? at Honduras, three fingers were pointing right back at him, screaming back ?COUP?!? But Obama seized the discussion first, and successfully labeled the Honduran government as rogue, illegal, and unconstitutional.? Another Alinsky tactic which conveniently changes the subject away from Obama?s coup and breach of Article II.

Contempt of the Constitution

Zeyala was in contempt of the Constitution of Honduras because he tried to change it without amending it.? Soetoro/Obama is in contempt of the Constitution for the United States because he chose to change the constitution by fiat? ignore Article II, Section 1 Clause 5 of the Constitution , actively conceal or lie about his true identity, background, and citizenship and fraudulently certify himself as ?constitutionally eligible? for the Presidency.? Every official who enabled Obama is similarly in contempt of the Constitution, and participated in a crime.

With the breach of Article II under his belt, Obama has proceeded to violate nearly every Article and Amendment of the Constitution while openly bastardizing and belittling the United States and threatening the constitutional protections of all Americans. He is easily recognized as contemptuous of everything American. Consider his on-going contempt for the Constitution:

  • Article I.? The power to make laws is vested in the Congress, not the President. Obamacare, the stimulus, the auto and banking industry take over? nationalization, cap and trade?all of these actions were initiated outside the legislative process by Obama?s band of czars and communist policy advisors, and then managed through Congress by Obama?s enablers.? Like the Patriot Act, these initiatives were ready long before Obama occupied the White House.
  • Article II.? While the focus was on the birth certificate has been a useful diversion from Obama?s dual citizenship at birth?a fundamental disqualification for the Presidency?that is now over. The obots are running scared, realizing they have been supporting a liar, fraud and quite possibly a spy in the White House and also fundamentally losing the argument about the definition of a natural born citizen and Article II.? These anti-birthers, aka, anti-Constitutionalists did do their damage, but when all is said and done, will be easily identifiable for RICO, libel, harassment, and stalking charges, as well as forever losing credibility on a national stage.
  • Article III. Obama has abused his authority and appointed unqualified marxist-leaning judges on every level of the federal judiciary system.? Blurring the line between the judiciary and the Executive, Obama?s justice department ensures?by any means?that federal justices come up with the right decision favoring the administration. The Supreme Court is lost to corruption and influence, and cannot be trusted at this moment to rule in favor of the Constitution.? Chief Justice Roberts is implicated in a financial scheme said to involve trillions of dollars.
  • Article IV.? Obama has contempt for the ?guarantee to each state a republican form of government? provision in the Article, forcing the states to participate in his socialist endeavors?like banking, auto, health care, and energy take-overs.
  • Article V.? Obama has contempt for the constitutional amendment process, preferring to amend it by fiat instead.? The breach of Article II is his most obvious destruction of the Constitution.
  • Article VI. Quite obviously, Obama doesn?t respect or live within the laws of the United States and its constitution.? As long as he refuses to divulge his information, what else can we conclude from falsified records, numerous social security numbers, and his travel records that he is a illegal immigrant impersonating a federal officer?

Congress is not living up to its oath to protect the Constitution, for it has allowed the breach of Article II, of its prerogatives, failed to qualify Obama or his appointments, czars or judges, and provided funding and cover for his marxist agenda.

To rectify this neglect by the 111th Congress, the 112th Congress could require Obama to produce his documentation, pursuant to its obligation under Article I, the Twelfth and Twentieth Amendments, and its investigative authorities.? Failure to obey a Congressional order and to vacate the office would bring the Honduran ?coup? right to the doorstep of the White House.

Contempt of the Law

Lawlessness and contempt for the law have come to represent the Obama administration. The attack on Arizona for attempting to protect its boundaries from invasion and its treasury from ruin, while simultaneously failing to enforce immigration laws is one of the most stark examples of Obama?s contemptuous behavior. It is not the only example.


The Obamacare legislation rammed through the Senate America on Christmas eve 2009 was immediately challenged in court by several states.? A Florida judge recently ruled the individual mandate was unconstitutional, and in striking it down struck down the whole law as there was no severability clause in the legislation.? Judge Vinson further declared that Congress had exceeded its authority in passing an act with an individual mandate.? The Judge expects the Administration to comply:

??there is a long-standing presumption ?that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.?

with the declaratory judgment being:

In accordance with Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2201(a), a Declaratory Judgment shall be entered separately, declaring ?The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act? unconstitutional.?

Despite this ruling, Obama plans to continue with implementing the obamacare legislation, actions that will likely land him in contempt of court. The entire congress needs to be reminded that they too cannot do anything to implement or fund any aspect of the law, including policy provisions.

If any employer is taking additional funds out of your paycheck for Obamascare, that must cease immediately as the law has been ruled unconstitutional and no aspect of it can be implemented.

Obama?s continuing the obamacare implementation will result in a contempt of court violation, and repeated violations rise to the level of impeachment.

Gulf of Mexico Drilling Ban

The BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico was made a further disaster by Obama?s failure to act.? Agencies did not act, or permitted the spraying of deadly corexit resulting in the destruction of the tourist and fishing industry in the Gulf Coast.? After the disaster, Obama issued a moratorium on drilling, which was legally challenged, and Obama lost. The drilling ban was overruled.

Not to be deterred by anything like the law, Interior Obama issued another ban on drilling that was just like the overruled ban.? The result? Contempt of court.

Judge in La. holds Interior Department in contempt over offshore oil drilling moratorium
By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN , Associated Press

Last update: February 2, 2011 ? 8:05 PM

NEW ORLEANS ? The federal judge who struck down the Obama administration?s moratorium on deepwater drilling after the Gulf oil spill held the Interior Department in contempt Wednesday, and ordered the federal agency to pay attorneys? fees for several offshore oil companies.

U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman chided the department for its ?dismissive conduct? after he overturned the agency?s decision to halt any new permits for deepwater projects and suspend drilling on 33 exploratory wells after the Deepwater Horizon blast, which killed 11 workers and triggered the massive spill.

After Feldman overturned the government?s moratorium in June, the agency issued a second nearly identical suspension.

?Such dismissive conduct, viewed in tandem with the reimposition of a second blanket and substantively identical moratorium and in light of the national importance of this case, provide this court with clear and convincing evidence of the government?s contempt of this court?s preliminary injunction order,? he wrote.

And who pays those fines for the government?s contempt of court?? If you guessed taxpayers you would be right.

Getting Away with Murder

Obama is getting away with the murder of the American republic.? Why should he follow any law if he breached the most sacred one?loyalty? to the American people?

Obama could give a rat?s ass about the United States Constitution and sadistically delights in its destruction; this is evident! The Obamas spend our money while kicking us in the teeth and stabbing us in the back at the same time.? And his backers don?t hesitate to destroy when they can.

There is no option but to act, and we are out of time.? Do we need to call Honduras?

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:24
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook

Tuesday, February 8, 2011

Video: Robert Gibbs brushes off question regarding the 10 states proposing legislation that will require Obama provide proof of eligibility...

Video: Soon to be gone White House press secretary Robert Gibbs brushed off a question regarding the 10 states proposing legislation that will require candidates for president and vice-president provide proof they are constitutionally eligible. -Clip embedded below. Previous reports on Obama's propagandist can be found here, here, here, and here.

Via WND: - Gibbs brushes off state eligibility requirements - Department press secretary skips answering question -

Outgoing White House press secretary Robert Gibbs today brushed off a question about the president's perspective on 10 states where lawmakers are considering legislation that would require presidential candidates to document their constitutional eligibility.

The issue was raised by Les Kinsolving, WND's correspondent at the White House, who asked, "What does the president think of the move that already involves 20 percent of the states to require presidential candidates to prove with documentation their natural-born citizenship status in order to be on the presidential ballots in those states?"

Two other unidentified reporters couldn't keep their comments to themselves, with one saying, "Seriously ... "

Another said, "Send that to the State Department," a quip that brought laughter from other reporters.

Gibbs only response? "Again, I will ? offer that to all secretaries of state." ...continued here;

Previous reports on Obama's propagandist can be found here, here, here, and here. Visit the Birther Vault for the long list of evidence against Hawaii officials and all of the people questioning Obama's eligibility; [].

Nebraska LB654 - Bill Requiring Candidates for President to Prove Constitutional Eligibility - 1/19/11
Montana HB0205 - Bill Requiring Candidates for Federal Office to Prove Eligibility - 1/10/11
HB00295I - Texas state representatives file birth certificate bill for presidential candidates
Irrefutable Proof that Obama is Not Eligible to be President of the United States, the Facts Don't Lie!
Obama Not a Natural Born Citizen w/Venn Diagram-24Jan2011 Wash Times Natl Wkly pg 5

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:44
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook


Supreme Court warned:

Don't avoid eligibility

Attorney argues justices real problem

is getting judges to take oath 'seriously'

Posted: February 08, 2011
6:14 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh


U.S. President Barack Obama (R) delivers remarks at the Chrysler Indiana Transmission Plant II in Kokomo, Indiana on November 23, 2010. Obama along with Vice President Joe Biden traveled to Kokomo as part of their White House to Main Street tour of areas helped by the Recovery Act and auto industry bailout.   UPI/Brian Kersey Photo via Newscom

A veteran attorney who has pursued a lawsuit challenging Barack Obama's presidential eligibility since he was elected is telling the U.S. Supreme Court that if its members continue to "avoid" the dispute they effectively will "destroy the constitutional rule of law basis of our legal system."

And he asks whether the justices still are committed to the principle of considering the Founders' intent when ruling on constitutional issues.

The warning comes from attorney John D. Hemenway, who is representing retired Col. Gregory Hollister in a case that alleges Obama never was eligible under the Constitution's requirements for a president to occupy the Oval Office.

"We have not exaggerated in presenting the question of the constitutional rule of law being at stake in this matter," Hemenway wrote in a petition for rehearing before the high court. "A man has successfully run for the office of president and has done so, it appears, with an awareness that he is not eligible under the constitutional requirement for a person to be president.

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

"Despite a vigorous campaign that he has conducted to make 'unthinkable' the very idea of raising the issue of his eligibility under the Constitution to 'be' president the issue has not gone away," Hemenway said.

"Instead it has steadily grown in the awareness of the public. Should we be surprised that he shows no respect for the constitutional rule of law? What else would we expect?" he wrote.

"The real question here is one of getting members of the judiciary to take seriously the oath that they swore to protect and preserve the Constitution," Hemenway wrote. "To continue to avoid the issue will destroy the constitutional rule of law basis of our legal system when it is under vigorous assault as surely as if the conscious decision were made to cease preserving and protecting our founding charter."

That the justices are "avoiding" the Obama issue already has been confirmed by one member of the court. It was last year when Justice Clarence Thomas appeared before a U.S. House subcommittee that the issue arose.

Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., raised the question amid a discussion on racial diversity in the judiciary.

"I'm still waiting for the [court decision] on whether or not a Puerto Rican can run for president of the United States," said Serrano, who was born in the island territory. "That's another issue."

Yet after Serrano questioned him on whether or not the land's highest court would be well-served by a justice who had never been a judge, Thomas not only answered in the affirmative but also hinted that Serrano would be better off seeking a seat in the Supreme Court than a chair in the Oval Office.

"I'm glad to hear that you don't think there has to be a judge on the court," said Serrano, "because I'm not a judge; I've never been a judge."

"And you don't have to be born in the United States," said Thomas, referring to the Constitution, which requires the president to be a natural born citizen but has no such clause for a Supreme Court justice, "so you never have to answer that question."

"Oh really?" asked Serrano. "So you haven't answered the one about whether I can serve as president, but you answer this one?"

"We're evading that one," answered Thomas, referring to questions of presidential eligibility and prompting laughter in the chamber. "We're giving you another option."

The video:



Hemenway's arguments come in the petition for rehearing that follows the decision last month by the court not to hear the arguments. However, he pointed out in the petition for rehearing that the U.S. Supreme Court appears to have broken its own rules in his case by failing to respond to a pending recusal motion.

That circumstance is enough, he argues, for another hearing to be held on the case, and this time without participation by the two justices appointed to the court by Obama.

Laurence Elgin, one of the experts working with the Constitutional Rule of Law Fund and website and monitoring the Hollister case, said the attorneys wanted Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor to remain out of the arguments since both were appointed to their lifetime posts by Obama and clearly would have a personal interest in the dispute if Obama was found to be ineligible and his actions, including his appointments, void.

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee during the fourth day of her confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington on July 16, 2009. UPI/Kevin Dietsch Photo via Newscom

Hemenway submitted such a motion, but since the motion never was given a response, it should be acted on as if it were granted by the court, the petition for rehearing argues.

"Petitioners would request the court to rehear their petition and in doing so to consider the consequences of their motion for recusal of December 30, 2010 being treated as conceded because it was not opposed in a timely fashion under the rules of this court," said the document, submitted to the court yesterday and expected to be docketed today.

"Rule 21 (4) of the court requires that any motion shall have an opposition to it filed, if one is to be filed, 'as promptly as possible considering the nature of the relief sought ? and, in any event, within 10 days of receipt.' Thus by January 14, 2011, when petitioners' petition was denied without comment, the respondents had failed to respond to the motion," Hemenway wrote.

"Therefore, as a matter of due process of the court, petitioners suggest that the court should have on that day considered the possibility that the motion had been conceded by respondents with an examination of the consequences of that failure," the brief explains.

"If petitioners are entitled to have their motion for recusal as conceded because of lack of a timely opposition, as petitioners contend is the case, then the court was obliged to make sure that the Justices Sotomayor and Kagan did not participate in the decision. Yet there was no statement that they did not participate," the brief states.

The brief further argues that because of the lack of a response or acknowledgment by the court, the court should have considered "the law of nations on matters of citizenship such as the phrase in question here as placed in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, namely, the requirement that a president 'be' a 'natural born citizen.'"

Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, President Obama's pick to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, testifies during the second day of her confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington on June 29, 2010. UPI/Kevin Dietsch Photo via Newscom

The argument continued, "Thus, it would seem, with all due respect, that if the court is required to and does treat the petitioners' motion for recusal as conceded the court would be required to consider the intent of the Framers of the Constitution in choosing the Article II phrase 'natural born citizen.'

"That is, of course, assuming that the majority of its members still believe that the intent of the Framers is essential to the constitutional rule of law in this country," the filing said.

A spokeswoman for the court told WND the motion for recusal was received Dec. 30, but the justices wouldn't treat it as an actual motion for the court, just as a "request."

"These types of requests are not treated as motions, but are requests that are forwarded by the clerk's office to the justice or justices to which the request is addressed. The requests are handled by the individual justice or justices.

"If a justice recuses from a case the recusal is noted on the docket typically at the time the court issues an order acting on the case," the spokeswoman said.

However, the document prepared for the Supreme Court clearly stated "Motion for Recusal of Justices Sotomayor and Kagan," and a second time, "Petitioners' Motion to Recuse."

But the court spokeswoman declined to respond to the inquiries about the procedures regarding recusal of justices who have a personal stake in such cases -- what ethical guidelines are used by the court to determine those cases and whether there was a violation of the court rules in the case.

In the original petition to the high court, the pleadings noted that if Obama is not constitutionally eligible, it will create a crisis.

"If proven true, those allegations mean that every command by the respondent Obama and indeed every appointment by respondent Obama, including the appointment of members [Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor] of this and every other court, may be only de facto but not de jure [by right of law]," stated the pleading.

"Further, his signature on every law passed while he occupies the Oval Office is not valid if he is not constitutionally eligible to occupy that office de jure," it continued.

"Thus, it is not hyperbole to state that the entire rule of law based on the Constitution is at issue. Moreover, it would indicate that the respondent Obama ran for the office of president knowing that his eligibility was at the very least in question," it continued.

Elgin earlier confirmed that Hemenway, as the attorney of record, got the notice from the court that the certiorari petition was denied without comment. But he said there was nothing from the court on the motion for recusal.

The order on Jan. 18 from the high court simply listed case 10-678, Hollister, Gregory S. v. Soetoro, Barry, et al as "denied" with no explanation.

It appears from the court's documentation that Kagan and Sotomayor participated in the "conference," the meeting at which Supreme Court justices determine which cases they will take. On other cases there are notations that Kagan or Sotomayor did not participate, and the Hollister case is without any such reference.

Although proceedings are not public, it is believed that a case must earn four votes among the nine justices before it is heard.

WND reported when another eligibility case attorney who has brought cases to the high court, Orly Taitz, approached Justice Antonin Scalia about the issue.

"Scalia stated that it would be heard if I can get four people to hear it. He repeated, you need four for the argument. I got a feeling that he was saying that one of these four that call themselves constitutionalists went to the other side," Taitz said.

At that time, the Supreme Court was considered to have a 4-4 conservative-liberal split, with one swing vote on most issues. On the conservative side generally was Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Samuel Alito, Scalia and Thomas. Justice Anthony Kennedy often is the swing vote. The liberal side frequently included Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.

Stevens and Souter have departed since then and have been replaced by Obama with the like-minded Kagan and Sotomayor. Presumably, should there be only seven justices in the discussion, three votes might be sufficient to move the case forward.

Hollister's case is one of the longest-running among those challenging Obama's eligibility.

Elgin told WND that the case, throughout the district and appellate court levels, never was denied standing, a major hurdle that has torpedoed many of the other eligibility disputes to rise to the level of court opinions.

The petition for rehearing explains that the "certification of live birth" posted online by the Obama campaign in 2008 cannot be cited as proof, since "Sun Yat Sen, the Chinese nationalist leader," was granted "the same type of document that the respondents have claimed on the Internet and from the White House 'proves' that the respondent Obama was born in Hawaii."

It cited as an example of Obama's disconnect from the "rule of law" his administration's "illegal ban on offshore drilling," which was struck down by Judge Martin Feldman.

"They immediately came back and instituted a further illegal ban, showing no respect for the rule of law at all," the petition argues.

Further is the recent judge's ruling in Florida that Obama's health-care law is unconstitutional.

"The respondent Obama and those working for him have made it clear that they intend to ignore the decision and proceed as if they never opposed it vigorously in court and the decision never happened," the argument explains.

The Hollister case made headlines at the district court level because of the ruling from District Judge James Robertson of Washington.

Judge James Robertson

In refusing to hear evidence about whether Obama is eligible, Robertson wrote in his notice dismissing the case, "The issue of the president's citizenship was raised,vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwisemassaged by America's vigilant citizenry duringMr. Obama's two-year-campaign for thepresidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved bya court."

Along with the sarcasm, the evidence pertinent to the dispute was ignored.

The fact that the evidence never was reviewed and the judge based a "biased" decision on "a completely extrajudicial factor"? -- twittering -- prevented Hollister from having the constitutional rule of law applied, the court file explains.

The motion to recuse explained that federal law requires that judges exclude themselves when circumstances arise that would involve "even the appearance of impartiality."

"It would seem literally to apply to Justice Kagan in any case since she was serving as Solicitor General during the pendency of this and other cases involving the ineligibility question. The U. S. Attorney did make a brief appearance in this case in the appellate document and did appear in many parallel cases," the motion said.

The president is represented by a private law firm in the current case.

"Historical analysis establishes, therefore, that ... respondent Obama, since his father was a Kenyan of British citizenship and not a U. S. citizen, was not 'eligible to the office of president,?' Therefore his appointment of the present Justices Sotomayor and Kagan are not valid appointments under the Constitution and they should not, therefore, be sitting as justices deciding upon our petition if this court itself observes the law it has set out under the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Otherwise the concept of a rule of law based upon the Constitution, which we contend is at issue in our petition, is being flouted at the very outset of consideration of the petition," the motion explained.

Neither is Hollister a novice on the issue of eligibility, it explains.

"It is a matter of record that Colonel Hollister, while on active duty in the Air Force, in a career from which he honorably retired, inquired into the legitimacy of President Clinton's orders because President Clinton participated, while at Oxford, in communist protest marches in Eastern Europe against the Vietnam War at a time when we were at war with communism in Vietnam, something that would seem to violate the Fourteenth Amendment," the site explains.

While the district judge dismissed the case because it had been "twittered," the appeals court adopted his reasoning but wouldn't allow its opinion affirming the decision to be published, the petition explains.

Hollister's concern rests with the fact that as a retired Air Force officer in the Individual Ready Reserve, it is possible that he could be subject to Obama's orders.

"If Congress called up the Air Force Individual Ready Reserve the respondent Obama would have to give the order ? If, as it appears, those orders would not be lawful, Col. Hollister would be bound ? to question them and look to the respondent [Vice President Joe] Biden as constitutionally next in succession for lawful orders," the pleading said.

The case doesn't have the "standing" dispute that has brought failure to so many other challenges to Obama's eligibility, the pleading explains, because Robertson "found that it had jurisdiction of the case, and therefore that petitioner Hollister had standing."

John Eidsmoe, an expert on the U.S. Constitution now working with the Foundation on Moral Law, has told WND a demand for verification of Obama's eligibility appears to be legitimate.

Eidsmoe said it's clear that Obama has something in the documentation of his history, including his birth certificate, college records and other documents that "he does not want the public to know."

WND has reported on dozens of legal and other challenges to Obama's eligibility. Some suggest he was not born in Hawaii has he claims; others say his birth location makes no difference because a "natural born citizen" was understood at the time to be a child of two citizen parents, and Obama's father was subject to the British crown when Barack Obama was born.

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:05
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Lunes, 07 de febrero de 2011

Share on Facebook


Sunday, February 6, 2011

Freedom of information violation complaint filed in D.C. regarding Obama's social security number(s) reserved for Connecticut applicants.

Attorney Orly Taitz filed a Freedom of Information violation complaint regarding Obama's social security number reserved for Connecticut applicants and the Social Security Administrations stonewalling on numerous FOIA requests. Full complaint below...



Current complaint filed under federal statute 5USC ? 552 (a)(4)(B) and the respondents are officers of the U.S. government


Plaintiff herein is Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ, President of ?Defend Our Freedoms foundation?, filing pro se


Michael Astrue, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

1. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to the provisions of USC ?552 known as the ?Freedom of Information Act? (FOIA) and in particular 5 U.S.C. ?552(a)(4)(B)


1. Plaintiff, Dr. Orly Taitz, esq, is the ?President of the Defend Our Freedoms foundation? (hereinafter Foundation) and an attorney, who represented this foundation.
2. Both the Plaintiff and the foundation are dedicated to the preservation of the Constitutional rights and Freedoms of the U.S. citizens.
3. Plaintiff works closely with a number of licensed investigators.
4. Plaintiff received a report and an affidavit from a licensed investigator and former Elite Anti Communist proliferation and Anti Organized Crime unit Scotland Yard officer Neil Sankey. (Exhibit 2 A and B)Mr. Sankey?s report and an affidavit, showed that Barack Hussein Obama, the President of the United States (hereinafter ?Obama?) is linked in the National databases to some 39 Social Security numbers and multiple addresses. The number he used most often since around 1980 is 042-68-4425. According to Lexis Nexis and Choice Point this number originally was assigned to an elderly individual born in 1890, who resided in CT, but was assumed by Obama from around 1980-1981.
5. The first three digits of the Social Security number signify the state. 042 signifies the state of Connecticut.
6. Obama was never a resident of Connecticut.
7. At the time Obama obtained such Social Security number he was a student, residing in Hawaii.
8. To confirm such findings Taitz obtained an opinion of yet another licensed investigator, Susan Daniels, who attested to the fact that national databases show multiple social security numbers associated with the name Barack Obama, among them CT Social Security number 042-68-4425 used most often. She, also, found that this number was assigned originally to an individual born in 1890. Later, the same number was associated with the birth date 04.08.1961 and 08.04.1961. Dates of 04.08.1961 and 08.04.1961 suggest existence of some documents, created using an European system of dating: Day, Month, Year, versus the American system of Month, day, Year. Exhibit 1
9. In and around 1976-1977 due to new Social Security requirements multiple elderly individuals, particularly women, who were housewives and never worked before, applied for Social Security numbers in order to obtain Social Security Benefits, therefore date of birth of 1890 originally connected to 042-68-4425 was consistent with many other examples of elderly individuals, born between 1890-1915, applying for Social Security cards for the first time between 1976-1977.
10. National Databases such as Lexis-Nexis and Choice Point show another Social Security number, originally assigned to an elderly individual, being connected to the name Barack Obama.
11. This social security 485-40-5154 is noteworthy, as it was assigned to Lucille I Ballantyne, born 12.22.1912, deceased 09.13.1998
12. Ms. Ballantyne was the mother of Harry C. Ballantyne, Chief Actuary of the Social Security administration, who had access to all Social Security databases and death indices.
13. Obama?s selective service certificate verification, readily available on the world wide web, shows a complete match with the number 042-68-4425, therefore verification of Obama?s use of this number since 1980. Exhibit 4
14. Taitz verified this data with the third investigator, retired Senior Investigator with the Department of Homeland Security John Sampson.
15. Mr. Sampson provided Taitz with an affidavit, stating that according to his investigation, the number Obama is using most of his life, is indeed a CT Social Security number. Mr. Sampson provided an expert opinion, that there is no reasonable explanation for one residing in HI to get a CT social security number. Exhibit 3.
16. At the same time Taitz found that the National Databases show different dates of birth for Obama: 08.01.1961 and 08.04.1961.
17. Recently released passport records for Obama?s mother, Ann Dunham, show that Obama was listed in her passport under a name Soebarkah. (Exhibit 5)
18. AP report from Indonesia, where Obama resided, show Obama?s Elementary school record, showing him using last name of his adopted father Soetoro, citizenship Indonesian, religion Islam. Obama denies all three facts.
19. Recently Neil Abercrombie, Governor of HI, in an interview to Honolulu Star Advertiser admitted that he was not able to locate the original birth certificate for Obama, only a notation by someone in archives, that some record exist, though no actual original certified long form U.S. birth certificate was ever found for Obama.
20. Obama provided the public only a short form Certification of live birth created in 2007, right before the election, which does not contain any essential information, which typically would be found in the original long form birth certificate, such as the name of the hospital, the name of the attending physician and signatures, The state of HI statute 338-17 allows a foreign born child of HI resident to obtain HI birth certificate.
21. The state of HI statute 338-5 allows one to obtain a birth certificate based on a statement of one relative only without any corroborating evidence from any hospital.
22. The state of HI statute 338-6 allows one to get a late birth certificate, obtained as a result of adoption or loss of an original birth certificate
23. Numerous reports, claiming that prior Governor of HI Linda Lingle examined Obama?s birth certificate were false as well. Lingle?s interview reveals that she relied on a statement of former Director of HI Health Department Chiyome Fukino, but Lingle never personally saw a birth certificate for Obama.
24. Chiyome Fukino made a statement that there is a record in Hawaii, however she never provided any information, what record exists there. A record created pursuant to statute 338-5, 338-6 or 338-17 would not be sufficient to establish one?s birth in HI.
25. There were reports of newspaper articles, announcing Obama?s birth in HI. Follow up research did not uncover any such article anywhere. Nobody ever found any actual newspapers, announcing Obama?s birth. Only a microfiche image was found. There is no evidence, verifying when this image was created. Even if one were to believe that such news paper announcement actually existed, it still did not verify Obama?s birth in HI, as a newspaper article is not a prima facie evidence of birth and it could have been created based on a birth certificate, created under statute 338-5 and statute 338-17.
26. As above information showed that Obama does not possess either a long form birth certificate or a Social Security number of his own, Taitz filed a FOIA request for the Social Security number application for CT social security number 042-68-4425, which was issued in CT around 1977 to an elderly individual born in 1890 and later assumed by Obama.
27. Taitz agreed to accept a redacted application, which was denied.

Continued in the Scribd doc embedded below. Previous reports on Obama's Social Security issue?can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

Taitz v. Michael Astrue, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration - Obama's Social Security Numb...

Visit the Birther Vault for the long list of evidence against Hawaii officials and all of the people questioning Obama's eligibility; [].??

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

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

Previous reports on Obama's Social Security issue?can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:54
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Domingo, 06 de febrero de 2011

Share on Facebook

Obama Stands by Muslim Brotherhood Endorsement

by Hillel Fendel
Follow Israel news on Twitter and Facebook.

For the first time, a U.S. government supports granting a government role to an extremist Islamic organization: the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

On Monday, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Egypt's new government will have to include a "whole host of important non-secular actors." Most prominent among these is clearly the Muslim Brotherhood ? which has made Islamic world domination one of its ultimate goals. It also opposes Egypt's 30-year-old peace treaty with Israel.

Gibbs said the Muslim Brotherhood must reject violence and recognize democratic goals for the U.S. to be comfortable with it assuming a role in the new government. This caveat does not significantly alter the new American approach, which is very different than that of the previous Administration, in which George W. Bush pushed Mubarak for democratic reforms but never publicly accepted a role for Islamists.

Today, new White House chief of staff William Daley moderated the position very slightly, saying the U.S. hopes for a "strong, stable and secular Egyptian government." Noting that the strengthening of the Muslim Brotherhood is "some people's expectation [and] some people's fear," Daley acknowledged that the situation in Egypt is largely out of American control.

Obama's new position, while not totally surprising, is worrisome to many. "The White House appears to be leaving Hosni Mubarak, an ally for three decades and lynchpin of Mideast stability, twisting slowly in the wind," writes David Horowitz of the Freedom Center. "And worse, it appears to be open to allowing the Muslim Brotherhood to play a key role in a 'reformed' Egyptian government, as long as the organization renounces violence and supports democracy. If the Obama White House really believes this is possible, it is even more hopelessly incompetent than we imagined!"

Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, with 600,000 members, is not on official U.S. terrorism lists, as are Hamas and Hizbullah, but the American government has had no contact with it because of what Gibbs said were "questions over its commitment to the rule of law, democracy and nonviolence."

It stands for the re-establishment of the Islamic Empire (Caliphate), the takeover, spiritually or otherwise, of the entire world, and jihad and martyrdom. It has front organizations in the UK, France, and the United States.

A former Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations, Dr. Dore Gold, writes of a fear that the Muslim Brotherhood, widely seen as having become moderate over the years, will "exploit a figure like [Mohammed] ElBaradei in order to hijack the Egyptian revolution at a later stage." Gold noted that ever since the Brotherhood was founded over 80 years ago, it has engaged in political terrorism, assassinating Prime Minister Mahmoud al-Nuqrashi Pasha in 1948, trying to kill President Abdul Nasser several years later, and more.

"A former Kuwaiti Minister of Education, Dr. Ahmad Al-Rab'i, argued in Al-Sharq al-Awsat on July 25, 2005 that the founders of most modern terrorist groups in the Middle East emerged from 'the mantle' of the Muslim Brotherhood," Gold writes.?

Even Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, says that the prospect of the Muslim Brotherhood's rise to power "would be calamitous for U.S. security? The [Brotherhood] supports Hamas and other terrorist groups, makes friendly noises to Iranian dictators and torturers, would be uncertain landlords of the critical Suez Canal, and opposes the Egyptian-Israeli agreement of 1979, widely regarded as the foundation of peace in the Mideast. Above all, the [Brotherhood] would endanger counter terrorism efforts in the region and worldwide? The real danger is that our experts, pundits and professors will talk the Arab and American worlds into believing we can all trust the [Brotherhood]..."


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 13:32
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook



by Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely (Ret.)


What is the U.S.'s relationship to each of the Islamic countries in the Middle East?

(Feb. 6, 2011) ? Yes, America, you are watching while Washington attempts to right itself. Obama and his Progressive Socialists supporters/followers are self-destructing from ineptness but are not giving up to changing America in 2011. What does a country and its citizens do as their nation continues to decline in power, financial stability and security of its people? At this time, we do not have the leadership to right the ship in time to save the Republic from severe damage.

What is striking about the Chessboard moves and the current crisis in Egypt is the rapidly changing scene and evolution of events and uprisings. The Chess Masters in Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood are playing out their moves very judiciously and both fully understand the domino effect of radical Islam, the caliphate and Jihad. Yes, we do have three games in one: Chess, Poker, Dominoes!

Egypt is key but not the only chess move in play. Lebanon, Israel, Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia are very much in play. Russia and China remain in their similar modes of non-involvement playing their moves behind the scenes as the United States finds itself languishing in the Sea of Ambiguity. We have a President in the White House, A National Security Council, and State Department under Hillary Clinton and Defense Department under Gates that seem to be as ?clueless? as ever. The moves on the chessboard have global impact because of energy, global trade, and finances. If the trade routes are cut off or disturbed when oil and other goods cease flowing, the world economy (already at a precipice) could implode in hours and days with a twelve day global financial collapse scenario. After-all, it ostensibly started as a food problem in Tunisia; say the pundits, but of course, it is much more.

The dollar and global currencies, already falling in value, would plummet. The year 2011 may be, in fact, the year of the Apocalypse or at least a series of apocalyptic events that changes the United States and the world as we know it. Watch the movement of the oil market and other commodities to be the key indicator of the future.

Why are there no serious initiatives on the part of countries outside of the Middle East? Iran continues to stir the pot unmolested! Iran no longer hesitates to state publicly that its forward defense line now passes through ?Lebanon and Palestine.? In practice, the Lebanese-Israeli border is in fact Israel?s border with Iran. Let us not skip over the importance of Lebanon. Israel is now tightly surrounded by a well-organized radical Islamic effort, akin to the pre-1967 war status. Enemies became peaceful neighbors, and now those peaceful neighbors are no more. The series of events in Egypt and the turmoil of the Middle East may be the pathway to nuclear confrontation.

A warning to our Generals and Admirals ? reposition our forces now for future events. Do not be mislead by the political leaders as we were in Vietnam. Your duty is to the constitution and the American People, first and foremost.

The Declaration of Independence states: ?To secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness.?? The ship has been righted to some degree by the November elections but so much more needs to be done.? Obama must resign and early new elections must occur to bring new and strong leadership to America.

We cannot permit the current leaders in the White House, the Halls of Congress and many judicial courts to continue in their efforts to lead us down the road of Progressive Socialism and chaos. In our opinion, President Obama, his appointees and czars must be replaced immediately. As Obama calls for President Mubarak of Egypt to step down, Obama should step down as well. This is the current battle that we Constitutionalists face and we must be aggressive in our efforts. We must adhere to our Constitution. Obama will continue to by pass Congress and the people in his progressive agenda because that is who he is and that is what he believes he has the power to do. Congress, you must stand tall for the American people and enjoin the Supreme Court to halt Executive branch violations of law and the Constitution.

Incompetence, treason, corruption and Dishonesty of officials now come into play as relates to our National Security and Economy and is the rationale for resignations and a change of government. My emphasis in this article will be a continued plea for Americans to Demand Resignation of these officials by the people of this country. We are at a point that if Demand Resignations and a new Congressional make up do not change the direction of the country then we must proceed to Impeachment, arrests and a serious transfer of Power at the highest levels of government. Obama?s eligibility to be President must be totally vetted to confirm his legitimacy.

Lincoln issued this warning in his inaugural address, ?Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one.? This is a most valuable and sacred right ? a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world.?? Being a representative republic, not a democracy, and ?rising up? means other than revolution by use of arms. The people must ?rise up? (Stand Up as we say now) from the grass roots across this great country as we think of the greater good of this and future generations. We are limited in the peaceful transfer of power?resignation, elections, and impeachment.

The oath is simple and reads:

?I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.? Sadly, we have seen them violate their oath.? Fraud, lying, and corruption are rampant and some have engaged in treasonous activities, and they effectively thumb their noses at us and have sold you to the highest bidder.

The Articles of Confederation were replaced with the Constitution, which granted the federal government enough authority to cultivate, promote and secure the Blessings of Liberty. The balance of authority and individual liberty was understood. Power was confined to that which was enumerated in the Constitution with a certain and meaningful intent for check and balances.

Power, money and benefits beyond the reach of most Americans are the basis now for many politicians and revolving door appointees staying in office. As well, Members of Congress need to spend most of the time in their States and convene only once a quarter in Washington. A representative expected to stay in office in the 3rd Congress for approximately two years now expects 12 years, or 6 terms ? so much for a ?citizen government.? They must be termed out. But this can be changed through grass roots organization and discourse.


All branches of the federal government have increasingly acted against the best interests of the states and the people, reaching farther and farther beyond the scope and authority granted them in the U.S. Constitution and today, the federal government functions with utter disdain for states? and individual rights. With no venue available in which to demand redress of grievances in the legislative, executive or judicial branches of the federal government at present, we have determined that the people of each state, via their elected state officials, must take broad but specific state measures to force the federal government to live within the confines of the U.S. Constitution, for the sake of the sovereign states and the citizens thereof. ?In accordance with the U.S. Constitution, Congress and the federal government is denied the power to establish laws within the state which are repugnant and obtrusive to the U.S. Constitution, the State Constitution, state law and the citizens of the state. The Federal Government is restrained and confined in authority by the eighteen (18) items as set forth in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. We must make it a local and State imperative and movement?.of the People?by the People? and For the People.

?We, the People? have had enough.? Enough is Enough. The Obama White House and identifiable Members of Congress are now on a treasonous death march and are bankrupting the country beyond expectations.? We have watched them violate their sacred oath of office. ?We, the People? cannot necessarily wait for the next round of elections.? It is now that many of these public servants (and you know who they are) must put the people and country interests above self-interest by resigning immediately.? ?A civil uprising is still not out of the question as ?pain? grips the country more each day. We are in a battle for the survival of the United States. This means raising your voice now to your neighbors, family, co-workers, and friends. Grass roots efforts have begun; it is now time to put this effort into over drive. America, stand tall together and we will weather the storm but we must act now!

Paul Vallely is Chairman of Stand Up America



Paul E. Vallely MG, US Army (Ret)

Chairman ? Stand Up America

E-Mail: [email protected]


? 2011, The Post & Email. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 13:27
Comentarios (1)  | Enviar
S?bado, 05 de febrero de 2011

Share on Facebook

Video: Rush Limbaugh on Obama?s Felonies

Related posts:

  1. Rush Limbaugh: ?We Have an Increasingly Lawless President?
  2. Video of the Day: Rush, Even ?If Obama Goes to Jail? Americans Want Him Stopped
  3. Rush Limbaugh pummels Obama on birth certificate
  4. Obama, Dems continue Rush Limbaugh attacks
  5. Video of the Day: Rush Says Investigate Obama?s Backroom Deals with GE

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 18:27
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook

Allen West to Palm Beach Business Group: Commit to a better nation

Recently elected U.S. Rep. Allen West addresses the Palm Beach Business Group?s breakfast meeting Friday at 264 The Grill.
Jeffrey Langlois
Recently elected U.S. Rep. Allen West addresses the Palm Beach Business Group?s breakfast meeting Friday at 264 The Grill.
By Michele Dargan

Daily News Staff Writer

Updated: 8:40?p.m.?Friday,?Feb.?4,?2011

U.S. Rep. Allen West said Friday that if Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak resigns, having members of the Muslim Brotherhood in power would be dangerous.

?Let us remember, Anwar Sadat was assassinated by the Muslim Brotherhood,? West said. ?The Muslim Brotherhood works in conjunction with Hezbollah.?

The ramifications affect the national security of the United States, as well as its greatest Middle East ally, Israel, he said.

West also discussed the deficit, taxes and the need for the United States to develop more energy sources. He spoke to nearly 100 members and guests of the Palm Beach Business Group during a breakfast meeting at 264 The Grill Friday.

A retired lieutenant colonel in the Army, West served 23 years of duty, including in Iraq. The Tea Party-backed candidate won a hard-fought campaign for the District 22 seat, defeating incumbent Democrat Ron Klein in November. He was sworn into office one month ago and is serving on the Armed Services and Small Business committees.

He invited everyone, if they are in Washington, D.C., to stop by his congressional office and let him know their concerns so he can better serve the district.

West said there is a large ?ideological divide? over how to govern the country today.

?We all have to realize that, because if we don?t, the future and the legacy that we leave to our children and grandchildren will not be the same as was left to us by our parents and grandparents,? he said.

There needs to be commitment to make the United States better and to uphold the values that made the country great, he said.

West held up a copy of President Barack Obama?s State of the Union address, scrawled with notes West had made.

?When you hear the president talk about freezing government spending at the current levels, the current levels are what got us into this mess in the first place,? West said. ?We?re talking about going back to 2008 to continue funding this government, maybe even going back to 2006 levels.?

The estimate for the U.S. deficit in 2011 is $1.48 trillion, West said. The government spent $3.3 trillion last year, he said.

?In America, it?s not the revenue problem that we have,? he said. ?In America, it?s the spending problem.?

Congress needs to find the inefficiencies in government programs and make necessary cuts in order to decrease spending, West said. There is ?a laundry list? of excessive programs, he said.

West said government is over-regulating Americans? lives. If the public sector continues to outpace the private sector in compensation and in growth, the United States is on its way to becoming a bureaucratic state, he said.

?If that?s what you want in this country, let us know and we will run your lives from cradle to grave.?

Extending the Bush tax cuts is important to small business owners, West said. One-third of the earnings of corporations and businesses goes to the federal government, he said.

?You are telling people to get out of the country and take their business elsewhere.?

Regarding energy independence, West said the United States must develop ?a full spectrum of energy resources,? which includes hydrogen, bio-fuels, solar, oil and natural gas.

Palm Beach Town Council President David Rosow said he agreed with West on all points.

?I was stunned by the historical perspective that he knew in describing what?s going on around the world today,? Rosow said. ?The man is extremely well-read and I think he has a tremendous aptitude to connect the dots. I?m impressed that he takes the complex issues and explains them with such ease and makes them understandable.?

Town Councilman Robert Wildrick also attended and has heard West speak many times before. Wildrick said his message never changes.

?In my opinion, he?s a true patriot and sees the big picture and puts the country before himself,? Wildrick said. ?He?s the kind of leader that we need more of. He knows exactly what he?s talking about and does his homework. He truly believes in the American dream and he?s an example of it.?

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 13:14
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

WEBCommentary Contributor
Author:? Sher Zieve
Bio: Sher Zieve
Date:? February 5, 2011

Print article - Printer friendly version

Email article link to friend(s) - Email a link to this article to friends

Topic category:? Other/General

Obama Gives UK Nuke Secrets to Russia--He MUST now be removed from office and power

Talk about High Crimes and Misdemeanors! Barack Hussein Obama, the Usurper to the US Presidency, now appears to be pulling out all of the stops. With barely an initial protestation from the US?s so-called ?leaders? (it took We-the-People marching on them to finally get their attention) Obama has already destroyed the economy of the USA and ensured no more jobs will be forthcoming for the middle-class; or anyone else for that matter. He and his minions (the ?Co? in Obama & Co) fake unemployment figures to suit their agenda, while thousands and thousands of Americans continue to lose jobs each and every month. Did you know that February is the 19th month since the Obama machine declared the end to our recession?

Yesterday, I advised of the ObamaPlan to rid Egypt of Hosni Mubarak and turn it over to the Muslim Brotherhood--the Mother Ship of virtually all Islamic terrorism and the entity supported by the corrupt Obama to seize Egypt for and as an Islamic state. Obama?s Google also has Wael Ghonim, Google's head of marketing for the Middle East, flying into Egypt to join the opposition to Mubarak. Ghonim is now reported to be the ?spokesman? for the opposition.

Judi McLeod of Canada Free Press reports that in the last quarter of 2009 Code Pink was in Egypt (after wending its way through Gaza to get there) and were later joined by domestic terrorists and ObamaFriends Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. They claimed it was a ?coincidence.? Uh-huh. Sure it was. Were they assisting in planning the Egyptian revolution? Sure looks like it. Was Obama involved? C?mon?what do you think?

Today, however, the Drudge Report, The UK?s Daily Telegraph, The Nation etc. are reporting about something more insidious and far more menacing to the survival of the USA and the world. On 4 February 2011, Matthew Moore, Gordon Rayner and Christopher Hope reporting for the Daily Telegraph wrote: ?Information about every Trident missile the US supplies to Britain will be given to Russia, as part of an arms control deal signed by President Barack Obama next week.? So, not only has Obama destroyed the USA?s defense system but, he appears bent upon taking Great Britain down with it.

The authors go on to write: ?The fact that the Americans used British nuclear secrets as a bargaining chip also sheds new light on the so-called ?special relationship?, which is shown often to be a one-sided affair by US diplomatic communications obtained by the WikiLeaks website.?

Folks, as he is allowed to get away with these crimes and continues to commit even greater ones, if this latest offense is being accurately reported by the growing multitudes of news sources The Obama?s offenses against humanity loom larger and more horrific every day. Please contact your Representatives and Senators and tell them Congress must stop Obama immediately. His High Crimes are now in the world?s eye and available for all to see. Soon, we may all look like Egypt.

Google Exec Who Went Missing In Egypt Now A Spokesman For Opposition Group (GOOG):


Obama?s Bundlers & Friends on front lines of Cairo protests:

US agrees to tell Russia Britain's nuclear secrets:



Did Obama?s US leak the UK?s nuclear secrets to Russia? This comes out the Friday before the Super Bowl, and no one reports it?:


America 'sold British nuclear secrets to Russia': WikiLeaks:


Sher Zieve

Send email feedback to Sher Zieve

Biography - Sher Zieve

Sher Zieve is an author and political commentator. Zieve's op-ed columns are widely carried by multiple internet journals and sites, and she also writes hard news. Her columns have also appeared in The Oregon Herald, Dallas Times, Sacramento Sun, in international news publications, and on multiple university websites. Sher is also a guest on multiple national radio shows.

Read other commentaries by Sher Zieve.


Copyright ? 2011 by Sher Zieve
All Rights Reserved.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:45
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook

Talk Show Host: Obama Could be Impeached over Egypt


A nationally syndicated radio talk show host has called for Barack Obama to be impeached if he is secretly pushing Egypt to become an Islamist country ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood. Tammy Bruce called for Rep. Darrell Issa to investigate whether the Obama administration is helping the radical Islamic fundamentalist organization rise to power after the departure of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. Media reports indicate a member of the Obama administration has met with the Muslim Brotherhood, and the United States may have supported a plan to take down Mubarak since at least 2008. ?If it is found that Obama secretly facilitated or *encouraged* an Islamist takeover of Egypt, an ally, he should be impeached,? Bruce wrote.

Her call came in the form of four separate tweets, which she posted on her Twitter feed this afternoon:



?If it is found that Obama secretly facilitated or *encouraged* an Islamist takeover of Egypt, an ally, he should be impeached.?

?Impeachment? We have a President in up to his elbows in an Islamist takeover of Egypt while he ignores a Fed Judge order to void ObamaCare?

?The House impeaches?if there are grounds it should be done. @DarrellIssa needs to *immediately* determine Obama?s involvement w Egypt?

[email protected] It?s more than *losing* Egypt, if Obama *facilitated* the overthrow of an ally in favor of our *enemy* that?s impeachment?

A Muslim Brotherhood takeover of Egypt could have widespread and devastating effects throughout the Middle East and around the world. A leading member of the Brotherhood, Muhammad Ghannem, reportedly told the Iranian television channel Al-Alam that Egyptians should prepare for war with Israel.

Read More: by Ben Johnson, Floyd Reports

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:34
Comentarios (1)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook

Report: Political Correctness Prevented FBI, DoD from Stopping Maj. Hasan

Today the Senate Homeland Security Committee released an independent report on the Ft. Hood shootings. The 91 page report is titled A Ticking Time Bomb: Counterterrorism Lessons from the US Government?s Failure to Prevent the Fort Hood Attack. The gist of it is that the FBI and Hasan?s superiors had more than enough information to prevent the shootings and likely would have done so if not for political correctness.

You may recall that the FBI was aware that Hasan was in contact with al Qaeda recruiter Anwar al-Awlaki prior to the shootings. Unfortunately, a confusion between two competing FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTF?s) resulted in neither one taking action:

The JTTF that had reviewed the initial [REDACTED] communications dismissed the second JTTF?s work as ?slim? but eventually dropped the matter rather than cause a bureaucratic confrontation. The JTTFs now even dispute the extent to which they were in contact with each other in this case. Nonetheless, the JTTFs never raised the dispute to FBI headquarters for resolution, and entities in FBI headquarters responsible for coordination among field offices never acted. As a result, the FBI?s inquiry into Hasan ended prematurely.

But the most stunning portion of the report is the section that offers details about the nature of Hasan?s radicalization as witnessed by his fellow officers:

Hasan advanced to a two-year fellowship at USUHS?Less than a month into the fellowship, in August 2007, Hasan gave another off-topic presentation on a violent Islamist extremist subject instead of on a health care subject. This time, Hasan?s presentation was so controversial that the instructor had to stop it after just two minutes when the class erupted in protest to Hasan?s views. The presentation was entitled, Is the War on Terror a War on Islam: An Islamic Perspective? Hasan?s proposal for this presentation promoted this troubling thesis: that U.S. military operations are a war against lslam rather than based on non-religious security considerations. Hasan?s presentation accorded with the narrative of violent Islamist extremism that the West is at war with Islam. Hasan?s paper was full of empathetic and supportive recitation of other violent Islamist extremist views, including defense of Osama bin Laden, slanted historical accounts blaming the United States for problems in the Middle East, and arguments that anger at the United States is justifiable?The instructor who stopped the presentation said that Hasan was sweating, quite nervous, and agitated after being confronted by the class.

Read More: BY JOHN SEXTON, Hot Air

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:30
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook


"Washington lobbied London in 2009 for permission to supply Moscow with detailed data about the performance of UK missiles. The UK refused, but the US agreed to hand over the serial numbers of Trident missiles it transfers to Britain. "


WikiLeaks cables: US agrees to tell Russia Britain's nuclear secrets

The US secretly agreed to give the Russians sensitive information on Britain?s nuclear deterrent to persuade them to sign a key treaty, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.

HMS Vanguard is Britain's lead Trident-armed submarine. The US, under a nuclear deal, has agreed to give the Kremlin the serial numbers of the missiles it gives Britain ?Photo: TAM MACDONALD

Information about every Trident missile the US supplies to Britain will be given to Russia as part of an arms control deal signed by President Barack Obama next week.

Defence analysts claim the agreement risks undermining Britain?s policy of refusing to confirm the exact size of its nuclear arsenal.

The fact that the Americans used British nuclear secrets as a bargaining chip also sheds new light on the so-called ?special relationship?, which is shown often to be a one-sided affair by US diplomatic communications obtained by the WikiLeaks website.

Details of the behind-the-scenes talks are contained in more than 1,400 US embassy cables published to date by the Telegraph, including almost 800 sent from the London Embassy, which are published online today. The documents also show that:

? America spied on Foreign Office ministers by gathering gossip on their private lives and professional relationships.

? Intelligence-sharing arrangements with the US became strained after the controversy over Binyam Mohamed, the former Guant?namo Bay detainee who sued the Government over his alleged torture.

? David Miliband disowned the Duchess of York by saying she could not ?be controlled? after she made an undercover TV documentary.

? Tens of millions of pounds of overseas aid was stolen and spent on plasma televisions and luxury goods by corrupt regimes.

A series of classified messages sent to Washington by US negotiators show how information on Britain?s nuclear capability was crucial to securing Russia?s support for the ?New START? deal.

Although the treaty was not supposed to have any impact on Britain, the leaked cables show that Russia used the talks to demand more information about the UK?s Trident missiles, which are manufactured and maintained in the US.

Washington lobbied London in 2009 for permission to supply Moscow with detailed data about the performance of UK missiles. The UK refused, but the US agreed to hand over the serial numbers of Trident missiles it transfers to Britain.

Professor Malcolm Chalmers said: ?This appears to be significant because while the UK has announced how many missiles it possesses, there has been no way for the Russians to verify this. Over time, the unique identifiers will provide them with another data point to gauge the size of the British arsenal.?

Duncan Lennox, editor of Jane?s Strategic Weapons Systems, said: ?They want to find out whether Britain has more missiles than we say we have, and having the unique identifiers might help them.?

While the US and Russia have long permitted inspections of each other?s nuclear weapons, Britain has sought to maintain some secrecy to compensate for the relatively small size of its arsenal.

William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, last year disclosed that ?up to 160? warheads are operational at any one time, but did not confirm the number of missiles.

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:55
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook

Saturday, February 5, 2011

Alan Keyes/Drake/Robinson v. Obama/Biden/Bowen:

Goes to U.S. Supreme Court; Precedents Set for

Removing Ineligible Candidates...

Via WND and Some; - Case putting Obama alongside Eldridge Cleaver heads to Supremes - Eligibility challenge says precedents set for removing ineligible candidates - Bob Unruh

-Empty Robes - Getty Images-
A lawsuit that was filed over the absence of documentation that Barack Obama is eligible to occupy the Oval Office and claims a precedent was set for removing ineligible candidates when an underage Eldridge Cleaver was taken off the ballot in 1968 is heading to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Attorney Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation confirmed to WND tonight that his clients have requested in writing that he appeal the decision of the California Supreme Court.

Judges there this week got rid of the case with six words: "The petition for review is denied." That would have left standing a decision from the California Court of Appeals that if a qualified political party presents a candidate's name for inclusion on the ballot, the California secretary of state must include it.

But Kreep confirmed that his clients, Ambassador Alan Keyes, Wiley S. Drake Sr. and Markham Robinson, will petition the U.S. Supreme Court, which so far has refused to even consider the arguments of a multitude of other challenges to Obama's eligibility, for review.

The lawsuit alleged [denied petition embedded below] both California Secretary of State Debra Bowen and the state's electors for the Electoral College in the 2008 election failed to verify that Obama is eligible. After the Electoral College vote was adopted in Congress the lawsuit was adjusted to address future elections.

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

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

-Calif. Supreme Court-
In his petition for review, Kreep had explained that if the state Supreme Court failed to act, it would be tantamount to abandoning the clear requirements of the U.S. Constitution because a political party could nominate a candidate in violation of the Constitution, and voters might not either know or care about the result.

A commentary at reported that the state's highest court, by leaving the appellate decision alone, revealed that the state apparently violated its own law in 1968 when then-Secretary of State Frank Jordan removed candidate Eldridge Cleaver of the Peace & Freedom Party from the presidential ballot.

He was only 33 years old at the time, while the Constitution requires a president to be 35.

"The decision, in effect, says the Secretary of State in 1968 should have listed Cleaver," said the commentary.

The decision that state Supreme Court refused to alter was one that concluded, "Section 6041 gives the Secretary of State some discretion in determining whether to place a name on the primary ballot, but she has no such discretion for the general election ballot. ? With respect to general elections, section 6901 directs that the Secretary of State must place on the ballot the names of the several political parties' candidates."

Plaintiffs had argued that the 1968 case set a precedent for the state to look at the qualifications of candidates and remove them from the ballot should they fail in the constitutional requirements to be a resident for 14 years, to be 35 years old, and a "natural born citizen." -Continued here;

Video: - Gary Kreep on Floyd Reports explains reasons to question Obama?s eligibility -Video here.

FACT: - Two popularly elected U.S. Senators were removed from office after it was learned they were NOT constitutionally eligible when elected -Details here.

Previous reports on attorney Gary Kreep's fight can be found here. Visit the Birther Vault for the long list of evidence against Hawaii officials and all of the people questioning Obama's eligibility; [].
Keyes/Drake/Robinson v. Obama/Biden/Bowen et al. - Petition for Review - Calif. Supreme Court - 12/2010
Obama Ineligible/Support LTC Terry Lakin - Wash Times Natl Wkly 2011-01-10 2 Pg Ctr Fold-pgs 20&21

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:21
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook

Constituent Calls for Congressional Investigation



February 4, 2011

If Obama found his birth certificate as he stated in his book, why doesn't he simply produce it to end the speculation?

Dear Editor:

The following letter was sent to my congressman today:

I am requesting a Congressional Investigation into the ELIGIBILITY of Barack Obama to serve as President of the United States. Now that 58% of the American people have questions, let?s just get to the truth?one way or the other.

Is that too much to ask of an elected official, such as you?

All I want to know is the TRUTH.

And, Mr. Obama can provide that, within minutes?in his book, he said that he has a copy of his birth certificate.

And, if he does not cooperate, a Congressional Inquiry Panel can get to the bottom of this.

After all, we are only interested in the TRUTH as to his eligibility.

Please, ACT NOW, so we can be sure whether he is, indeed, legally sitting in the Oval Office.

Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution requires that a Presidential candidate be a natural born citizen. As of yet, Barack Obama has NOT produced such a long-form, original, birth certificate.

I cannot believe why he continues to, reportedly, spend millions of dollars to hide his background. Why can?t the U.S. Congress get to the bottom of this?

Thank you for your time and for your consideration,

Clyde W Hodge

Mr. Obama has not been forthcoming with any of the documents which would shed much light on his early years. When you peruse the following list, you will realize one thing: you wouldn?t spend two million dollars to conceal this information from media scrutiny, unless you had something to hide.

  • Kindergarten records
  • Punahou school records
  • Occidental College records
  • Columbia University records
  • Harvard Law School records
  • Passport
  • Medical records
  • Files from his years as an Illinois state senator
  • Illinois State Bar Association records
  • Baptismal records
  • Adoption records

Yet, he has spent nearly $2 million, according to published reports, to HIDE these records from the American people!

Since the 2008 election, questions of possible wire fraud, social security number fraud, voter fraud, illegal campaign contributions and failure to qualify as a ?natural born Citizen? of the United States have all been raised by citizens but have either been ignored, answered with a form letter, or dismissed without a hearing from various courts.

Obama himself has stated that he was born a dual citizen of the U.S. and Great Britain due to a British citizen father. He has never shown the public any conclusive certified true and correct paper documentary proof of his alleged U.S. citizenship to any controlling legal authority such as Congress or a court of law, but evidence was presented early on in the presidential campaign that Obama might have become a citizen of Indonesia as a child. Various accounts of his life differ as to when he was taken to Indonesia and when he might have returned to Hawaii, if he had ever lived there previously. There are numerous statements by public officials and news outlets in Kenya stating that he was born in Kenya.

No hospital in Hawaii will confirm that Obama was born there, although the Hawaii Department of Health has stated that they ?have Sen. Obama?s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.? However, they will not state what kind of birth registration record it was and no name of the doctor, medical attendant, or midwife who assisted with the alleged birth in Hawaii has ever been provided. No witnesses to the birth have ever been named.

Later, the Director of Health stated that she could confirm that Obama was a ?natural-born American citizen,? although she refused to expound on how she claimed that knowledge or the legal definition she utilized to make the determination. The complete absence of any corroborating independently verifiable evidence that Obama was physically born in Hawaii and not just falsely registered as being born there by his maternal grandmother using a simple mail-in form available at the time gives Americans numerous reasons to be concerned about Obama?s true legal identity.

1. The candidates for the position of the president and Vice-President of the United States have to provide Secretary of state and elections committee a valid certified copy of an original long form U.S. birth certificate and a certified copy of the original valid social security card. When such documents are verified, the secretary of state will redact the last four digits of the Social Security number and will provide the public with the certified copy of the original long form birth certificate and with the redacted copy of the original valid Social Security number. At no time will there be any redacting of the first three digits of the social security number, as those signify the state, where the candidate applied for the Social Security card.

2. Above documents are required to provide documentary evidence, showing that the Candidate is eligible to U.S. presidency according to Article 2, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, whereby
The candidate is a Natural Born US citizen, ?One who was born in the United States of America
to two U.S. citizen parents.?

In U.S. there is a need to bring back the rule of law and the rule of Constitution. In GA, where I Represented Major Cook and CPT Dr. Rhodes and provided information that obama does not have a valid Social Security number of his own and does not have a valid long form BC and has citizenship of 3 other Nations, Judge Land ruled that it was frivolous to question obama in light of all this evidence and tried to intimidate and silence me with $20,000 of unconscionable sanctions.

When LTC Dr. Lakin questioned obama?s legitimacy for the position of the Commander in Chief, Judge Lind ruled that he cannot bring any evidence of obama?s illegitimacy and she de facto turned his court martial into lynching.? Lind and Land, Ying and Yang, highlighted for the rest of the country, what many of us already knew: utter corruption, lack of adherence to the Constitution and rule of law by judges. We see pandering to the illegitimate dictator instead of a healthy Constitutional Republic with democratic principles and transparent and unbiased courts.

Everyone has to be engaged in this battle. This is our Alamo. Many asked me, why I am so passionate about this issue. My response is, ?if we allow such utter fraud and utter disrespect of The Constitution in the office of the president, than absolutely anything and everything can and Will be done to us, as we lost our Constitutional right as and freedoms and turned into sheeple led to slaughter?.

Written by Dr. Orly Taitz Esquire.

As a natural born citizen of the United State and a voter, I ?Clyde W Hodge? concur with this 100%!

? 2011, The Post & Email. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:34
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Viernes, 04 de febrero de 2011

Share on Facebook

Is the liberal mainstream media and Obama collaborating with Castro's communist regime in order not to offend him?


The Obama-Hillary State Department have been issuing visas to Castro's agents to open "meeting places," night clubs and restaurants in Miami.? Also they are issuing visas to Castro's official artists to perform in Miami under the ruse of the Clinton era "cultural exchanges."? ?The problem is that these cultural exchanges are one way, because Castro does not allow exile artists like Gloria Estefan, Willy Chirino and others to perform in Cuba.


Castro's official artists are paid in U.S. dollars to the Castro regime and the artists get only a small portion.? Also, these agents and official artists are liberally invited on local radio and TV where they insult and deride the Cuban American exiled community in Miami.


These operations, which increased after Obama was in power, is known to the exiles as "Operation Anti-Exile," since is aimed to discredit and neutralize their community and to infiltrate an American city for future operations.


Late on a Friday - as many executive orders and regulations are announced by this "transparent administration" - Obama announced lifting the restrictions to travel to Cuba to American "religious" groups and "students," and that Americans in general can send up to about $2,000 one a year to help individual Cuban citizens.? This, of course, when Castro is in dire straits needing dollars to maintain his oppressive regime.


One wonder if the rumored Castro-Obama under the table communications are the reason why no one talks about the case of American Alan P. Gross in jail in Cuba without charges for 13 months.? Is Castro blackmailing Obama by threatening to open the flood gates and allow the emigration of whoever he would like to expel from Cuba to the U.S. like he did in the "1980 Mariel Boatlift" of 125,000 people?


Just a thought (read the short article below about Alan P. Gross with attached photo and forward),


Agustin Blazquez


From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of La Voz de Cuba Libre
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 9:06 PM
To: [email protected]

Lest we forget?

By Alberto de la Cruz, on February 2, 2011,

Lest we forget, there is an American being held hostage by the Castro dictatorship for more than 13 months now. Alan Gross is still languishing in a Castro gulag with no charges yet filed against him. His only crime was attempting to provide Jewish organizations in Cuba with communications capabilities that the rest of the world considers commonplace.


The press and their go-to "Cuba Experts" may have forgotten Alan Gross, but our good friend Jay Nordlinger has not:

Do You Know Who Alan Gross Is?

In Impromptus today, I mention Alan P. Gross ? the American prisoner in Cuba. He works, or worked, for a USAID contractor. For 13 months, he has been imprisoned by the Cuban dictatorship. Without trial. Without even charge. This is a scandal, an outrage, and a travesty. I believe that the Alan Gross matter should be a big deal ? a cause ? in our country.


Let me say something ?right-wing? to you (and by ?right-wing,? people often mean honest but not necessarily popular): If Gross were a prisoner of a government more disliked by our mainstream media, he would be a much bigger deal, a real story.


It?s one thing if Americans, or their elites, don?t care about Cuban political prisoners. But what about an American prisoner?


P.S. George W. Bush cared about Cuban political prisoners ? which is why he gave the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Oscar Biscet, in prison even now. Obama gave the medal to Mary Robinson, the mistress of Durban: that festival of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish hate. Even Colin Powell, not necessarily a lion as secretary of state, pulled out of that one.? As I once argued in an NR essay, you can tell a lot about a president by the Medals of Freedom he gives.

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 15:59
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Jueves, 03 de febrero de 2011

Share on Facebook


????? Sometimes we tend to believe that it is just a nightmare and that soon we will just wake up and everything will go back to normal. Unfortunately we are awake. The nightmare is real.
????? When I arrived to the United States, young and na?ve, I never could have dream that one day I could see a President of the United States asking on television for the downfall or resignation of the President of a friendly country.
????? Maybe Barack Hussein Obama felt the strong call from his African ancestors of the 1800?s. History teach us that when explorers Livingstone and Stanley were in the dark continent they confronted the extortions of the Sultans. Black Sultans who were capturing black slaves to sell them to the two principal groups of black slavery in Africa: The Portuguese and the Arabs.
????? Those black African Sultans disposed of their subjects like if they were not humans. They taxed, extorted, abused, sold and trade their subjugates. They felt that they were like Gods.
????? I don?t recall, when in peacetime a President of the United States publicly told a friendly President of another nation to leave his post. But now Sultan Barack I had insulted Egypt and his President Mubarak.
????? There have been previous wrong doings by other USA Presidents but they were done via diplomatic ways. Not now, Sultan Barack I, considers himself a new God who can order other Presidents to step down, a new God that can interfere in the internal affairs of other countries.
????? If I wouldn?t know from where he comes from I could think that Barack Hussein Obama has gone crazy because what he had done doesn?t have any precedent in modern history, but I am convinced that he knows that his time is running short and he will try to do as much harm as possible in the next 2 years.
????? Jimmy Carter was a disgrace to America and the world. He delivered Iran to the Muslin extremists, he delivered Nicaragua to the communists followers of Dictator Fidel Castro Ruz. Bill Clinton was a disgrace to America who lied while in office and subjected the White House to a sexual scandal of the greatest proportion. But what Barack Hussein Obama is doing is paving the way to destroy de United States of America.
????? When the Suez Canal is taken over by our enemies the price of oil is going to go to new records and when that happens our inflation will sky rock to levels never imagined. Riots will occur and we will be at the verge of a bloody and unnecessary Civil War.
????? The time has come for the Congress of the United States to Impeach Barack Hussein Obama and run him out of office, before it is too late.
????? God save America.
February 3, 2011
Dr. Carlos J. Bringuier
[email protected]

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 17:32
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook


Morning Bell: The Obamacare Assault on the Rule of Law

Posted February 3rd, 2011 at 7:59am in Health Care 3 This Post


Mere hours after senior federal Judge Roger Vinson, a United States Naval Academy graduate, became the second federal judge to find Obamacare?s Section 1501 (the individual mandate) unconstitutional, an anonymous White House official called in to question Judge Vinson?s entire ruling, telling reporters, ?There?s something thoroughly odd and unconventional about the analysis.? The only thing ?odd and unconventional? here is that a White House official felt it imperative to undermine the legitimacy of a coequal branch of government. Unfortunately this incident just fits into a larger pattern of behavior that calls into question just how far this Administration will bend the rule of law to protect President Barack Obama?s signature accomplishment: Obamacare.

According to Heritage legal expert Robert Alt, Judge Vinson?s declaratory judgment binds the parties to the suit, which includes 26 states, the National Federation of Independent Business and the federal government. This means that, absent a court-issued stay, Obamacare cannot be further implemented as it pertains to these 26 states. So the White House now faces a simple choice: Will President Obama abide by a valid decision by a federal district court, or will he unilaterally ignore the rule of law? If the past is any indicator, the rule of law is in for a continued beating.?

As former Member of Congress and Heritage Distinguished Fellow Ernest Istook documents, the Obamacare legislation contained unprecedented billions of dollars in advance implementation appropriations. The advance year appropriations were designed to completely bypass Congress?s annual budget process and go far beyond standard spending decisions for the current and following fiscal years. Some of these advance-implementation appropriations stretch 10 years into the future, far beyond President Obama?s term in office.

Then there are the hundreds of waivers reaching millions of Americans that are being granted piecemeal by the Obama Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Just last week, HHS granted 500 new waivers, more than tripling the number of groups exempt from Obamacare. Unions that gave heavily to President Obama?s election efforts accounted for 40 percent of all employees exempted from Obamacare last week. In all, more than 700 entities are now exempt from Obamacare, totaling 2.1 million people. Last night before the Senate voted on party lines against repeal of Obamacare, Senator Jim DeMint (R?SC) explained why this selective enforcement of the law must stop: ?Most Americans don?t play these political games. They don?t have lobbyists and PACs, but I think they should all get a waiver too. I think we should name this repeal bill that we will vote on today ?the great American waiver.??

Health care is by far not the only arena where the Obama Administration has sacrificed the rule of law for its own political expediency. It has shredded the Constitution?s Appointments Clause to install its favored bureaucrats at regulatory agencies. Then there was the ?outrageous and illegal? takeover of Chrysler, the shakedown of BP, the assertion that President Obama can rewrite our nation?s immigration laws simply by not enforcing them, the refusal to enforce anti-voting-fraud laws, and, back to Obamacare, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius threats to silence insurance companies.

One can understand why the White House was so visibly shaken by its federal court Obamacare loss. The 26 states that are party to the Florida suit will account for 266 electoral college votes in the next election. Throw in Virginia?s 13 electoral votes, where another federal court has ruled against Obamacare, and that brings the total to 279, which is more than the 270 needed to elect the next President of the United States.

But political expediency is never an excuse to skirt the rule of law, especially for our nation?s chief law enforcement officer. Congress could help the President make the right decision. In a couple of months, when the current continuing resolution that is funding the federal government runs out, conservatives could attach language to the next spending bill requiring all Obama appointees to abide by Judge Vinson?s decision. You can see The Heritage Foundation?s ?The Case Against Obamacare? here and the ?Impact of Obamacare? here.

Quick Hits:

Tags: ,




How Your Senator Voted on Obamacare Repeal

Here's how your Senator voted on Obamacare repeal:

Alabama: Sessions (R-AL), Yea Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Alaska: Begich (D-AK), Nay Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Boozman (R-AR), Yea Pryor (D-AR), Nay
California: Boxer (D-CA), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Colorado: Bennet (D-CO), Nay Udall (D-CO), Nay
Connecticut: Blumenthal (D-CT), Nay Lieberman (ID-CT), Not Voting
Delaware: Carper (D-DE), Nay Coons (D-DE), Nay
Florida: Nelson (D-FL), Nay Rubio (R-FL), Yea
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Idaho: Crapo (R-ID), Yea Risch (R-ID), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Nay Kirk (R-IL), Yea
Indiana: Coats (R-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Kansas: Moran (R-KS), Yea Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky: McConnell (R-KY), Yea Paul (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Nay Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Massachusetts: Brown (R-MA), Yea Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota: Franken (D-MN), Nay Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea Wicker (R-MS), Yea
Missouri: Blunt (R-MO), Yea McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Nay Tester (D-MT), Nay
Nebraska: Johanns (R-NE), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Nay
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Yea Reid (D-NV), Nay
New Hampshire: Ayotte (R-NH), Yea Shaheen (D-NH), Nay
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Udall (D-NM), Nay
New York: Gillibrand (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Nay
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Yea Hagan (D-NC), Nay
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Nay Hoeven (R-ND), Yea
Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Nay Portman (R-OH), Yea
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Oregon: Merkley (D-OR), Nay Wyden (D-OR), Nay
Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Nay Toomey (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Nay Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Nay Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Utah: Hatch (R-UT), Yea Lee (R-UT), Yea
Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Nay Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Virginia: Warner (D-VA), Not Voting Webb (D-VA), Nay
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Nay Murray (D-WA), Nay
West Virginia: Manchin (D-WV), Nay Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Wisconsin: Johnson (R-WI), Yea Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Wyoming: Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea

? Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Read more on How Your Senator Voted on Obamacare Repeal
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election?
Vote Here Now!

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 12:49
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Martes, 01 de febrero de 2011

Monday, January 31, 2011

Hawaii: Formal complaint of election fraud against Lt. Gov. Brian E. Schatz, acting as Chair of the Democratic Party of Hawaii; Investigate Now!


-Obama & Schatz-
Snippet via jbjd; If Barack Obama is not Constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President then, those members of the D party broke the law in 2008 who swore to state election officials he was, to get them to print his name on the ballot in those states that only print the names of candidates qualified for the job Many people who believe he is ineligible advocate we should shore up state election laws to forestall another round of fraud in 2012.? Meanwhile, others urge we should not let off the hook those members of the D party who fraudulently pulled off his election in 2008.

The problem of establishing candidate eligibility for office can be rectified on two fronts....

...For residents of HI, here are updated citizen complaints of election fraud for the State of Hawaii. Please, whether you have already filed a complaint, file this current updated one now. Note that Brian Schatz, formerly Chair of the Democratic Party of HI, is now the Lt. Gov. And the new AG, David Louie, only assumed office a couple of weeks ago. (Mr. Louie graduated from Occidental College, said to be one of Mr. Obama?s alma maters.)

Complete details here;

Full Text of the Complaint of Election Fraud:

To: David M. Louie, Attorney General of Hawaii
VIA FAX: 808.586.1239
From: [Hawaii Resident]
Subject: Complaint of Election Fraud against Lt. Gov. Brian E. Schatz, Acting in a Non-Governmental Role as Chair, Democratic Party of Hawaii; and Request for Investigation by the Attorney General of Hawaii
Date: January 29, 2011
Copies: Brian E. Schatz, Lt. Gov., State of HI (FAX: 808.586.0231)
Scott Nago, Chief, HI Office of Elections (FAX: 808.453.6006)
Dante Keala Carpenter, Chair, Democratic Party of HI
1050 Ala Moana Blvd., Suite D-26
Honolulu, HI 96814
William Marston, Chair, HI Election Commission
802 Lehua Avenue Pearl City, Hawaii 96782

This is a formal complaint of election fraud against Lt. Gov. Brian E. Schatz, acting in a non-governmental role as Chair of the Democratic Party of Hawaii; and request for investigation of these charges by the Attorney General of Hawaii.

Specifically, under Hawaiian law, if the candidate for President of the United States (?POTUS?) from the major political party meets the federal requirements of the job, then election officials must print the candidate‟s name on the general election ballot. Under Article II, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution, the POTUS must be a Natural Born Citizen (?NBC?). To get Barack Obama‟s name on the general election ballot in 2008, Mr. Schatz formally submitted to Hawaiian election officials a Certification of Nomination swearing that Mr. Obama was ?duly nominated? as the candidate for POTUS for the Democrat Party and had met the legal qualifications for the job. Accompanying that letter was the official Certification of Nomination of the DNC Services Corporation (?DNC?), signed by the Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, acting in her non-governmental role as Chair of the 2008 DNC Presidential nominating convention; and Alice Germond, Secretary of the Corporation. This DNC Certification contained the explicit words required by Hawaii law: the ?candidate is legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.? (DNC Rules also require the nominee must be Constitutionally qualified for the job.)

However, overwhelming circumstantial evidence points to the fact at the time Mr. Schatz signed and forwarded these Certifications neither he nor the DNC could have ascertained Mr. Obama is a NBC. And in Hawaii, swearing the Presidential nominee of the major political party is a NBC without ascertaining beforehand that he is, for the purpose of obtaining a place on the ballot, constitutes election fraud.

Citizens from Hawaii as well as from several other states, concerned that members of the DNC had submitted to state election officials these unauthenticated Certificates of Nomination, also contacted the DNC requesting to see the documentation on which they had based this Certification. Ms. Pelosi ignored all such requests. Claiming he was responding to requests that were directed to Secretary Germond, DNC General Counsel Joseph Sandler wrote, ?The Democratic National Committee is not a state agency subject to the open records or freedom of information statutes of any state.? And, based on this fact that no law required him to produce the requested documentation; he chose not to produce this documentation.?

Such display of hubris by members of any political party confronted by citizens concerned as to the legitimacy of the electoral process prescribed by law, cannot be tolerated in our Constitutional Republic.

Candidates representing the Democratic Party may not participate in the election process carried out in the state of Hawaii on behalf of the citizens of this state unless they obey our rules. And if our state law is to operate as anything more than form with no function, the state must now compel this political party to produce the evidence that was the basis for its Certification to Hawaii election officials that Barack Obama, the party‟s nominee for President, satisfied those laws requiring the candidate to be qualified for the job. Absent such evidence, it appears that by certifying such qualification, Mr. Schatz has perpetrated election fraud on the citizens of Hawaii.

WHEREFORE, I request an immediate investigation by the Attorney General of Hawaii.

(Note: This Complaint takes no position on whether Mr. Obama is a NBC.)


1. Under Hawaii law, only the nominee for POTUS from the major political party who has satisfied those Constitutional qualifications for office is entitled to have his or her name printed on the Hawaii general election ballot.

Hawaii Revised Statutes Title 2, Elections, Chapter 11

?11-113 Presidential ballots. ? (c) All candidates for President and Vice President of the United States shall be qualified for inclusion on the general election ballot under either of the following procedures:

(1) In the case of candidates of political parties which have been qualified to place candidates on the primary and general election ballots, the appropriate official of those parties shall file a sworn application with the chief election officer not later than 4:30 p.m. on the sixtieth day prior to the general election, which shall include:


(B) A statement that each candidate is legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution;

(C) A statement that the candidates are the duly chosen candidates of both the state and the national party, giving the time, place, and manner of the selection.


Article II, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution requires that the POTUS must be a Natural Born Citizen. Thus, in order to satisfy federal requirements for POTUS that would entitle Mr. Obama‟s name to be printed on the Hawaii general election ballot, he must be a NBC.

2. On August 27, 2008 Brian E. Schatz, then Chair, Democratic Party of Hawaii, submitted 2 (two) separate Certifications of Nomination swearing Barack Obama, the D party candidate for POTUS, is a NBC, both of which Certifications he submitted to Hawaii elections officials so that they would print Mr. Obama‟s name on the Hawaii general election ballot.

Brian Schatz submitted to Hawaii elections officials 2 (two) documents with the heading, OFFICIAL CERTIFICATION OF NOMINATION. One Certification, dated August 27, 2008, bore the letterhead of the Democratic Party of Hawaii; the other, the letterhead of the DNC. In the first document, Mr. Schatz swore that Mr. Obama had been ?duly nominated? as POTUS ?by acclamation at the National Democratic Convention?? That is, he had been nominated in accordance with D party rules and procedures. (?11-113, (1)(C).) The second document, signed by then Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, The Honorable Nancy Pelosi, in her ?civilian‟ role as Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention, contained the line, he was ?legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.? (?11-113, (1)(B).)

The rules of the Democratic National Committee require the nominee must be eligible under the U.S. Constitution. (p.14, K.1 and 2). Article II, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution requires that the POTUS must be a Natural Born Citizen. Thus, Certifying Barack Obama was now the D party Presidential nominee was tantamount to verifying, he is Constitutionally qualified for the job, which means, he is a NBC.

State lawmakers failed to enact legislation that would require any state actor to check on the nominee‟s Constitutional eligibility. Thus, the express meaning of legislation requiring statements of candidate eligibility is clear: if the party gives us the name of its nominee for POTUS to be printed on the general election ballot and says, he is qualified to serve under the U.S. Constitution then, we must assume the party has determined its nominee is Constitutionally qualified for the job.

3. Mr. Schatz could not have ascertained Barack Obama is a NBC at any time prior to August 27, 2008, the date on the letter accompanying the Official DNC Certification of Nomination submitted to Hawaii election officials verifying he was a qualified candidate given the fact at this same time, the nominee insisted the evidence proffered to establish his Constitutional qualification for POTUS ?prove[d]? he is only a ?native citizen? but not a NBC.

Explicitly acknowledging public doubts whether he is a NBC, in June 2008 Mr. Obama, still just a candidate for the Presidential nomination of the Democratic Party, created and paid for a web site entitled, ?Fight the Smears? (?FTS?), on which he posted a photocopy of a document entitled, ?Certification of Live Birth? (?COLB?) from the State of HI. Mr. Obama proclaimed this photocopied and redacted Certification proves he is a ?native citizen of the United States of America.? (While the actual title that appears within the document identifies this is a ?Certification,? Mr. Obama wrote underneath the image, this is his ?Official Birth Certificate.?)

(Note: While the text of FTS pertaining to Mr. Obama‟s qualification for POTUS remains the same, the accreditation in the footer changes. In the original version, the footer read, ?Paid for by Barack Obama 2008.? Subsequently, the footer was altered to read, ?Paid for by Obama for America?; which was then changed to read, ?Paid for by Organizing for America, a Project of the Democratic National Committee.? This remains its current iteration. Also, at various times, the site address appeared as either a .com or, a .org. These changes in accreditation correspond exactly to the mandates of the U.S. Code, thus rendering this FTS web site a paid political advertisement. See DE-CODER RINGS (1 of 2) and (2 of 2).)

4. Mr. Schatz could not have ascertained Barack Obama is a NBC prior to August 27, 2008, the date the Official DNC Certification of Nomination was submitted to Hawaii elections officials verifying he was a NBC based on that internet COLB given the fact that 4 (four) months later, in January 2009, Defendant Obama repeated in pleadings he submitted to the federal court, the best evidence he was born in HI is the original document of that altered FTS COLB; yet he failed to submit this ?original‟ COLB to the Clerk of the Court to be marked up as evidence and made a part of the official court record.

In January 2009, Mr. Obama, then President-elect, was the named Defendant in a case filed in federal district court, ostensibly seeking to determine whether the Uniform Code of Military Justice required a military Plaintiff to obey orders from a Commander in Chief he was not certain was a NBC. (Pleadings for Hollister v. Soetoro, Civil Action No. 1:08-cv-02254-JR, can be found on line at Mr. Obama submitted a Motion to Dismiss* predicated on Plaintiff‟s failure to establish the Court's jurisdiction; and to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (The Defendant was represented by Attorney Robert F. Bauer of PERKINS COIE LLP, now White House Counsel, who signed the pleadings submitted to the court on his client‟s behalf.) Additionally, Mr. Obama asked the court to take judicial notice of the following ?fact‟: he had publicly produced a certified copy of a birth certificate showing that he was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Hawaii. (Presumably, he used the phrase ?publicly produced? referring to the fact, he posted that photocopied COLB on his FTS campaign web site.) Yet Defendant did not provide the court with the ?original‟ COLB so that the Clerk could mark up the document as evidence and place it in the case record (where it would be subject to scrutiny by the Plaintiff or the judge‟s in-camera inspection). Instead, he tried to authenticate that internet COLB just by asking the court to take ?notice? that Annenberg Political Fact Check (?APFC?) ?conclude[d] that the birth certificate is genuine.? Id. (APFC is one of many such organizations wholly funded by the Annenberg Foundation, which also paid Mr. Obama‟s salary as Chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995-1999.) (And recall he wrote on FTS, this COLB only establishes he is a ?native citizen,? anyway.)

*Technically, by incorporating into Defendant‟s Motion to Dismiss, another Motion for Judicial Notice of Evidence, Mr. Bauer was prima facie converting what was captioned Defendant‟s ?Motion to Dismiss,? into a ?Motion for Summary Judgment.? Fortunately, The Honorable Judge Robertson only granted Defendant‟s Dismissal, without judicial notice of the nativity claims visible on the FTS electronic advertising platform. For further explanation, see IDIOMS!

Given the fact that being Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives made convention Chair Pelosi 3rd in line of Presidential succession, with all of the gravitas incorporated therein, it defies credulity that in order to establish his bona fides for the job Mr. Obama would seek judicial notice of the lesser fact APFC says he is a native; but not offer into evidence the DNC Official Certification of Nomination Ms. Pelosi had submitted to election officials in the state of HI, swearing he is ?legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution,? meaning, he is ?Natural Born?; or any one of the dozens of her signed Certifications, which persuaded election officials throughout the country to print his name next to the D on the Presidential ballots in the 2008 general election.

Eschewing reliance on Ms. Pelosi‟s Certification, incredibly, Mr. Obama asked the court to take judicial notice of this information: APFC ?note[d] a contemporaneous birth announcement published in a Honolulu newspaper.? In fact, APFC had only posted on their web site an image of an unattributed ?newspaper announcement,‟ which phantom image they admitted they had usurped from the TexasDarlin (?td?) blog, where it was posted anonymously. With no further investigation into that ?announcement,‟ APFC declared, ?The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A.? (Note: Without notice, APFC subsequently redirected that suspect ?td? link to the web site of a Hawaiian newspaper that has ceased publication. See OBAMA TRIES to WIPE SLATE CLEAN for 2012 RUN; and Like APFC, Defendant Obama omitted the name of this HI publication from court pleadings and failed to enter into the court record any physical evidence of a newspaper announcement, thus making his claims there was such an announcement, as with his claims the internet COLB was real, impossible to verify, too.

5. Mr. Schatz could not have ascertained Barack Obama is a NBC prior to August 27, 2008, the date on the Certification submitted to Hawaii elections officials verifying he was a NBC given the fact that as of August 2009, a year after submitting this Certification, the DNC advertised Mr. Obama is a ?native citizen? but not a NBC.

A Google ad appearing on the internet in August 2009 asks this intriguing question followed by the answer: ?Where was Obama Born? The President was Born in Hawaii. Learn More! .?

Following the link provided in the ad takes you to a version of FTS which, according to the attribution in the footer, is ?Paid for by Organizing for America, a Project of the Democratic National Committee.? Again, the FTS site only claims Mr. Obama is a native, not a NBC. And, again, the web site displays the image of that Certification which Mr. Obama had only described but not provided to the court thereby eliminating the possibility of an ?in-camera‟ inspection.


Hawaii law requires candidates for public office whose names appear on any election ballot must be qualified for the job. In 2008, officials of the Democratic Party Certified to Hawaii election officials Barack Obama was Constitutionally qualified for the job of POTUS, causing these officials to print his name on the 2008 general election ballot. But the scant evidence available in the public record at the time of this Certification failed to establish he is a NBC (or even that he is a citizen). Citizens concerned the Democratic Party Certified Mr. Obama‟s qualifications without verification asked the party to disclose the basis for their Certification. The party said, ?No.‟ Therefore, the AG must now intervene on behalf of these citizens to investigate these charges of election fraud. -end-

All filers, old and new, make sure to read and understand the complaint before signing with real names and addresses, and sending.

Download and print here, also embedded below. Complete Details:
2000/2004/2008 Democratic Party of Hawaii Certifications of Nomination for Presidential Candidates -

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 8:27
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar