Mi?rcoles, 30 de noviembre de 2011


Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Joint Ballot Access Challenge Filed Against Obama Being Placed on Hawaii Ballot

Ballot Access Challenge Filed Against Obama Being Placed on the Hawaii Ballot Joint petition by Attorney Dr. Orly Taitz, Mr. Ron Wong, resident of Honolulu, Hawaii, as well as State Representative of...

New FOIA Lawsuit Filed Against FBI, DOJ, Bob Bauer Over Obama's Missing Records

Berryville Man Files Federal Lawsuit Over FOIA ResponseEdward Leonard @ Clarke Daily News A local man is asking a United States federal court to help him gain access to information related to the citizenship...

Congressional Research Service Releases Disinformation Report on Natural Born Citizen

Protecting Obama: Congressional Research Service Releases Error and Disinformation Ridden Report on Natural Born Citizen Requirement Don Fredrick: My tentative entry for The Obama Timeline, to be posted...

Alabama Election Fraud Complaint Against Obama Submitted To Alabama Secretary of State

Alabama Election Fraud & Ballot Access Complaint Against Obama Submitted To Alabama Secretary of State Beth Chapman Alabama Election Fraud Complaint Against Obama Submitted To Alabama Secretary of...

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 8:49
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar


Is There a More Serious Crime Than the Usurpation of the Presidency?


by Chris Farrell, College Student

The Boston Tea Party protested the Tea Act imposed by Great Britain on the 13 colonies and took place on December 16, 1773. It was a major event culminating in the American Revolution.

(Nov. 29, 2011) — Sheriff Joe Arpaio said, “This false identification is a very serious crime,….” referring to illegal aliens. How much more serious is the crime of fraudulently usurping the office of President of the United States of America and the military rank of Commander-in-Chief with false identification?

Abrogation is the only answer.  To permit the criminal to resign or impeach the fraud, one would first need to recognize his legitimate occupation of the Oval Office which is not now and has never been the case. Everything Barry Soetoro and his illegitimate administration have accomplished while illegally occupying the White House has been accomplished while in the commission of a crime against the highest law of this land, the Constitution of the United States of America, and therefore, by definition, a high crime. He should be incarcerated in the same prison cell in Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas where Lt. Col. Lakin, surgeon in the 101st Airborne InfantryDivision, was imprisoned. The 101st Airborne Division’s famous cadence called is “Pick-up your weapon and follow me; I am the Airborne Infantry!” and Lt. Col. Lakin can hear America’s response to those words loud and clear: ‘Standing by, Sir! At your command!’

Obama’s minions will drag things out in the courts. Keep in mind that “After his election,…” “…Obama held a secret meeting with eight of the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court — from which no public information was released. The meeting was held even though there were legal challenges in which Obama was a defendant pending before the Supreme Court at the time. The attorneys for the plaintiffs never were told of the meeting or invited to participate in what critics have described as extrajudicial contact between the court and a defendant.” (‘What Did Congress Know About Natural-Born Citizen?’ 07/01/11; By Bob Unruh. WND.COM.) The enormity of the arrogance of the Supreme Court justices involved to disregard the all-but-sacred separation of powers given to us at great cost – a bulwark against tyranny – is incomprehensible. Could members of the Supreme Court be involved in this conspiracy to contravene the Constitution too? If it is determined that those Supreme Court Justices have obviated the separation of powers we hold so dear and broken their oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America, then they should be removed from the bench in disgrace and prosecuted for their treasonous contravention of the Constitution.

Clearly, Gov. Abercrombie has been complicit in this, the greatest crime perpetrated against ‘We the People’ in American history. You may recall his broadcasting that he, and I paraphrase, ‘was going to get to the bottom of the birth certificate thing’; then he came out and reported that ‘his people’ were unable to locate the original long-form birth certificate. All the while, Dr. Jerome Corsi had an undercover detective working in the very building where the birth certificate should have been. Dr. Corsi’s mole was able to get into the very filing cabinet where, were there one, it should have been – with a cell phone in one hand and a camera in another, but no birth certificate.  Then at a later date the same detective called Dr. Corsi with the drawer to the filing cabinet open in front of him and reported that he was looking at the birth certificate. I would imagine he took pictures. Could this be anything but a conspiracy to contravene the Constitution? Gov. Abercrombie should be persecuted for treason. The hospital administrators in Hawaii and responsible administrators at Columbia, Occidental and Harvard Law School should too be prosecuted if it is found that Barry’s records show his higher education was financed by Islamic interests or if they have been aware all along that he was registered as a foreign student while attending their respective institutions.

The preeminent questions that need NOW to be asked of all current presidential candidates are:

1.) If elected president, would you issue an executive order for a forensic investigation into the forged birth certificate and fraudulent Social Security number which Mr. Soetoro/Obama has presented as evidence for his constitutional eligibility to have run for that office and honor the demand of ‘We the People’ within America’s Tea Party for the satisfaction of our demand for our constitutional right of redress of grievance; said grievance being the illegal election of an ineligible candidate to the office of president whose fraud and forgery has dishonored that office and made a mockery of our Constitution?

And 2.) When Mr. Soetoro/Obama’s crime is legally recognized, would you then proceed as president – compliant to the oath you would necessarily take to defend the Constitution – with the retroactive ABROGATION through EXECUTIVE ORDER of the unconstitutional election of the fraud and all that the criminal’s illegitimate administration has accomplished while illegally occupying the Oval Office?

If Congress continues to neglect its duty to perform an investigation – as Dr. Charles Rice of Notre Dame School of Law said, and I paraphrase – ‘an investigation by a House Committee would be a proper exercise of Congress’ ‘informing function’ – and conduct forensic analysis for the purposes of authentication and validation of THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS that Barry has presented as evidence of his status as a natural-born Citizen, then American patriotic defenders of the Constitution must consider the possibility of resorting to actions not dissimilar in spirit to those of the patriots who conducted the original Boston Tea Party, a commando raid conducted by volunteer citizen militiamen who risked their lives and liberty for God and country.,

Another dimension of this travesty of justice is only now beginning to be discussed: If it is true that this imposter, Mr. Barack, or Barry, ‘King Hussein,’ Obama/Soetoro, who attended Muslim madrassa schools for 6-8 of his formative years in Indonesia – schools where students bow down in the direction of Mecca several times a day and pray to the Moon-god, Allah; schools with one book: the Koran; schools wherein young men are indoctrinated into the ideological beliefs of our enemy, the cult of Islam, has committed the most notorious crime in history, then America’s national security administrators must consider the probability that Barry’s deception was nothing less than a Muslim’s covert operation while walking in Islamic taqqiya. The ‘Manchurian’ Muslim from Mombassa cannot be set free, for he has availed himself of far too many state secrets, the release of which would imperil our national security.


To; Congress and the Supreme Court of the United States of America

I, the undersigned American citizen, demand that the unconstitutional election of an ineligible candidate to the office of President of the United States of America, fraudulently representing himself as a natural-born citizen be ABROGATED forthwith in accordance with Article I, pursuant to Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America.

God Bless America,
Signed: ___________________________
Printed Name: ______________________
Month: _____________, Day: _________, Anno Domini 2011.

Send to: Chris Farrell
P.O. Box 791301
New Orleans, LA 70119

© 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 @ 8:21
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Martes, 29 de noviembre de 2011


“Truth and Justice Must be Upheld”


by Michael D. Jackson

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2005

(Nov. 28, 2011) — The following letter was sent by certified mail, #70110470000241170944, to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts, who administered the oath of office to Barack Hussein Obama on January 20, 2009.  Because both Roberts and Obama misspoke, Roberts allegedly repeated the swearing-in the following day, but the event was notpublicized for the American people to see.  Since 2008, there have been questions about Obama’s eligibility to serve as President and Commander-in-Chief as put forth in Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitutionwhich Roberts’s court and many others have refused to adjudicate.  On May 2, 2011, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument from Attys. Gary Kreep and Orly Taitz but has not rendered a decision on Obama’s eligibility.

The letter will also be sent to U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justices Scalia, Alito, Kennedy and Thomas.


Honorable Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

Supreme Court of the United States

One First Street NE

Washington, DC 20543

Dear Chief Justice Roberts,

It takes an extraordinary circumstance for an average, middle class American to contact your Court once, but this will be my second attempt at bringing to your attention the fact that we have had ongoing since the 2008 presidential election the greatest Constitutional crisis this country has perhaps ever faced, next to the Civil War.  Mr. Barack Hussein Obama, our alleged president, has fraudulently and complicity overtaken the Oval Office.  Mr. Obama/Soetoro is not eligible to be our president according to the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section I, Clause 5:   “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”  His father Barack Sr. was never a U.S. Citizen, he was born a British Subject and was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948:  (4)”Subject to the provisions of this section, every person born within the United Kingdom and Colonies after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by birth: (5)Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth ….”  Under the British Nationality Act of 1948, Obama’s father became a British citizen under Section 4 by being born on the soil of an English Colony, Kenya. Under Section 5, when Obama was born in 1961 in Hawaii or some other place, he automatically became a British citizen by descent from his father who was a British citizen under Section 4.  These are irrefutable facts and cannot be denied.  There is U.S. Supreme Court precedent regarding the Natural Born Citizenship clause in our U.S. Constitution.  This can be found in the ruling Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875).

Honorable Chief Justice, I’m sure you recall approximately two and one half years ago, a very courageous woman drove all the way from southern California in the early hours of the morning to hear you speak and possibly have the great honor and privilege to be called upon to ask your Honor a question and share her great concern for the peril and danger facing our country because we have a Constitutionally unqualified person getting ready to take occupation of the White House and be Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces. This woman’s name was Attorney/Dr. Orly Taitz.  She was by God’s marvelous grace called upon to share her concern with you when you were at the University of Idaho, I believe approximately on March 14, 2009.  Here is the link to the video clip of that very moment.  http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=28297  Chief Justice Roberts, evidence of great felonious crimes were presented to you, along with well over 300,000 petitions from the American people for you to not allow a usurper to occupy the White House and stand up for the U.S. Constitution that you swore an allegiance to.  May I share a quote with you most Honorable Chief Justice, from our country’s first Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay to George Washington on 25 July 1787 “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

May I implore the Chief Justice, I am also greatly concerned that sometime in January of 2009, eight of the nine Supreme Court Justices met behind closed doors with Mr. Obama/Soetoro.  Even if nothing was shared that was questionable, it appears before the American people and the electorate as if the Supreme Court of the United States has been tainted with impropriety or inappropriate influence. “We The People” should expect there to be jurisprudence shown at the highest level.  Here is a link to the secret meeting in which I refer to: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=86863 .

Currently the U.S. Supreme Court has two Justices appointed by Mr. Obama, but due to his unlawfulness, committed against our U.S. Constitution, how can they have jurisdiction to make any rulings?  Most honorable Justice, may I implore the Court that there is great likelihood you will have brought before you other cases concerning Mr. Obama’s ineligible and unlawful occupation of the White House.  May the Lord grant you the wisdom and understanding Chief Justice Roberts, to judge in righteousness, courage and honor.  Due to the unlawful action(s) of the occupant in our White House the two Chief Justices, Miss Kagan, and Miss Sotomayor, if not Constitutionally removed from the Court, must recuse themselves to remove any appearance of impropriety in the event your Court needs to make a Constitutional decision on the adherence to Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of our U.S. Constitution.   You must demand that the law is adhered to, and enforce such judicial law, that unless the two Chief Justices Mr. Obama/Soetoro appointed are removed, they must recuse themselves if a case regarding Mr. Obama/Soetoro’s unconstitutional occupation  of the office of the presidency is brought before the Court.

Since May 2, 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to render a decision on oral arguments presented by Attorney Taitz regarding Mr. Obama/Soetoro’s occupation of our White House.  I don’t know the time period for a Court to decide on a case, but more than six months has gone by and no ruling.  It comes across with the appearance of stonewalling and fearfulness.  Since Attorney Taitz was able to present to you back in March 2009, the evidence of Mr. Obama’s crimes and the cover-up of those crimes continues to grow and our country becomes that much more in peril.

In closing, most honorable Chief Justice, truth and justice must be upheld.  We are a nation built upon laws. You know as well as I, our founding fathers escaped tyranny.  We now have tyranny making a blatant and purposeful attack upon the very liberties on which we were founded.  Our country’s framers had it right and we as a people need to return back to the ancient landmarks which our father’s laid and stop removing them. Please, Chief Justice, honor your oath in which you swore. According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath: “I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

Please, Chief Justice Roberts, do not ignore this great peril that our country faces with this Constitutional crisis of having an unlawful, and not yet legally identified person occupying our Oval Office.  The time for sweeping it under the rug has come to pass.  The truth must be upheld in this in order for our country to survive.  This is a great duty, responsibility, and burden, for you to lawfully fulfill.

 For Christ and Country and Most Respectfully,

Michael Jackson

© 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 @ 0:49
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Mi?rcoles, 23 de noviembre de 2011

 “We Can’t Wait” For the Media to Act Responsibly

No comments   |   
Printer Friendly  

AIM Report

While the media largely continue to do their best to protect and defend the administration of President Barack Obama, there have been a number of recent examples indicating that such support can no longer be taken for granted. However, criticism remains the exception to the overall coverage, which has shown a reluctance to acknowledge any scandals by this administration, or any policy blunders.

If you go to WhiteHouse.gov, you will see “We Can’t Wait” as one of the main features. Until recently, it said, “We Can’t Wait on Congress. The Time to Act is Now.” The message from the Obama administration is that they are trying to promote their jobs bill, and the Republican-led House is refusing to cooperate. So damn the separation of powers, they’re going to enact their legislative priorities through executive orders and arbitrary actions. The liberal media are perfectly fine with this, because they largely support the Obama agenda. If not in every detail, at least they support the re-election of Barack Obama, so they’re not going to make a fuss.

Obama Running Against Congress, Not on his Record

But the reality is that instead of running on his record as President, Obama is trying to run against what he is in essence calling “a do-nothing Congress.” From January 2009 until January 2011, Obama had large majorities in the House and Senate, got his stimulus bill passed, ObamaCare, and a host of other bills that he brags about. What he failed to do, however, much of which upset his base, included passing or even pushing for comprehensive immigration reform and “Cap and Trade,” closing Guantanamo, and ending the Bush tax cuts. In some cases it was because he didn’t want the political heat, in others it was because he couldn’t get enough Democrats to go along.

In the meantime, the House passed a budget in April that the Senate voted down in May, and the House has passed 15 bills that they call jobs bills, and the Senate hasn’t voted on any of them. But it is in fact the Senate, led by Majority Leader Harry Reid, which has failed to fulfill its constitutional requirement of passing a budget, since April of 2009. So which chamber is the do-nothing Congress? If the Republican bills are so bad, the Senate should take pride in bringing them up for a vote and voting against them. That’s how the process is supposed to work.

President Obama called Congress into session for his address to the joint session right after Labor Day, and introduced his so-called Jobs bill, which he knew had no chance of passing because it was full of tax hikes that Republicans believe will damage any economic recovery. It went down to defeat, including several Democrats and Independents who failed to vote for it. That is when Obama virtually announced his imperial presidency, outlining plans to circumvent Congress at every opportunity. He already had established his go-it-alone attitude by attempting to run much of his agenda through mostly unconfirmed and unaccountable “czars,” of which there are now 45, according to a recent report by Judicial Watch.

Obama’s demagoguing this issue while America and the world are on the brink of a catastrophic economic downfall is nothing short of deceitful, for the sake of short- term political gain.

While the media have been obsessing over the Republican presidential field and the Penn State sex scandal, they have largely ignored or completely downplayed numerous stories that reflect quite negatively on the Obama administration. These stories include serious scandals, and outrageous political decisions meant to help ensure his re-election. They are stories that deserve frequent coverage and discussion, rather than to be framed as partisan bickering, when they are covered at all. For the most part, they receive instead just a smattering of coverage, mostly excluding the sense of urgency and disdain they deserve. Here are a few examples.

The Scandals

Solyndra: Solyndra is a company in the solar panel business, that as part of the administration’s green energy program, received more than half a billion dollars, and then went bankrupt. The signs and warnings were abundant that the business was doomed to fail. But a key investor was a major bundler for President Obama, and had made numerous visits to the White House in the period leading up to the loan approvals. The White House claims many of those visits were to discuss charities. When the House Energy and Commerce Committee issued subpoenas to the White House in early November for additional documents and emails as part of the committee’s ongoing investigation, the White House said no. It had already provided over 80,000 pages, and that was enough. A few days later they announced they would turn over an additional 135 pages, but that was it. This battle will continue for a while.

But during the process, a new book came out, Throw Them All Out, by Peter Schweizer of The Heritage Foundation and Breitbart.com. Schweizer demonstrates that Solyndra is just the tip of the iceberg. He was featured on CBS’s 60 Minutes and in Newsweek magazine with stories from the book. In an article about Schweizer’s findings on BigGovernment, a Breitbart site, Wynton Hall pointed out that “At least ten members of President Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign finance committee, plus more than a dozen of his campaign bundlers, benefited from sweetheart loans through the Department of Energy (DOE) that collectively dwarfed those given to Solyndra and Fisker [Automotive].” Schweizer also found that “80% of all $20.5 billion in Department of Energy loans went to President Obama’s top donors.” Schweizer says that the Obama administration may be guilty of “the greatest—and most expensive—example of crony capitalism in American history.”

In a rare front-page story on Solyndra, The Washington Post, on November 15, reported that the Obama administration had asked Solyndra to “delay announcing it would lay off workers until after the hotly contested November 2010 midterm elections that imperiled Democratic control of Congress,” according to newly released e-mails. Pay day for the top brass was not delayed, however. The Solyndra executives took substantial bonuses just before the company went bankrupt.

Operation Fast and Furious: I wrote a recent AIM Report about this scandal. Since then, Attorney General Eric Holder went back before a House committee to answer more questions, and to clear up some of his previous statements. It was a disastrous performance, in which he claimed not to have seen numerous emails addressed to him personally. He also claimed the discrepancy in the accounts of when he had heard about this scandal was insignificant. The government allowed weapons to be sold to gunrunners, and in some cases originally purchased them before reselling them. They claimed that the idea was to track these weapons as they fell into the hands of the competing gangs of the Mexican drug cartels. But the Mexican government was never informed, and hundreds of people have been killed by weapons that were part of the program. The dead included Border Agent Brian Terry and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Jaime Zapata.

No-bid contract for Siga: According to a report in The Los Angeles Times, the Obama administration “aggressively pushed a $433-million plan to buy an experimental smallpox drug, despite uncertainty over whether it is needed or will work.” The article said that senior officials in the administration took “unusual steps” to make sure that Siga Technologies, a New York based company, secured the contract. The controlling shareholder of Siga is billionaire Ron Perelman, a major Democratic Party donor.

According to the Times, Siga complained that officials at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) were “resisting the company’s financial demands.” So those officials were replaced by more senior officials, who then blocked other firms from competing and awarded Siga a no-bid, or “sole-source,” procurement.

More corruption at the DOE: The Office of the Inspector General issued areport on how well the Department of Energy has spent its stimulus dollars from the so-called Recovery Act. “You’ll be delighted to know that more than a hundred criminal investigations were launched into Energy’s handling of its mere 4% of the Obama stimulus,” reported Human Events. “[Gregory] Friedman [the IG of DOE] says ‘these involve various schemes, including the submission of false information, claims for unallowable or unauthorized expenses, and other improper uses of Recovery Act funds.’ Five criminal prosecutions have resulted, and over $2.3 million in stolen ‘stimulus’ loot has been recovered.”

One problem in all this is figuring out when a scandal is actually a scandal, and not just some partisan accusation. According to a blog post by Elspeth Reeve on The Atlantic Wire, part of The Atlantic magazine website, a scandal becomes a scandal “once the S-word is used in a reporter’s own voice in a story that runs on the front page of the [Washington] Post.” This is according to Dartmouth professor Brendan Nyhan, who said that “political scientists generally see The Washington Post as a solid indicator of elite opinion.” Thus, according to these standards, neither Fast and Furious nor Solyndra rise to the level of scandal for the Obama administration. As a matter of fact they use this standard to argue that Obama has recently set the record for the most scandal-free days of any administration since 1977.

Dana Milbank, one of the Post star reporters who apparently subscribes to this nonsense watched the Fast and Furious hearing where Eric Holder testified. “Without a doubt, the operation was a debacle,” wrote Milbank, “and it has led to untold bloodshed and friction with Mexico. The ATF’s acting chief has been reassigned, and subpoenas are flying on Capitol Hill. But it has not reached the level of a political scandal.” It got close when another Post reporter, Juliet Eilperin, called it a “controversy.” Pretty harsh.

Policy Blunders

Pipeline from Canada: In at least this one instance, Obama’s motto became “We can wait.” Here he’s referring to the Keystone XL Pipeline which offered the dual benefit of tens of thousands of good-paying jobs and help to solve our energy issues. The pipeline would transport 700,000 barrels a day of crude coming from Alberta, Canada into the U.S. But Obama chose to vote “present” on this one, and thought it better to not alienate the extreme environmentalists. He moved the decision making past next year’s election and hoped no one would notice, or care. But he should know, “The whole world is watching.”

Approval of Muslim Brotherhood involvement in new Arab governments: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave a speech in early November in which she announced the Obama administration’s lack of concern about the rise of Islamist parties throughout the Middle East. The Arab Spring has seen their power rise in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya. Sec. Clinton told the National Democratic Institute (NDI) awards dinner that “what parties call themselves is less important than what they do.” One of her aides said, “We’re less concerned about whether Islamists win or lose than we are about whether democracy is winning or losing in the process.”

Barry Rubin, the editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, is very concerned about the implications of this speech by Ms. Clinton. He wrote, “The speech can be summarized as follows:

“Islamist regimes—at least those whose ‘behavior’ is proper—are good. If Islamists exercise political power they will be moderate. Thus, the United States will not merely tolerate but will actually support Islamists taking power.”

He said that “The Obama Administration is now on the side of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hizballah, and the Taliban (“moderate” wing).

Even before the acknowledgement on November 21 that the so-called Congressional supercommittee had to admit that it failed in its effort to come to an agreement on what they call “cutting spending” by $1.2 trillion over the next decade, many in the media were starting to become more critical of Obama over various issues. On that day, November 21, it seemed to be a sea change as journalists like Howard Fineman and David Gergen joined the chorus talking about how Obama had failed by not offering any leadership in the negotiations.

But these criticisms of Obama have been rare nuggets that one finds here and there. There is no sustained criticism in the mainstream media about corruption or incompetence or even lack of leadership. As much as he might frustrate them, they still want to see him re-elected.

Here are a few recent examples of the media taking Obama to task, from unlikely sources:

Mark Halperin wrote in the November 7th Time magazine, “Democrats on Capitol Hill privately display nearly as much disdain for the Administration as their GOP counterparts, complaining about both its incompetence and its ideology. Most of all, Obama now owns a weak economy and hasn’t been able to generate his own luck.”

From an October 31st editorial in The Los Angeles Times titled, “Obama’s Secrets:” “One of the most disappointing attributes of the Obama administration has been its proclivity for secrecy. The president who committed himself to ‘an unprecedented level of openness in government’ has followed the example of his predecessor by invoking the ‘state secrets’ privilege to derail litigation about government misdeeds in the war on terror. He has refused to release the administration’s secret interpretation of the Patriot Act, which two senators have described as alarming. He has blocked the dissemination of photographs documenting the abuse of prisoners by U.S. service members. And now his Justice Department has proposed to allow government agencies to lie about the existence of documents being sought under the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA.”

The L.A. Times piece continues, saying the “policy is outrageous. It provides a license for the government to lie to its own people and makes a mockery of FOIA.” And it concludes by saying that “The Justice Department should discard the rule and start over. And Obama should reread his pronouncements about transparent government.”

Another example of criticism from the left came from Thomas Friedman of The New York Times, leading up to the deadline of the supercommittee. “Here we are in America again on the eve of a major budgetary decision by yet another bipartisan ‘supercommittee,’ and does anyone know what President Obama’s preferred outcome is? Exactly which taxes does he want raised, and which spending does he want cut? The president’s politics on this issue seems to be a bowl of poll-tested mush.”

Politico carried a column titled “Bill Daley Unplugged,” by Roger Simon. Daley is Obama’s chief of staff, who came in to replace Rahm Emanuel who left to run for mayor of Chicago. Daley spoke out of turn, and reportedly as a result saw his job cut way back. New York magazine said he was demoted.

Daley said, “all President Obama has to do to achieve this [better economic times before the election] is make a startling end run around not just the Republicans but also the Democrats, in Congress.

He added, “On the domestic side, both Democrats and Republicans have really made it very difficult for the president to be anything like a chief executive,” which “has led to a kind of frustration.”

These comments have hurt Obama, who until recently knew he could count on just about everyone in the mainstream media to hold their tongues if they had anything to say that wasn’t laudatory or could be used against Obama and his agenda. Unfortunately, this honest criticism is still a rare occurrence in the mainstream media.

Dear Fellow Media Watchdogs:

     In this report I’ve cited several signs that indicate trouble ahead for President Obama. Several media figures who have adored him, and have been very supportive of his presidency have begun to feel emboldened to criticize him. It’s more like tough love than switching sides, but taken together, it is significant nonetheless. Here are a couple more examples.

     CNN’s Anderson Cooper went after Obama recently when as part of his “We can’t wait” campaign, Obama announced a new plan to allow people whose houses are worth less than their mortgages to refinance at lower rates if they have a good payment history.

     But Cooper wasn’t buying it. He said, “it’s merely the latest in a long line of programs, 10 so far, that have not lived up to their promises. Not even close.”

     He then showed video of Obama saying that through a previous plan he had announced, “we will help between seven and nine million families…avoid foreclosure.”

     Cooper then pointed out that instead it end up only helping about 1.6 million people. He added that “out of the $50 billion the Obama administration promised to spend to help homeowners, only a fraction, $2.4 billion has actually been spent.”

      CNN’s White House correspondent Jessica Yellin stated that the homeowners most affected are people in hard-hit states such as Nevada, Arizona and Florida. She said,  “there is a large part of this that is politics because these are the states the President does have to win in 2012.”

     And perhaps most surprising of all were recent comments by MSNBC’s Chris Matthews. Matthews has been a harsh critic of the Tea Party and the entire Republican field seeking the GOP nomination. He famously said during the presidential campaign of 2008 that he “felt this thrill going up my leg” following an Obama speech.

      But in a recent interview, Matthews expressed his frustration with Obama’s presidency, before falling back in line. It was his harshest criticism to date:

     “There’s nothing to root for. What are we trying to do in this administration? Why does he want a second term? Would he tell us? What’s he going to do in his second term, more of this? Is this it? Is this as good as it gets? Where are we going?

     “He has not said one thing about what he’d do in his second term. He never tells what he’s going to do with reforming our healthcare systems, Medicare, Medicaid, how he’s going to reform Social Security. Is he going to deal with longterm debt? How? Is he going to reform the tax system? How? Just tell us,” he said.

     Matthews then reverted to form. Sort of. “Just tell us, Commander. Give us our orders and tell us where we’re going. Give us the mission. And he hasn’t done it.”•

For Accuracy in Media                                          Roger Aronoff          

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 23:51
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar


Does Upholding the U.S. Constitution Constitute a Security Threat?


by Sharon Rondeau

New Hampshire Presidential Primary Election Declaration of Candidacy signed by Obama swearing "under penalties of perjury" that he is "qualified" to be a candidate for President of the United States

(Nov. 23, 2011) — New Hampshire Attorney General Michael Delaney has reportedly asked the State police to investigate the “aggressive” behavior of several legislators following the November 18, 2011 decision of the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission to maintain Barack Hussein Obama’s name on the state ballot.

Obama has sworn on his Declaration of Candidacy for the 2012 presidential election that he is “qualified to be a candidate for president of the United States pursuant to article II, section 1, clause 4 of the United States Constitution…” despite evidence that he was born in a foreign country or otherwise does not meet the definitionof “natural born Citizen.”  Many analysts have concluded that the documentation Obama has presented is fraudulent.

It is possible that Obama is a “natural born Citizen” but ran for all public offices he has held under an alias.

While Obama and his supporters have claimedthat he was born in Hawaii, many constitutional scholars and attorneys have opined that being born on U.S. soil is not enough or even necessarily that which is required for a person to be considered “natural born.”

On April 26, 2011, CNN published an article titled “Obama was born in Hawaii. Period.”  The next day, the White House released what it claimed was proof of such:  an alleged certified copy of Obama’s long-form birth certificate purportedly obtained from the Hawaii Department of Health.  However, the image lacked an official seal normally present on certified copies and was declared aforgery by analysts almost immediately.

Delaney has stated that a member of his staff was threatened by several New Hampshire legislators who accused him of being a traitor.

Rather than face the demands from both legislators and others for answers as to why Obama’s name would remain on the ballot, Assistant Attorney General Matt Mavrogeorge and Assistant Secretary of State Karen Ladd reportedly “locked themselves in a room” and called security  “out of fear for their safety.”

One New Hampshire lawmaker who was present on November 18 stated that “There were no threats made.”  However, Speaker of the House William O’Brien has asked at least three legislators to “cooperate” with Delaney’s investigation.

Do these public servants have no confrontational skills?  How did they obtain their positions without being able to face questions from the public, including legislators sworn to uphold the state and U. S. Constitutions?  What about the oaths they took upon assuming office?  Were they really being followed by an “angry mob?”

Was it necessary to involve the State Police, or is Delaney striking back at those questioning why his office will not launch an investigation of Obama rather than them? Isn’t the attorney general the chieflaw enforcement officer of the state?

Is Delaney doing his job or running for cover, as his assistant, Mavrogeorge, did?

Video reports of the Ballot Law Commission hearing reveal no apparent threats to anyone’s safety and that state officials in New Hampshire are aware of the questions surrounding Obama’s eligibility.  At the conclusion of the hearing on Obama, one observer appeared to remind the Commission members that in 2008, they had removed from the ballot the name of a presidential candidate who was born in Egypt for being constitutionally ineligible.

Atty. Orly Taitz, who had filed a complaint with the Ballot Law Commission, had flown from California to New Hampshire overnight on November 18 to present evidence that Obama is using a fraudulent social security number, as reported by Private Investigator Susan Daniels. The Post & Email had specifically asked Taitz if anyone was hurt before, during or after the hearing, and heranswer was “No.”

Today on her blog, Taitz reported that she has contacted the legislators who are “being harassed” as a result of their objections to Obama’s name remaining on the New Hampshire ballot.  She hasrequested a rehearing of the Ballot Law Commission’s decision and stated that she plans to file a complaint against Delaney and New Hampshire Rep. and House Majority Leader David Bettencourt.  Taitz has herself accused Obama of “elections fraud, forgery and treason.”

Following the hearing, Rep. Harry Accornero asked a group surrounding him, “What are we going to do?  Are we going to let this go down?”  Later, after the group walked down a hallway, Accornero can be heard stating that “not one” fellow legislator would stand with him after he sent out an email to all members of the New Hampshire House accusing Obama of treason and asking for their support.

Why are several New Hampshire representatives under investigation but not Obama?

Obama’s former fundraiser, Tony Rezko, was sentenced to more than ten years in prison on November 22 for bribery, money laundering and fraud.  The judge in the case told Rezko that he wasguilty of being “selfish and corrupt.” Obama had sought out Rezko in order to buy a parcel of land to add to his property in the Hyde Park section of Chicago, where Louis Farrakhan lives and Malcolm X had visited Elijah Mohammad to learn about Islam.

Obama said he is a Christian but also stated that his faith is “Muslim,” with the interviewer running cover for Obama’s apparent slip of the tongue.

Why is Obama’s “regret” of dealing with Rezko enough?  Were the simultaneous land deals strictly coincidence?

As Rezko was being sentenced, Obama was visiting New Hampshire to push his purported jobs initiative.

Obama has been accused of election fraudidentity fraudsocial security fraudobfuscating his background, compromising national security, and treason, yet he remains a candidate for President of the United States.

Michael Delaney wants lawmakers from his own state’s legislature investigated.  Why not Obama?

© 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 @ 23:45
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Domingo, 20 de noviembre de 2011

Are All Five Members of the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission Democrats?



November 19, 2011

A rock formation known as the "Old Man of the Mountain" in Franconia, NH collapsed in 2003

To Whom It May Concern, the State of New Hampshire,

I have come to the conclusion that the earthquakes we have been having are our forefathers turning over in their graves as a result of what is happening in America.  The epicenter earthquake in Virginia, home of the original thirteen colonies and our founding fathers, went straight to the Washington Monument and cracked it.  One could conclude that our founding fathers are not very pleased with how this generation and administration are taking good care of America!

It is noted by the world press that the Concord Monitor publication for the State of New Hampshire calls a person that believes in the United States Constitution as “a Birther”.   One can conclude that a person that does Not believe in the United States or the Constitution “a Socialist”!  A reasonable person could say a Socialist is in the wrong country because that is not what Americans represent and we are not about to change.  I am a Natural Born Citizen with my family coming to America in the early 1600′s and I intend to follow their tradition.

According to the simpleton phrase of the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission, one only has to sign a form and pay $1,000 to get on a Presidential Ballot.  Use a Post Office Box, have a friend deliver the money and your legal counsel is a web site.  Case in Point:  Barack Obama, Chicago, IL (PO Box 8102, Chicago, IL 60680) filed by VP Biden [email protected].

The Secretary of State allows a nomination letter from a Party that does not reflect that the Candidate is a citizen, a natural born citizen, nor that the candidate was ever vetted with proof of identification or a simple Birth Certificate, knowing that the ‘law’ recognizes both parents having a child, both parents must be US Citizens and not dual citizens and knowing that Obama or whatever his legal name is without proof thereof, father was admittedly NOT a citizen of the U.S.  Further the Party Nomination Letter failed to mention Constitutionally Qualified.  I guess the SoS just assumed that these facts were an oversight, thus looked the other way, not once but twice.

Therefore, if a friend delivered a $1,000 check to your office, and Mickey Mouse placed his name on a state form and his party sent an unverified letter of no qualifications, per the constitution, without proof of identity nor birth then Mickey Mouse could run for office.  Is this correct?   One can only conclude from the actions of Friday that Mickey Mouse for President, and Goofy for Vice President will probably be filing.  Address: Disney.com.

Please re-verify that the Ballot Law Commission are all (5) Democrats.  Does this not appear rather biased to you?  Will you make the same decision if Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and Saif al-Islam also paid $1,000 and completed your state form?

Victoria B. Windsor

© 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 @ 12:32
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Presidential Candidate Follows Up with New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission



by Cody Robert Judy, Presidential Candidate

(Nov. 19, 2011) — The following letter was sent to the New Hampshire Attorney General’s office, Fox News, the Drudge Report, and many other news outlets:

Dear New Hampshire DOJ Election Law:

Thank you for your consideration of my letter/complaint. I am a candidate for office in the same party, and the same position as Barack Obama. Thus the argument of partisan politics does not enter into consideration of my complaint.

First let me say, I knew Mrs. Orly Taitz would have the problem of the Law Commission 11-18-2012, 2 pm hearing, saying they did not have jurisdiction over criminal matters when she brought up the alleged Social Security Number fraud and Fraudulent or Forged long form Birth Certificate.

However let me say, cooler thought prevailing, the criminal aspect of the allegations need not be considered to warrant prohibition on the Primary Ballot in the interest of protecting the Voter in the Primary Election from wasting a vote on a constitutionally unqualified candidate.

I hope my letter/complaint exhibits Barack Obama by his own release of his long form B.C. showed all of us, he was not eligible by the standards of a Natural Born Citizen showing his father is not a Citizen of the United States but is listed as a “Kenya, East Africa” at the time of Obama’s birth.

Of course this is in no way exhibited as a “racially prejudice fact”, but as a “disqualification fact” that is based on demand of our Constitution’s requirements for President, and this is the Supreme Law of the Land. These facts afford a removal from the Primary Ballot with the burden of further deliberation or review upon the candidate Barack Obama.

Obama holds by his own record and release of his Long Form Birth Certificate naturally a dual loyalty of inherited citizenship, which is forbidden by our Constitutions expressed demands for president as a Natural Born Citizen. This is a national security concern of voting citizens.

It does not need to be proven that it is forged or fraudulent. Obama’s Released Long form birth certificate appeals to the hard facts as prohibitory for running as a qualified candidate, or holding the office of President. If the intent of the Ballot Law Commission’s review is to prohibit unqualified candidates from the ballot in the interest of the qualifying standards of office demanded by We The People through our Constitution, Obama’s release of his long form birth certificate is where the facts come from that disqualifies him, and my witness stands against his qualification.

One interesting note to read regarding the Ballot Law Commission’s Review:
” The Ballot law commission shall hear and determine disputes arising over whether nomination papers or declarations of candidacy filed with the secretary of state conform with law. The decisions of the ballot commission in such cases shall be final as to questions both of law and fact, and no court shall have jurisdiction to review such decision.”

This is a absolute powerfully corrupt statement, as it places the review of decisions out of jurisdiction of the Judicial Branch’s Court of law including the United States Supreme Court, while at the same time leaving the “Primary Voter” without an Appeal to very important and pertinent information that includes election law and fact meant to protect the integrity of actual qualified candidates as myself, and more importantly the trust that voters give in the hope they can at the very least participate in Democracy’s Beacon of hope for the world, voting in the Primary for an actual qualified candidate.

Facts are hard to deny that are actually given by the Candidate to the Ballot Law Commission. Barack Obama need not agree whether forged or fraudulent facts; for that is not the issue. The issue, we all agree on: Obama has given these set of facts contained in his long form birth certificate, and from this, any decision allowing him on a Primary Ballot is knowingly presenting as a choice an unqualified candidate to Primary voters.

Knowingly presenting an unqualified candidate to Primary voters would be considered a dereliction of duty of the Ballot Law Commission.

You also have a point of entry and trust that needs to be considered by the Legislature of New Hampshire and the DOJ of New Hampshire regarding the integrity of the voting system as an agent to justice, our Constitution, and the Republic for which we stand.

I hope my complaint to the DOJ in New Hampshire won’t fall on deaf ears, and they will see the cracks in the side walk that need to be repaired.  Again, here are the links that detail my complaint and warrant your immediate attention, for the eyes of the Nation are on New Hampshire.

1- http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/11/18/presidential-candidate-adds-name-to-obama-election-complaint-in-new-hampshire/


3- http://inagist.com/Drudge_Report/137577430402609152/



Cody Robert Judy

The Cody Robert Judy for President 2012 U.S.C. Eligibility Campaign

© 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 @ 12:27
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Viernes, 18 de noviembre de 2011


WND Exclusive

New Hampshire board decides Obama eligibility

Attorney planning appeal based on fraud suspicions

Posted: November 18, 2011
5:55 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WND

Barack Obama

A state board in New Hampshire has decided that Barack Obama's name is good to go on the state's 2012 presidential ballot because the application was filled out properly and the $1,000 fee was paid, according to an attorney who challenged his candidacy because of suspicions of fraud.

The determination came today from the state's Ballot Law Commission, which heard arguments from attorney Orly Taitz, who had filed a complaint about Obama's candidacy that was joined by several state lawmakers.

Jerome Corsi's New York Times best-seller, "Where's the Birth Certificate?", which addresses Obama's Social Security Number, is now available for immediate shipping, autographed by the author, only from the WND Superstore

A spokesman at the commission's office today told WND that the members had "broken up" their meeting and left immediately, leaving no information about any decisions they made.

But Taitz told WND in a telephone interview that she was unable to get the board to remove Obama from the ballot, despite the evidence she submitted of alleged fraud regarding his birth certificate. The evidence, she charged, indicates he does not meet the Constitution's requirement that the president be a "natural born citizen."

She also presented allegations and evidence concerning Obama's use of a Social Security number from Connecticut, even though he has no links to the state while growing up. The use of such a number has been cited by critics as evidence of fraudulent activities.

Taitz said state officials concluded that the application for Obama to be on the ballot was correctly submitted and the fee was paid. That was the end of their concerns, she said.

The board's action:

"I cross-examined," Taitz told WND. "I said if I were to tell a lie and give you an application saying fraudulently I was born here and eligible and give you a thousand-dollar check, would you allow me on the presidential ballot?"

"If there is not a challenge," she said she was told.

She said she now will consider her options to appeal the board's decision.

"The people [attending the meeting] there were angry at how we have such corruption in government," Taitz told WND.

Her allegations of fraud are connected to Obama's Social Security number, which several experts and investigators have said needs to be explained.

She also claims fraud in the release of the following:

That's the image of a Hawaiian "Certificate of Live Birth" that Obama released in April as documentation of a Hawaiian birth. Many experts have stated on the record that they believe it is fraudulent for many reasons.

Others say Obama wouldn't qualify as a "natural born citizen" regardless of his birthplace because the Founders probably understood that term to mean a child born of citizen parents. Obama's father never was a citizen of the U.S.

Orly Taitz
Orly Taitz

New Hampshire is important, because the state holds the first presidential primary Jan. 10, 2012.

There also is documentation that the state board previously has removed candidates from ballots for a number of reasons.

Among the local officials who joined with Taitz in expressing concern about the Obama candidacy were Reps. Harry Accornero of Laconia, Lucien and Carol Vita of Middleton and Larry Rappaport of Colebrook.

"There is sufficient controversy that I want it investigated," Rappaport told the Concord Monitor. "We've never gotten an answer."

Taitz noted that the state's election code contains a statement that requires a candidate to swear to his qualification to be president pursuant to Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the United States Constitution, 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."

Taitz has been involved in a number of high-profile cases over the past few years that have challenged Obama's eligibility under the Constitution

The complaint alleged that Obama is ineligible because "he never provided any documentary evidence of his natural-born status."

Further, "The most staggering evidence is Mr. Obama's lack of a valid Social Security number and his use of a fraudulently obtained Social Security number from the state of Connecticut, a state where he never resided, which was never assigned to Obama, according to E-Verify," the complaint stated.

It alleged not only is the Obama birth documentation a modern printout, there are numerous experts who attest it is fraudulent.

"Taitz received an affidavit from scanning machines expert Douglas Vogt. … It shows further evidence of forgery, such as different types of ink used. Some of the document shows as gray scale scanning, some as black and white scanning, some color. It shows different types of letters and kerning … numerous other parameters lead to the same conclusion, that the document in question is not a copy of a 1961 type written document, but a computer generated forgery, created by cutting and pasting bits and pieces from different documents and filling in the blanks with computer graphics," the document explained.

"Obama does not have an valid identification papers, which are necessary to be a candidate on the ballot, running for the U.S. presidency, based upon New Hampshire elections law 655-17 and on Article 1, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution," Taitz wrote.

"This case shows an unprecedented level of corruption and lawlessness in the federal government and in the government of Hawaii, which allowed Obama to get on the ballot in 2008. … Petitioner demands removal of Obama from the ballot in the state of New Hampshire in the Democrat party primary and demands immediate criminal prosecution of Obama and his accomplices for elections fraud, common law fraud and uttering of forged documents."

Meanwhile, Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County in Arizona has assigned a special cold case team to investigate the possibility that Obama could use fraudulent documents to apply to be on the Arizona ballot next year.

He's said the investigators have accumulated thousands of pages of evidence and his report likely will come early in 2012.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 20:52
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Mi?rcoles, 16 de noviembre de 2011


WND Exclusive

Wow! New Hampshire wakes up to Obama's

alleged Social Security fraud ...

Hearing Friday as state lawmakers also probe president's eligibility

Posted: November 16, 2011
8:43 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WND

Orly Taitz
Orly Taitz

A hearing, with the apparent support of two state lawmakers, is scheduled before the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission to hear a complaint filed by Orly Taitz that alleges Barack Obama has used fraudulent documents and a fraudulent Social Security number.

The hearing is scheduled Friday at 2 p.m. in Room 307 of the New Hampshire Legislative Office Building, and Taitz is encouraging the public to be present.

The state holds the first presidential primary Jan. 10, 2012.

On her website, Taitz said state Rep. Harry Accornero had said he was joining in her complaint, and she expects Rep. Larry Rappoport also to be in attendance. The lawmakers could not be reached immediately for comment.

"Let's hope the elections board of New Hampshire will have the decency to refuse [to allow] Obama to appear on the ballot due to undeniable evidence of him using a stolen [Connecticut Social Security Number] … and due to the fact that he is using a computer generated forgery instead of a valid birth certificate," Taitz wrote.

Jerome Corsi's New York Times best-seller, "Where's the Birth Certificate?", which addresses Obama's Social Security Number, is now available for immediate shipping, autographed by the author, only from the WND Superstore

She noted that the election code in the state contains a statement that requires a candidate to swear to his qualification to be president pursuant to Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the United States Constitution, 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."

Taitz has been involved in a long list of high-profile cases over the past few years that have challenged Obama's eligibility under the Constitution's requirement that the president be a natural-born citizen. Some believe that means a birth in the United States, and they doubt the validity of the image of a Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth that Obama released in April.

Others say natural-born means both parents must be citizens at the time of the birth. Under that standard, Obama could not qualify, because his father was a student in the U.S. but not a citizen.

The complaint alleges that Obama is ineligible because "he never provided any documentary evidence of his natural born status."

Further, "The most staggering evidence is Mr. Obama's lack of a valid Social Security number and his use of a fraudulently obtained Social Security number from the state of Connecticut, a state where he never resided, which was never assigned to Obama, according to E-Verify," the complaint states.

It alleges not only is the Obama birth documentation a modern printout, there are numerous experts who attest it is fraudulent.

"Taitz received an affidavit from scanning machines expert Douglas Vogt. … It shows further evidence of forgery, such as different types of ink used. Some of the document shows as gray scale scanning, some as black and white scanning, some color. It shows different types of letters and kerning … numerous other parameters lead to the same conclusion, that the document in question is not a copy of a 1961 type written document, but a computer generated forgery, created by cutting and pasting bits and pieces from different documents and filling in the blanks with computer graphics," the document explains.

"Obama does not have an valid identification papers, which are necessary to be a candidate on the ballot, running for the U.S. presidency, based upon New Hampshire elections law 655-17 and on Article 1, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution," Taitz wrote.

"This case shows an unprecedented level of corruption and lawlessness in the federal government and in the government of Hawaii, which allowed Obama to get on the ballot in 2008. … Petitioner demands removal of Obama from the ballot in the state of New Hampshire in the Democrat party primary and demands immediate criminal prosecution of Obama and his accomplices for elections fraud, common law fraud and uttering of forged documents."

Meanwhile, Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County in Arizona has assigned a special cold case team to investigate the possibility that Obama could use fraudulent documents to apply for the Arizona ballot next year.

He's said the investigators have accumulated thousands of pages of evidence and his report likely will come early in 2012.

Read more: New Hampshire wakes up to Obama's alleged Social Security fraud http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=368645#ixzz1dvVUzRfR

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 21:41
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Martes, 15 de noviembre de 2011

Election Law Complaint Filed in New Hampshire


by Sharon Rondeau

New Hampshire was the first colony to declare independence from Great Britain in 1776 and is located in the northeast section of the country known as "New England."

(Nov. 15, 2011) — Atty. Orly Taitz of California has submitted an election law complaint to the State of New Hampshire regarding the positioning of Barack Hussein Obama’s name on the 2012 presidential ballot in the Granite State.

New Hampshire holds the first primary for presidential elections, which Secretary of State William Gardner recently announced will take place on January 10, 2012.

Taitz told The Post & Email that her complaint has been sent via fax and certified mail, and that “It’s already there.”  She is asking other concerned citizens to file their own complaints using the form which is available online.  She stated that other filers should indicate that they are joining her complaint.  A list of candidates from both major parties registered in New Hampshire as of October 28, 2011 shows that Obama filed for placement on the ballot on October 20, 2011.

A schedule of deadlines leading up to the January 10 primary is here.  Requirements to register have not been updated to reflect the January 10 date.

Taitz stated that she wanted to “get the ball rolling” and therefore filed her own complaint.  She stated that Rep. Laurence Rappaport (R-Coos 1) will be joining her complaint as well as Rep. Timothy Comerford (R-Epping, Fremont).  Just prior to going to press, Taitz reported on her website that Rep. Harry Accornero will also be joining the election complaint.

Rappaport had brought concerns about Obama’s eligibility to New Hampshire Attorney General Michael Delaney and Secretary of State Gardner before the 2008 presidential election, but no action was taken.  Section 655-17b of the New Hampshire election code, which contains a statement to which a presidential candidate must swear, reads, in part:

II.  I,                                 , swear under penalties of perjury that I am qualified to be a candidate for president of the United States pursuant to article II, section 1, clause 4 of the United States Constitution, 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…”

It is the responsibility of New Hampshire’s Attorney General to enforce all election laws, while the Secretary of State handles financial matters and distribution of election materials.

Secretary William Gardner has held that position since 1973.

The New Hampshire constitution was went into effect in 1784 and includes a “Right of Revolution” “whenever the ends of government are perverted.”  The state House of Representatives and state Senate are called the “General Court.”  The state Attorney General is appointed by the governor.  The Secretary of State and state Treasurer are elected by the General Court.

In speaking with Taitz, we learned that she is not challenging Obama’s constitutional eligibility for the presidency in her complaint, but rather, has raised the issues of “a forged birth certificate and a fraudulently obtained CT Social Security number.”

Taitz stated that residents of New Hampshire have “great representation” because the ratio of a representative to his constituents is one to approximately 5,000 people.  “The state representatives in New Hampshire are much closer to the people, ” she said.  “It’s the Live Free or Die state.  The other thing about New Hampshire is that anybody can file a complaint.  In other states, only residents or candidates on the ballot can file a complaint.  But in New Hampshire, any citizen of the United States of America can do so, and they have to respond.”

[Editor's Note:  There are 400 people currently serving in the New Hampshire House of Representatives.]

Taitz stated that her complaint includes approximately 80 pages of exhibits which others do not have to include with their complaints.  For those wishing to file, she advised, “Make the form similar to the one I filled out and write that they want to join the complaint by Orly Taitz.”  The address and fax number for filing complaints with the New Hampshire Attorney General are here.  Taitz stated that she needs “as many people as possible” to join her in her complaint, which includes affidavits from Linda Jordan, Susan Daniels, and Douglas Vogt.  “I provided all of the evidence showing Obama using a stolen social security number from Connecticut and a fraudulently-obtained birth certificate.  I am demanding not only the removal of Obama from the ballot, but also criminal prosecution of Obama and high governmental officials who were complicit.”

The complaint states that if after it is evaluated and a decision rendered, if either party disagrees with the decision, it is likely that she will have to fly to New Hampshire for a hearing.  She will also be traveling to Hawaii for a November 30 hearing in Honolulu.  Taitz is seeking people who can donate “frequent flyer” miles or hotel points to help defray the costs of travel. “Just the airfare to Hawaii is $550, and I need to pay for the hotel and car rents.  There are so many things.  If people can donate, that will help me a lot.”

Taitz has reproduced procedures for election complaints on her website.

Two recent appeals, one in the U.S. District Court in Washington, DC and the other with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, have cost her $450 each for a total of $900.  “I had to pay them $900 or they would have dismissed them.  The fees are staggering.”  She mentioned that FedEx and certified mail costs have also been high.

Taitz is running for U.S. Senate against incumbent Dianne Feinstein and is looking to raise $3,420 for the registration fee.  She reported that she has collected approximately $2,400 to date.  For those wishing to donate, “Orly Taitz for U.S. Senate 2012″ must be written on the check or designated on the Paypal form.

She has registered her candidacy with the Federal Elections Commission.


Editor’s Note:  An eligibility challenge based on party affiliation was filed and decided in 2006 by the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission.  The following year, the Commission approved the use of Diebold optical scanners.


© 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 @ 15:28
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Is he eligible to serve as President of the United States, or is he a usurper? Let’s analyze what we know to be true.

The Obama Eligibility Question

- Online By Paul R. Hollrah  Monday, November 14, 2011 

Never in American history has a national leader served under a darker cloud of suspicion than Barack Hussein Obama.  Was he born in Hawaii or in Kenya?  Did he become an Indonesian citizen in 1967?  Where did he spend the summer of 1981?  Did he actually attend classes at Columbia?  Did he write Dreams from My Father?  These are all interesting questions, but not the most critical ones.  The most critical question relates to his eligibility.  Is he eligible to serve as President of the United States, or is he a usurper?  Let’s analyze what we know to be true. 

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

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

To answer these questions we must examine how our political leaders, from the Founding Fathers through the present day, have defined the term “natural born;” we must understand U.S. government policy on dual citizenship; we must examine the circumstances of Obama’s birth and citizenship; and finally, we must examine the vetting process that was designed to prevent an ineligible person from ascending to the presidency or the vice presidency.

What is a “Natural Born” Citizen?

In drafting the U.S. Constitution, the Founders relied on the work of Swiss philosopher Emerich de Vattel.  In his 1758 legal treatise, The Law of Nations, Book One, Chapter 19, in a section titled “Of the citizens and natives,” Vattel defines the term “natural born Citizen” as follows:

“… The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens…  The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.  I say that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country [emphasis added].”

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

Expressing the prevailing concerns of the time, and as an expression of the fear of foreign influence that gripped the hearts of the Founders, Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers, “These most deadly adversaries of republican government (cabal, intrigue, etc.) might actually have expected to make their approach from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.  How could they better gratify this than by raising a creature of their own (a “Manchurian candidate?&rdquoGui?o to the chief magistracy of the Union?”                                           

What is likely, even probable, is that the Founders drafted Article II, Section 1 so as to reflect Vattel’s definition of a “natural born” citizen.  That is precisely why the Framers found it necessary to include in Article II, Section 1 the often overlooked and little understood words, “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…” 

At the time the Constitution was adopted there were three types of citizens: 1) The former British subjects who, having renounced all foreign allegiances and having pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, became citizens of a sovereign American nation when the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776; 2) The post-Declaration children of those who became U.S. citizens on July 4, 1776, the first “natural born” citizens of the United States, and all less than twelve years old at the time the Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788; and 3) A class of citizens comprised of those who were naturalized citizens by act of law, requiring a loyalty oath and renunciation of all foreign allegiances, and those who were dual citizens by automatic operation of foreign laws.

To fully understand the importance of the words, “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…,” it is necessary to recognize three significant dates.  Those dates are: 1) July 4, 1776, the date on which the Declaration was signed, making all citizens of the thirteen colonies citizens of the United States; 2) June 21, 1788, the date on which ratification by the State of New Hampshire made the Constitution the official law of the land; and 3) July 4, 1811, the date on which the first “natural born” citizens… those born to U.S. citizens after the signing of the Declaration on July 4, 1776… became thirty-five years of age.  (It was not until the thirty-fifth anniversary of the signing of the Declaration that the first natural born citizens became eligible to serve as president or vice president of the United States.)

Since the Founders intended that only “natural born” citizens should ever serve as president or vice president… excluding naturalized citizens and those with a history of dual nationality… it became necessary to provide an exemption of limited durationcovering those who were born prior to July 4, 1776.  For example, presidents Washington, J. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, J.Q. Adams, and Jackson were all “citizens,” but not “natural born” citizens because they were born prior to July 4, 1776.  All were “grandfathered” and made eligible under the phrase, “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…” Martin Van Buren, born to U.S. citizens on December 5, 1782, became the first “natural born” U.S. president. 

It was the simplest and easiest way of creating a body of candidates during the earliest years of the republic, unconstrained by the requirement that they be “natural born” citizens, at least 35 year of age.  Every U.S. president since Van Buren… with the exception of Chester A. Arthur, whose father was a British subject at the time of his birth, and Barack Obama, whose father was also a British subject at the time of his birth… has been a “natural born” U.S. citizen. 

The Constitution limits candidates for president and vice president to “natural born” citizens and to those who were citizens of the United States at the time the Constitution was adopted.  There can be no exceptions… not even for Barack Obama.    
In 1866, John A. Bingham, chief framer of the 14th Amendment, which granted citizenship to the freed slaves, wrote as follows: “Every human being born within the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty [emphasis added] is, in the language of the Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”

In subsequent years, as modern transportation systems were developed and international travel became commonplace, the term “natural born Citizen” evolved to include those who were born to American parents outside the continental limits of the United States… as was the case with former Michigan Governor George W. Romney (born in Mexico to American parents) and Senator John McCain (born in Panama to American parents.)

Clearly, those who drafted the U.S. Constitution and subsequent amendments knew what it meant to be a “natural born” citizen, but what of our political leaders of today? 

In the early months of 2008, at a time when Hillary Rodham Clinton was the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination and only those in the “tin foil hat” brigade of the party were taking Barack Obama seriously, a number of lawsuits were filed questioning whether Senator John McCain, having been born in the Panama Canal Zone, was a natural born U.S. citizen.

Former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, a conservative Republican, and Harvard Law professor Laurence H. Tribe, a liberal Democrat, were assigned the task of researching the issue.  In a March 19, 2008 memorandum, Olson and Tribe concluded that, “based on original meaning of the Constitution, the Framers’ intentions, and subsequent legal and historical precedent, Sen. McCain’s birth, to parents who were U.S. citizens serving on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, makes him a ‘natural born Citizen’ within the meaning of the Constitution.”

Weeks later, in an April 10, 2008 statement, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said, “Based on the understanding of the pertinent sources of constitutional meaning, it is widely believed that if someone is born to American citizens anywhere in the world they are natural born citizens. Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen [emphasis added].”

This was followed by an April 30, 2008 Senate resolution, approved by a vote of 99-0 (Senator John McCain abstaining).  The resolution declared: “Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘natural born citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.”
It is important to note that all four references… the 1866 Bingham statement, the Olson-Tribe Memorandum, the Leahy statement, and the U.S. Senate Resolution… all utilize the plural terms “parents” or “American citizens,” strongly suggesting that the “natural born” question rests, in large part, on the necessity of both parents being U.S. citizens.

While the Constitution itself does not define the term “natural born Citizen,” the legal precedent referred to in the Olson-Tribe memorandum cited above is taken from Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162(1875), the only defining precedent established by the U.S. Supreme Court.  The Court concluded in Minor 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.”

It is also important to note that, during the past decade, a number of resolutions have been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives aimed at amending Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, completely altering the traditional interpretation of the term “natural born Citizen.”  For example, in support of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s stated presidential ambitions, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), introduced House Joint Resolution 104 on September 15, 2004.  The resolution proposed to amend Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution by adding the following language:

“A person who is a citizen of the United States, who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years, and who is otherwise eligible to hold the Office of the President, is not ineligible to hold that Office by reason of not being a native born citizen of the United States.”

H.J.R. 104 was referred to the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution, where it remained through the end of the 108th Congress.  Then, early in the 109th Congress, on February 1, 2005, Rohrabacher made a second attempt with the introduction of H.J.R. 15, which contained essentially the same language as the failed H.J.R. 104 of the previous Congress.  And while it is understandable that Rohrabacher would attempt to amend the Constitution to make it possible for his own governor, a naturalized citizen, to seek the presidency, similar attempts by Democrats during the same decade are not so easily understood or explained. 

For example, on June 11, 2003, during the 108th Congress, Rep. Vic Snyder (D-AR) introduced H.J.R. 59 which would have totally eliminated the “natural born Citizen” requirement in Article II, Section 1 by substituting the following language:

“A person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years shall be eligible to hold the office of
President or Vice President.”

The Snyder proposal was followed by H.J.R. 67, introduced on September 3, 2003 by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI).  The Conyers proposal would have added the following substitute language to Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution:

“A person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years shall be eligible to hold the Office of President.”

On January 4, 2005, early in the 109th Congress, Conyers made a second attempt with the introduction of H.J.R. 2, proposing the same language as contained in H.J.R. 67 of the 108th Congress.  And on April 14, 2005, Rep. Vic Snyder made yet another attempt, introducing H.J.R. 42, containing amendatory language identical to his H.J.R. 59 of the 108th Congress. 

All of the above resolutions, proposing to send constitutional amendments to the states for ratification, suffered the same fate.  All died in committee without being acted upon. 

Any member of Congress is free to introduce a resolution proposing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  However, what distinguishes Rep. Rohrabacher’s resolutions from those of his Democratic colleagues is that his motive was clear… he was interested in making it possible for his governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, to seek the presidency.  The motivations of his Democrat colleagues, on the other hand, are a mystery; they only serve to raise important questions.

In other words, if the “natural born Citizen” requirement had not represented a major problem at any time in U.S. history, why were Democrats suddenly concerned about it in 2003, 2004, and 2005 when a young black man, the son of an American mother and an African father, was emerging as a rising star in the Democratic Party? 

So the question arises, what did Congressmen Snyder and Conyers know that caused them to offer proposed constitutional amendments in the House of Representatives?  More specifically, what did they know about Obama’s presidential ambitions and his inability to meet the “natural born Citizen” standard, and when did they know it? 

U.S. Government Policy on Dual Citizenship

The official U.S. government policy regarding dual citizenship is found in publications of the Consular Affairs Division of the U.S. Department of State, as follows:

“The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time.  Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy.  Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice…

“U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another.  Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship.  However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship…

“The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it… because of the problems it may cause.  Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law…  However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country.  They are required to obey the laws of both countries…” 

It is incomprehensible that any person who has held allegiance to any foreign sovereignty should be allowed to serve as President or Vice President of the United States.

Barack Obama’s Citizenship Status

Barack Obama tells us that he was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961, to an American mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, and to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., of Kenya, a British colony. 

Part 2, Section 5(1) of the British Nationality Act of 1948, the controlling legal authority on who is British and who is not, reads, in part, as follows: “Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth…”

Obama’s father, a Kenyan, was a British subject at the time of his birth.  Therefore, under British law, it is indisputable that Obama was born with dual US-British citizenship “by descent” from his Kenyan father and his American mother.  However, following Kenya’s independence from Great Britain on December 12, 1963, Kenya’s newly-adopted Constitution went into effect. 

Chapter VI, Section 87[3] of the Kenyan Constitution provided as follows: “(1)  Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (Barack Obama, Sr,)… shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December 1963.  Provided that a person shall not become a citizen of Kenya by virtue of this subsection if neither of his parents was born in Kenya.  (Both of Obama’s paternal grandparents were born in Kenya.)

“(2)  Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (Barack Obama, Jr.)… shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.”

In other words, on December 12, 1963, through automatic operation of Kenyan law, Obama acquired Kenyan citizenship, presumably giving him, at least temporarily, dual US-British and dual US-Kenyan citizenship.  Obama did not actively seek British or Kenyan citizenship; they were his by “automatic operation” of British and Kenyan law and “by descent” from his father.  And since there is no known evidence that Obama ever took steps to renounce his American citizenship, he automatically lost his Kenyan citizenship under provisions of Chapter VI, Section 97(1) of the Kenyan Constitution on August 4, 1984, his twenty-third birthday.

However, to complicate matters even further, the constitution adopted by the people of Kenya on August 4, 2010, brought Obama back into the fold by creating a category of Kenyan citizenship called a “citizen by birth.”  Chapter 3, Section 14 of the 2010 constitution provides as follows: “A person is a citizen by birth if on the day of the person’s birth, whether or not the person is born in Kenya, either the mother or father of the person is a citizen (of Kenya). 

What this tells us is that, since August 4, 2010, as Barack Obama sits in the Oval Office, he has been reinstated as a citizen of Kenya “by birth,” a dual citizen of the United States and Kenya. 

The Vetting Process for President and Vice President

The process established for the selection of a president and vice president provides three vetting opportunities.  The first occurs immediately following the nominating conventions when the parties certify their candidates to the state election boards so that ballots can be printed. 

All of the documents provided to the fifty state election boards by the Republican National Committee in 2008 contained, verbatim, the following affirmation:

“We do hereby certify that (at) a national convention of Delegates representing the Republican Party of the United States, duly held and convened in the city of Saint Paul, State of Minnesota, on September 4, 2008, the following person, meeting the constitutional requirements for the Office of President of the United States, and the following person, meeting the constitutional requirements for the Office of Vice President of the United States, were nominated for such offices to be filled at the ensuing general election, November 4, 2008, viz;”

The documents contained the names and home addresses of John McCain and Sarah Palin and were signed by John A. Boehner and Jean A. Inman, Chairman and Secretary, respectively, of the 2008 Republican National Convention, and notarized by Sheila A. Motzko.

However, certifications provided to the state election boards by the Democratic National Committee were not uniform.  The certification provided exclusively to the State of Hawaii, pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes §11-113, contained the following affirmation:

“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though (sic) 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”

The remaining forty-nine states received the following certification:

“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though [sic] 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively:”

Affixed were the names and home addresses of Barack Obama and Joe Biden.  The document was signed by Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travis Germond, Chairman and Secretary, respectively, of the 2008 Democratic National Convention, and notarized by Shalifa A. Williamson. 

The phrase, “… and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution” was purposely omitted.  Other than that, the two documents were identical… even to the misspelling of the word “through” in the second line of the certifications.

This tragic anomaly of American political history was first reported by writer JB Williams in a September 10, 2009 article, titled, “The Theory is Now a Conspiracy and Facts Don’t Lie.” Immediately upon publication of Williams’ article, Obama-doubters across the country began contacting their state election boards, requesting copies of the Democrat and Republican Party candidate certifications, and the full scale of the Democrats’ deception was exposed. 

So why would the Democrats eliminate the language certifying that Obama and Biden were both eligible to serve “under provisions of the U.S. Constitution?”  Is it not reasonable to assume that they knew when they nominated him that Barack Obama was ineligible to serve by virtue of the fact that he is not a “natural born” U.S. citizen?  So the question arises, what did Nancy Pelosi know, and when did she know it?  And is it Pelosi’s certification of Obama’s eligibility that the State of Hawaii has relied upon in refusing to disclose details of his long form birth certificate? 

The second vetting opportunity occurs on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December when the Electoral College meets to elect a president and vice president.  Between November 4, 2008, the date of the General Election, and December 15, 2008, the date on which the Electoral College met to cast their votes, most Democratic electors were made aware of serious questions relating to Obama’s eligibility.  None of the Democratic electors raised a serious question about Obama’s eligibility prior to casting their electoral ballots… a violation of their oath of office and a complete and total subversion of the very purpose of the Electoral College. 
The third and final vetting opportunity occurs in early January following each election when the Congress meets in joint session to certify the votes of the Electoral College.  As the final fail-safe step in the electoral process, the members of Congress have the duty to insure themselves of the qualifications of the candidates selected by the Electoral College. 

So if, in fact, the Democratic National Committee knowingly certified a candidate for the November ballot who was ineligible to serve, the Democrat members of the Electoral College failed to vet the men they elected, and no member of Congress questioned his qualifications, what are the possible alternatives?  Is it possible, as some suggest, that we simply ignore the Constitutional requirements of Article II, Section 1? 

In a December 8, 2008 discussion of the congressional certification process, Edwin Viera, Jr., Ph.D., J.D., a leading authority on the Constitution, argues that, “… the question of Obama’s eligibility vel non is not within the discretion of Congress to skirt or decide as its Members may deem politically or personally expedient. 

“Even by unanimous vote, Congress cannot constitutionally dispense with the requirement that Obama must be ‘a natural born citizen,’ by simply assuming that he is such, or by accepting what lawyers refer to as the ‘best available evidence,’ (Obama’s published certificate of live birth, versus a certified Hawaiian birth certificate).”

But what if the members of Congress fail in their responsibility?  Dr. Viera argues that, if no objection is made on the basis that Obama is not a natural born citizen… “the matter cannot be said to have been settled to a ‘constitutional sufficiency’[emphasis added],” because Congress has no power to simply waive the eligibility requirement.

When members of Congress are sworn into office they solemnly swear to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;” and to “bear true faith and allegiance to the same.”  So, one might ask, why have members of Congress not questioned Obama’s eligibility to serve as president when they were obligated to do so and when he clearly does not meet the “natural born” standard? 

In the days following the joint session of Congress on January 8, 2009, when not a single member of Congress, Republican or Democrat, chose to honor their oath of office, the members were inundated with demands that they justify that dereliction.  A great many members sought guidance from the Congressional Research Service (CRS), a division of the Library of Congress.  Jack Maskell, a CRS attorney, drew the “short straw” and was assigned the task of drafting a response.  His April 3, 2009 memorandum, provided to all members of Congress, read, in part, as follows:

“Concerning the production or release of an original birth certificate, it should be noted that there is no federal law, regulation, rule, guideline, or requirement that a candidate for federal office produce his or her original birth certificate, or a certified copy of the record of live birth, to any official of the United States government; nor is there a requirement for federal candidates to publicly release such personal record or documentation.  Furthermore, there is no specific federal agency or office that ‘vets’ candidates for federal office as to qualifications or eligibility prior to return.”

It is that memorandum, the now infamous Jack Maskell Memorandum, that members of Congress have been hiding behind since April 3, 2009.


What Dr. Viera asserts, and what any sixth-grade student would understand, is that it is not within the power of Congress to waive the eligibility requirements of Article II, Section 1 by simply ignoring them… as they have attempted to do since January 8, 2009, the Maskell Memorandum notwithstanding.  Nor is it within the power of the people, the states, or the courts to waive the eligibility requirements… short of a constitutional amendment.

That being the case, and assuming that Obama could not be convinced to voluntarily evacuate the White House, what are the alternatives?  Is it possible to impeach a usurper president or vice president when the impeachment process is designed to apply only to individuals who are fully qualified, legally elected, and officially inaugurated?  And if the House of Representatives proceeded to impeach him, would that action legitimize his illegitimate presidency? 

The most likely answer lies in the Nixon model, in which leaders of his own party would go to the White House to demand his resignation.  In Obama’s case… he being less of a gentleman and less of a patriot than Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton, or Richard Nixon… that is unlikely to happen until a substantial majority of Americans become convinced that he is a usurper and his approval rating drops below 20%.  Then, and only then, can we expect Democrats, in the interest of salvaging their own political careers, to demand that he leave.  And that will occur only after some courageous American, such as Lt. Col. Terry Lakin or New York real estate developer Donald Trump, is able to force Obama to produce his bona fides

With each passing day, the damage that Obama does makes the future of our constitutional republic more and more problematic.  Will the nation be able to survive two more years of his destructive social and economic tinkering?  If consensus can be reached on the questions surrounding Obama’s dual citizenships and the definition of the term “natural born,” then all of the remaining questions about his origins and his true identity will become academic… mere fodder for the history books. 

What cannot wait for the judgment of history are answers to the following questions:

  1. Since no Democratic presidential candidate in history has ever been in danger of failing to meet the “natural born Citizen” standard, why did congressional Democrats make four attempts to eliminate that requirement from the U.S. Constitution… twice while Obama was in his second term in the Illinois state senate and twice during his first fourteen weeks in the U.S. Senate?
  2. Since the Chairman and Secretary of the 2008 Democratic National Convention, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travis Germond, purposely dropped language from certifications sent to forty-nine of the fifty states, certifying that Barack Obama was eligible to serve under provisions of the U.S. Constitution, when was Pelosi first made aware that Obama was ineligible to serve, how widely was that known within the hierarchy of the Democratic Party, and who participated in the deception?
  3. Since Barack Obama’s former OMB director has suggested that the U.S. government would be better if it were less Democratic, and since Governor Beverly Perdue of North Carolina, an Obama ally, has called for a two year suspension of congressional elections, the American people deserve to know the source of those trial balloons and who instructed those individuals to float them.

Since the three foregoing questions are critically important.  They appear to be elements of a grand plan to establish a socialist dictatorship in the United States, with a dedicated Marxist serving as its leader.  Is there a direct relationship between the three foregoing questions and, if so, who are the co-conspirators?  The American people deserve to know.

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 15:13
Comentarios (1)  | Enviar
Viernes, 11 de noviembre de 2011


Thursday, November 10, 2011

Another Sitting Congressman Goes On The Record About Obama's Constitutional Eligibility

Conference call today with Congressman Raul Labrador

Attorney Orly Taitz: Today I was able to participate on a conference call with Congressman Raul Labrador from ID. He is a Tea Party leader and a member of the most powerful House committee on oversight, led by Darrel Issa.

Congr. Labrador is well aware of my work, he knows, who I am. Right now their number one goal is prosecution of “Fast and Furious”. They are seeking resignation or removal of Eric Holder, possible criminal prosecution of Holder.

He raised a new concern, which I did not hear before. He wanted to make sure, that the birth certificate issue will not resemble Monica Lewinsky affair. It is very important, that my supporters contact their Congressmen, their Senators, particularly ones, who sit on House Judiciary committee nd Oversight committee and reiterate, that ObamaforgeryGate is akin to Watergate, not Lewinsky affair. We are not talking about some personal matter. We are talking about a person getting in the WH, while using a stolen Social Security number and a forged BC. Labrador is a Latino and an immigration attorney. He knows full well, that someone, who is a Latino, who would be caught using a stolen SSN and a forged BC, he would spend 2 years in prison and would be deported. If GOP wants Hispanic votes, they better push this angle and show, that double standard will not be tolerated. http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=27437

Private Investigators Respond to Snopes Latest Piece on Obama's Social Security Number Reserved for Connecticut Applicants. - DETAILS HERE

Social Security Administration Found Discrepancy in Obama's Social Security Number Record - DETAILS HERE

Failed E-Verify Letter to Barack Obama From Linda Jordan - Obama's Connecticut Social Security Number - LETTER HERE

Obama guilty of at least one felony punishable by $250,000 fine and up to 5 years in prison. - DETAILS HERE

Obama's SSN Fails E-Verify System - 17 Oct 2011 Wash Times National Wkly edition - pg 5

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:01
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Lunes, 07 de noviembre de 2011


Return to the Article

November 7, 2011

Cain Accuser's Modified Limited Hangout

By Mark J. Fitzgibbons

The liberal media's coverage of news reminds me of a school of fish.  It moves as one, and even when it darts in a direction off course, it does so in unison. 

For instance, do two searches using one phrase, "Cain accuser" and another, "Solyndra subpoena."  There's no real diversity in the questions being raised or the reporting.  Intellectually, it's vacuous and boring.

The meme with the Cain accuser story is that the anonymous accuser has more credibility than Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain.  The charges leveled by the accuser against Cain may have been false, inflated or even extortive, but that is of little consequence to the story.

Speaking through her lawyer and making inconsistent claims for her privacy, the Cain accuser may have already violated the confidentiality of the nondisclosure agreement she signed with the National Restaurant Association by making statements about its existence and some of its contents.

It has been verified that Herman Cain was not a party to the nondisclosure agreement.  He is not bound by its confidentiality provisions.  He did not breach the agreement by addressing it; his accuser may have.

The Cain accuser, through her lawyer, stoked the controversy by claiming Cain's version of events is not true.  Publicly rejecting Cain's claim that he did nothing wrong may be accurate.  On the other hand, it may have been done to raise the price for her story.  It even raises the specter that she is the original source of the story broken by Politico.

Friday, after the National Restaurant Association released the Cain accuser from the confidentiality of the nondisclosure agreement, her lawyer issued a statement that "She and her husband see no value in revisiting this matter now nor in discussing the matter any further publicly or privately." (emphasis added)

After anonymously stoking the story for good reason or not, which may have been done in violation of the confidentiality requirements of the nondisclosure agreement, it is curious that the Cain accuser now sees "no value in revisiting this matter."

Instead of the inconsistent statement issued Friday by the lawyer, the Cain accuser could have issued the agreement on the spot since the NRA had released her to do so.  The lawyer could have redacted her name.  That would have provided information contained in the nondisclosure agreement without disclosing her identity.  Instead, the strategy used keeps value and a price on the story because it keeps the story open to speculation.

The inconsistencies are alarming to all but the school-of-fish media bent on damaging Herman Cain.  And, the media are predictable.  You know the story would have been treated much differently if the accused were a liberal.

Most of the media nevertheless have taken the Cain accuser's statements at face value, and have done so in swarms.  If the accusations that were the subject of the nondisclosure agreement were true, they deserve to be aired.  If the accusations were not true, then they may be defamatory if not extortive.

Contrast coverage of the Herman Cain story with reporting on the White House's obstruction of justice in response to a House subpoena in the Solyndra scandal.

A half billion dollars in taxpayer money was siphoned in what may be unlawful and unethical circumstances.  Evidence points to involvement by the White House.  Again, the reporting would be much different had the White House been in Republican hands.

With their attention trained on whether Republicans are slapping butts, the liberal media don't seem to focus on government corruption and lawbreaking.  For example, it's been disclosed that more Democratic contributors (Wall Street's Lazard, Ltd.) were paid $1 million by the Department of Energy to analyze a potential bailout of Solyndra.

Maybe the media could ask whether anyone at DOE actually does any work themselves, or do they just outsource the work and write checks to Democratic contributors?

As to the subpoena, the White House is not protected by the Fourth Amendment's guards against unreasonable searches and seizures.  The White House instead has chosen to rely on "Executive Privilege."  Unlike the Speech and Debate privilege for Members of Congress found in Article I, Executive Privilege is found nowhere in the text of the Constitution.

Still, the media seem to report without question the talking points from the White House that the subpoena is motivated by partisan politics.  Obviously, the same could be said about Democrats who refused to vote for the House subpoena to gather documents and evidence about what appears to be lawbreaking that may have been at least influenced by the White House.

In the parlance of the Fourth Amendment, there is probable cause for the House subpoena, yet even the Republican chairman of the committee issuing the subpoena, Fred Upton, is too easily conceding to Executive Privilege as a means to hide government lawbreaking.

Upton seems willing to swim with the fish.

David Mayer's excellent book, The Constitutional Thought of Thomas Jefferson, describes in terrific detail the conflicting views of Jefferson about the First Amendment protections for the printing press.  Jefferson talked of the "demoralising licentiousness" of the newspapers of his day. 

Mayer quotes Jefferson's draft for the Virginia Constitution:  "Printing presses shall be free, except (so far as they or their managers shall be subject to the private action of any individual) where by commission of private injury they shall give cause to private action," meaning lawsuits by private individuals defamed by the press.

Yet Jefferson also understood the value of the printing press, calling it "a formidable censor of public functionaries, by arraigning them at the tribunal of public opinion."  Jefferson said that "the people are the only censors of their government," otherwise government officials "shall all become wolves."

The Cain and Solyndra affairs show that the media today engage in licentiousness without holding government officials accountable.

Jefferson might view that as the worst combination.  It's certainly boring -- and boorish -- as heck.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2011/11/cain_accusers.html at November 07, 2011 - 08:09:41 AM CST

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:11
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
S?bado, 05 de noviembre de 2011



U.S. Capitol

President’s socialist takeover must be stopped By Jeffrey T. Kuhner The Washington Times

President Obama has engaged in numerous high crimes and misdemeanors. The Democratic majority in Congress is in peril as Americans reject his agenda. Yet more must be done: Mr. Obama should be impeached.

He is slowly – piece by painful piece - erecting a socialist dictatorship. We are not there – yet. But he is putting America on that dangerous path. He is undermining our constitutional system of checks and balances; subverting democratic procedures and the rule of law; presiding over a corrupt, gangster regime; and assaulting the very pillars of traditional capitalism. Like Venezuela ‘s leftist strongman, Hugo Chavez,Mr. Obama is bent on imposing a revolution from above – one that is polarizing America along racial, political and ideological lines. Mr. Obama is the most divisive president since Richard Nixon. His policies are Balkanizing the country. It’s time for him to go.

He has abused his office and violated his oath to uphold the Constitution. His health care overhaul was rammed through Congress. It was – and remains – opposed by a majority of the people. It could only be passed through bribery and political intimidation. The Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker Kickback, the $5 billion Medicaid set-aside for Florida Sen. Bill Nelson – taxpayer money was used as a virtual slush fund to buy swing votes. Moreover, the law is blatantly unconstitutional: The federal government does not have the right to coerce every citizen to purchase a good or service. This is not in the Constitution, and it represents an unprecedented expansion of power.

Yet Obamacare’s most pernicious aspect is its federal funding of abortion. Pro-lifers are now compelled to have their tax dollars used to subsidize insurance plans that allow for the murder of unborn children. This is more than state-sanctioned infanticide. It violates the conscience rights of religious citizens. Traditionalists – evangelicals, Catholics, Baptists, Muslims, Orthodox Jews – have been made complicit in an abomination that goes against their deepest religious values. As the law is implemented (as in Pennsylvania ) the consequences of the abortion provisions will become increasingly apparent. The result will be a cultural civil war. Pro-lifers will become deeply alienated from society; among many, a secession of the heart is taking place. I would add that, he has also granted hundreds of waivers to groups, organizations and companies that supported his candidacy, who claimed hardship if not excluded from Obamacare. Mr. Obama is waging a frontal assault on property rights. The BP oil spill is a case in point. BP clearly is responsible for the spill and its massive economic and environmental damage to the Gulf. There is a legal process for claims to be adjudicated, but Mr. Obama has behaved more like Mr. Chavez or Russia ‘s Vladimir Putin: He has bullied BP into setting up a $20 billion compensation fund administered by an Obama appointee. In other words, the assets of a private company are to be raided to serve a political agenda. Billions will be dispensed arbitrarily in compensation to oil-spill victims – much of it to Democratic constituents. This is cronyism and creeping authoritarianism.

Mr. Obama’s multicultural socialism seeks to eradicate traditional America . He has created a command-and-control health care system. He has essentially nationalized the big banks, the financial sector, the automakers and the student loan industry. He next wants to pass “cap-and-trade,” which would bring industry and manufacturing under the heel of big government. The state is intervening in every aspect of American life – beyond its constitutionally delegated bounds. Under Mr. Obama, the Constitution has become a meaningless scrap of paper.

To provide the shock troops for his socialist takeover, Mr. Obama calls for “comprehensive immigration reform” – granting amnesty to 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens. This would forge a permanent Democratic electoral majority. It would sound the death knell for our national sovereignty. Amnesty rewards lawlessness and criminal behavior; it signifies the surrender of our porous southern border to a massive illegal invasion. It means the death of American nationhood. We will no longer be a country, but the colony of a global socialist empire.

Rather than defending our homeland, Mr. Obama’s Justice Department has sued Arizona for its immigration law. He is siding with criminals against his fellow Americans. His actions desecrate his constitutional oath to protect US citizens from enemies foreign and domestic. He is thus encouraging more illegal immigration as Washington refuses to protect our borders. Mr. Obama’s decision on this case is treasonous.

As president, he is supposed to respect the rule of law. Instead, his administration has dropped charges of voter intimidation against members of the New Black Panther Party. This was done even though their menacing behavior was caught on tape: men in military garb brandishing clubs and threatening whites at a polling site. A Justice Department lawyer intimately involved in the case, J. Christian Adams, resigned in protest. Mr. Adams says that under Mr. Obama, there is a new policy: Cases involving black defendants and white victims – no matter how much they cry for justice – are not to be prosecuted. This is more than institutionalized racism. It is an abrogation of civil rights laws. The Justice Department’s behavior is illegal. It poses a direct threat to the integrity of our democracy and the sanctity of our electoral process.

The gun running of “fast and furious” and continuing attempt to cover up, pass the blame and hide from the responsibility by Obama and Holder is indicative of Obama’s ignoring the Constitution and his lawlessness. It was undoubtedly an effort to create a public outcry for more gun control. In my opinion, his plan also was to cause chaos for the Mexican citizens by letting the guns go into the drug cartels’ hands and terrorize the Mexican citizens. Forcing them to flee north across the border. Which would create a need for a refugee program for the fleeing Mexicans. Hence, an urgent need for amnesty for the sudden influx of illegal immigrants.

Corruption in the administration is rampant. Washington no longer has a government; rather, it has a gangster regime. The Chicago way has become the Washington way. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is a political hit man.. He is an amoral, ruthless operator. It was Mr. Emanuel who reached out to Rep. Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania Democrat, offering a high-ranking job in the hopes of persuading Mr. Sestak to pull out of the primary against Sen. Arlen Specter. It was Mr. Emanuel who offered another government position to Andrew Romanoff to do the same in the Colorado Democratic Senate primary. And it was Mr. Emanuel – as the trial of former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich has revealed – who acted as the go-between to try to have Valerie Jarrett parachuted into Mr. Obama’s former Senate seat. The only question was: What did Mr. Blagojevich want in exchange?

This is not simply sleazy Chicago machine politics. It is the systematic breaking of the law – bribery, attempt to interfere (and manipulate) elections using taxpayer-funded jobs, influence peddling and abuse of power.

The common misperception on the right is that Mr. Obama is another Jimmy Carter: an incompetent liberal whose presidency is being reduced to rubble under the onslaught of repeated failures. The very opposite, however, is true. He is the most consequential president in our lifetime, transforming America into something our Founding Fathers would find not only unrecognizable, but repugnant. Like all radical revolutionaries, he is consumed by the pursuit of power – attaining it, wielding it and maximizing it. Mr.. Obama’s fledgling thug state must be stopped.

It is more crucial now than ever that the leadership in the House instigate a committee to investigate every aspect of Obama’s administration, his cabinet and his czars. He will stop at nothing, we the people should stop at nothing and turn over every stone Obama has placed to bury our Constitution.

If Republicans win back Congress in November, they should – and likely will – launch formal investigations into this criminal, scandal-ridden administration. Rep. Darrell Issa, California Republican and ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has promised as much. Mr. Obama has betrayed the American people. Impeachment is the only answer. This usurper must fall.

Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute, a Washington think tank. He is the host of “The Kuhner Show” (Trywww.jeffkuner.com Gui?o

SOURCE: KUHNER: President’s socialist takeover must be stopped – Washington Times

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 21:06
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Martes, 01 de noviembre de 2011


JustiaGate: CEO Tim Stanley Admits Publishing “Mangled” Supreme Court Opinions – The Oyez Connection – SCOTUS Response.

Posted in Uncategorized on October 31, 2011 by naturalborncitizen

On Oct. 24, 2011, in an interview with CNET, Justia CEO Tim Stanley finally spoke publicly to address JustiaGate.  This was four days after the release of my report concerning 25 US Supreme Court cases scrubbed by Justia at their “Supreme Court Center”.  Stanley admitted that the cases identified in that report had, in fact, been published in a corrupted manner.  The CNET report also indicates that the corruption of data was more widespread than we knew:

“Tim Stanley, told CNET today that some citations were mangled because of a programmer’s error…’The issue was not limited to the cases these folks are focused on.’ “

[See Dianna Cotter's investigative report released earlier today, "JustiaGate: The Cover-Up Continues", which dismantles Stanley's regex defense.]

Prior to the CNET interview, the public was able to witness firsthand the progression of changes made to the 25 cases which cited Minor v. Happersett.  However, concurrently with the release of Tim Stanley’s only public comments on the matter, Justia also placed “robots.txt” code over their entire Supreme Court Center domain.  This drastic response withdrew from the Wayback Machine all previous snapshots of every Supreme Court opinion ever published by Justia, not just the 25 exposed here.

When asked about this cover up by CNET’s Senior Political Correspondent, Declan McCullagh, Stanley stated that the cases were removed,  “because they have errors in them, not to cover up this issue.”  But removal does, in fact, cover up the issue to the detriment of the public at large, and more specifically to the detriment of those who relied upon the false data.

In a separate report concerning Justia’s great influence over the online legal community (it’s impossible to hyper-link paid services such as Lexis and Westlaw), a 21 minute audio interview with Stanley from Jan. 2007 emerged, wherein he made the following comments illustrating who the primary users of Justia are:

“The primary users of it tend to be lawyers or attorneys looking for legal information or looking for case-law, or looking for information from some of the legal blogs that are online. And the other sort of major group of users tends to be law students or other students in the college environment or high schools that are looking for information on the US Government and sort of how the court system works.

Obviously, the legal system does not work if cases are “mangled”.  Instead of hiding the corrupted data, Justia must publicly document the damage to each case so that those who visited Justia between 2008-2011 may know the falsehoods they relied upon.

Justia’s stated mission is, “To advance the availability of legal resources for the benefit of society“.  Hiding the evidence does not benefit anyone but Justia (and Obama).  It bears repeating that those cases remained altered for approximately three years.  And now that Stanley has removed previous versions of the cases from the Wayback Machine, there is no telling how many corrupted cases were fed to the public by Justia servers thereby affecting the national dialogue on POTUS eligibility and perhaps other important issues as well.

Justia must comprehensively inform the country as to the exact damage done to our national body of Supreme Court case law.

Because of the dire implications of this legal tragedy, Tim Stanley has a duty to reveal exactly how much false data was published disguised as genuine opinions of the United States Supreme Court.  Otherwise, for those who were misled, directly or indirectly (via news, blogs, comments, etc.), Justia’s versions usurped the law which therefore became subservient to Justia’s corruption. 

Not only attorneys were affected, students were too.  And students don’t have access to expensive paid services such as Lexis and Westlaw.  Justia would have been the last stop for those students.  They had no reason to question the authenticity of the corrupted cases.  Those who relied upon Justia’s “mangled” opinions are entitled to know the depth of the deception.  Only a complete documentation will enable those affected to change their documents and/or their minds according to the genuine opinions of the US Supreme Court rather than remaining in a state of educational subservience to Justia’s failures.

Instead, Stanley has taken the opposite approach and has covered his mistakes up by removing access to them from the Wayback Machine.  This deprives affected persons from knowing if their research at Justia was accomplished by using corrupted opinions.  The entire academic community, legal or otherwise, should demand a forthright revelation from Justia.


If Tim Stanley does not thoroughly document and release all of the “mangled” information, the US Supreme Court should firmly insist that he do so.  And not simply because the Court must be vigilant that its rulings be respected, but also because Justia gives the false appearance of being endorsed by the US Supreme Court.  Justia has created this false appearance by including the following header with every published US Supreme Court opinion, “US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez“  (click image to enlarge):



Justia is one of the prime benefactors of the Oyez Project:

“The Oyez Project at Chicago-Kent is a multimedia archive devoted to the Supreme Court of the United States and its work. It aims to be a complete and authoritative source for all audio recorded in the Court since the installation of a recording system in October 1955. “

While Oyez is listed at the US Supreme Court’s website as a source of Supreme Court information, Justia is not.

However, Justia has used its status as a prime benefactor of Oyez to piggy-back upon Oyez thereby giving the false impression that the US Supreme Court endorses Justia while it does not.

Justia’s ruse here is a sad attempt at buying a second-hand SCOTUS endorsement, and it’s another creepy example of the non-existent ethics emanating from Justia’s subversive servers.  Furthermore, Justia’s headers have implicated Oyez in the scandal, since the header implies both Justia and Oyez are responsible for having published the mangled cases.

Oyez does not publish a phone number at their site.  I left a message at the Oyez.org feedback box under the listed category of “erroneous information” which included the following query:

“Since every case published by Justia has a header which states, “US SUPREME COURT CASES BY JUSTIA & OYEZ”, Oyez is now implicated in the scandal.  I would appreciate a comment addressing both the scandal, and the header at Justia.” 

I will report back if the query is answered.


I initially received a candid and pointed response concerning the alleged subversive activity by Justia from a staffer at the US Supreme Court’s Public Information Office.  But, at this time, Patricia McCabe Estrada, Deputy Public Information Officer, has asked me not to print the original response, requesting that I print “no comment” instead.  Out of respect for the Court, I have refrained from publishing the initial comment.  I have faith the US Supreme Court will request that Justia bring the hidden information documenting the full extent of the mangled cases to the attention of the public so those who erroneously relied upon Justia’s corrupted versions of US Supreme Court rulings may know the truth of the law.

If the US Supreme Court does nothing more to address this scandal, I will publish the initial comment along with all of my correspondence between myself and the Deputy Public Information Officer since that correspondence acknowledges the prior comment, and bears witness to our email discussions concerning it.

Leo Donofrio, Esq.

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:11
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar



Sheriff Joe's posse delivers promised Obama surprise

Panel probing eligibility for 2012 ballot wants to see original birth certificate

Posted: October 31, 2011
8:38 pm Eastern

© 2011 WND

Sheriff Joe Arpai

Arizona's maverick Sheriff Joe Arpaio promised surprises in his jurisdiction's investigation of Barack Obama's eligibility for the presidential ballot and his Cold Case Posse is delivering – raising questions that touch on the authenticity of the long-form birth certificate issued last April and the possibility Obama is using a fraudulent Social Security Number.

Sources close to the investigation say the posse has decided it needs to see original birth records before it can conclude whether Obama should be eligible for the presidential ballot in 2012, not an electronic file or scanned copies.

The sources say the panel needs to examine the microfilm documenting Obama's birth, as well as the ink-and-paper original 1961 birth records the Hawaii Department of Health is holding in its vault.

The PDF file and various scanned copies of the birth certificate that the White House released April 27 are simply not good enough, the posse has determined.

Autographed copies of Jerome Corsi's best-seller "Where's the Birth Certificate?" are available only from the WND Superstore

Earlier this month, WND senior staff reporter Jerome R. Corsi spent 18 hours over a two-day period in Arizona briefing the Cold Case Posse on a wide range of evidence regarding Obama's eligibility.

"The posse wants to see the entire microfilm roll containing Obama's birth certificate, not just a microfilm copy of Obama's long-form birth certificate in isolation," Corsi explained. "An individual microfilm copy could be forged, but forging the entire microfilm reel on which Obama's birth certificate is in sequence would be almost impossible."

Also, Corsi said, the posse wants the ink-and-paper original 1961 Obama birth records still held in vault by the Hawaii Department of Health to be released publicly and subjected to independent court-authorized forensic examination.

Corsi affirmed that the posse's conclusion it needs to see the Obama birth certificate microfilm is part of the "shock" that Arpaio warned would be forthcoming, when he spoke last week to the Surprise Tea Party group meeting in Surprise, Ariz.

The focus on the microfilm records of Obama's birth arose after Arpaio's investigators realized the birth certificates of twins born the day after Obama, the Nordykes, had been released as white-on-black copies of microfilm to the family by the Hawaii Department of Health in 1966.

WND reported in July 2009 that Mrs. Eleanor Nordyke made public the copies in an article by the Honolulu Advertiser.

Eleanor Nordyke displays photostats of her twin daughters' birth certificates (Courtesy Honolulu Advertiser)

WND also has reported that the Obama birth certificate's number appears to be out of sequence with the birth certificates of the Nordyke twins.

The Nordyke twins were born Aug. 5, 1961, one day after Obama, and their birth certificates were registered Aug. 11, 1961, three days later than Obama. Yet their birth certificates have lower numbers.

Susan Nordyke, the twin born first, has certificate number 10637, and her sister Gretchen has certificate number 10638. Obama, born Aug. 4, 1961, and registered Aug. 8, 1961, has certificate number 10641.

"In 1961, Barack Obama was not a celebrity," Corsi commented. "If the Nordyke twins birth certificates were reduced to microfilm or microfiche by 1966, the date Mrs. Nordyke got the copies she made public, then Obama's birth certificate should have been reduced to microfilm or microfiche at the same time."

Corsi also indicated that the Arizona posse has interviewed court-certified forensic examiners who have advised that they can only issue an expert opinion on whether Obama's birth certificate is a forgery if they can examine the original ink-and-paper records.

Corsi told WND the Arpaio investigation is far-reaching in scope.

In addition to examining whether or not the long-form birth certificate is a forgery, the Cold Case Posse is examining evidence that Obama may have a fraudulent Social Security Number. The posse also is looking at records pertaining to Obama's birth narrative that suggest Barack Obama Sr. may not be the biological father.

"In total, the Cold Case Posse has assembled some 2,000 pages of evidence in the case," Corsi explained, "and is now preparing to conduct interviews to examine a wide range of questions, including that Obama may not be qualified to be president under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution because he was a dual citizen at birth, given that his father was listed as a citizen of Kenya when the future president was born."

Corsi said the Cold Case Posse is currently in the process of briefing various Arizona state officials about the progress of the investigation.

"Sheriff Arpaio said this would be a thorough and diligent investigation," Corsi said, "and that is exactly what the investigation has become. Sheriff Arpaio once again has proven to be a man of his word."

Read more: Sheriff Joe's posse delivers promised Obama surprise http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=362625#ixzz1cSh0f8y5

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 8:56
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar