Lunes, 30 de enero de 2012

Monday, January 30, 2012

Media Blackout in Obama Georgia Ballot Eligibility Case

PLEASE take the time to view this very important video and send it to everyone you know!

Hat tip for video:

Cry and Howl states:

"This pretty much confirms the fraud perpetrated by the Congress and the Supreme Court."

As concerned U.S. Citizen Patriots await the decision from Judge Malihi of the Georgia hearing on whether or not Barack Hussein Obama's name can legally appear on the Georgia ballot for the 2012 election, WorldNetDaily has been sharing written articles about Obama's ineligibility ever since the 2008 election.

Haven't we all been hearing that this issue needed to be solved before the vote occurred in 2008? Well, now we have a second chance to make sure that an ineligible candidate for POTUS does not get on the ballot(s) in either Georgia or any other state.

Canada Free Press reminds us:

Though Hillary Clinton rarely gets the credit anymore for it, she was the ‘mother’ of the ‘birther’ movement. While many people know the “birther” movement as one challenging President Obama’s birth certificate and birth place, there is another aspect of it that often gets overlooked. This aspect is that of him meeting the ‘natural born’ clause of the Constitutional requirement to be president.

When John McCain’s eligibility was challenged during the 2008 campaigns, Congress, including Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama, declared he was “natural born” and eligible due to him being born of two American citizen parents. Barack Obama, himself, by his own admission, does not meet this criteria because his father was a British subject. This is backed up by the birth certificate he produced April 27, 2011."

The interest in this case is skyrocketing across the blogosphere. Everyone is waiting anxiously for the judge's decision. Since this was the ONLY case to be adjuticated (all other cases were dismissed due to lack of standing) the good news is that the state of Georgia REQUIRES candidates to be completely vetted before any individual who wants to run for the position POTUS gets on the ballot. This is a new election, new day, and new requirement that is separate from what had happened in 2008. Obama is like any other person who is requesting to get on the ballot in that state, as well as all others.

The fact that the plaintiffs did not just accept a default judgment, but wanted to present some of the most crucial the evidence against Obama that they have accumulated over the past four years, brings in another important fact for the judge to consider.

Note these comments from the over 300 over at the WorldNetDaily site:

1badland66 1 comment
Obama thumbs his nose at all of our laws. He selectively enforces only those laws that he agrees with. His justice department is just as bad and with fast and furious nipping at their heels it is only a matter of time before Obama and Holder get caughtith their hand in the cookie jar. Maybe we can end all of this when we rid this country of him in 2012. What a blessing that would be for this nation.
A Like Reply 16 hours ago 3 Likes


BKOfama 2 comments
"Take your message of equality of achievement, take your message of economic dependency, take your message of enslaving the entrepreneurial will and spirit of the American people somewhere else. You can take it to Europe, you can take it to the bottom of the sea, you can take it to the North Pole, but get the hell out of the United States of America," Rep. Allen West (R-FL) said at the Palm Beach County Republican Party Lincoln Day dinner. West represents the district in the U.S. Congress. show more show less
A Like Reply 16 hours ago 6 Likes

Way to go Rep. West! Woo Hoo!!!

The Resolute Voice, Commentator and Advocate 6 comments

To say that someone using a fraudulent Social Security number can continue to do so as long as the Social Security Administration won't clarify the situation is also ridiculous. Try doing it and see what happens. II believe it's called identiy theft, a felony. But then, I guess Mr. Obama is above the rule of law?
Reply 17 hours ago 10 Likes


Adam Moreira 2 comments

There is a statute of limitations on it even if fraudulent.
Reply 16 hours ago in reply to The Resolute Voice 0 Like


Thelonglegmackdaddy 1 comment Birthers claim that a use of fraudulent SS Number from Obama is on going. The Statute of limitation only begins to toll after the crime is discovered by law enforcement so the Statute of Limitations is not a relevant issue in this instance.
13 hours ago in reply to Adam Moreira 2 Likes


Thelonglegmackdaddy 3 comments The reason that the Social Security Administration is not paying this any attention is because Obama is using the same SS number that they gave him and therefore there is nothing to investigate.

Reply 16 hours ago in reply to The Resolute Voice 3 Likes

Cashman57 1 comment LOL!!
keep spreading it on thick. The SS administration did not give that number to 0bama, his granny did. That number is not registered in the name of 0bama, anywhere. If he had legally obtained the number that would be one thing, but, that number was issued to someone else. 0bama did not refute that and his absence at the hearing where that evidence was admitted and sworn testimony was heard proves that he does not have a right to that number. He consented to the election laws in GA. by asking to be on their primary. He acknowledged the subpoena with his attorney responding to both the judge and Sec. of State Kemp. By refusing to refute the sworn testimony he has agreed that he is not eligible for the office and is not legally using a SS#.

I'll bet you are your fellow truth haters are sick over his confession. You probably even believed he was telling the truth, but, when the truth came out in GA. he had nothing to say, no defense, basically admitting to every word of the sworn testimony.
A Like 16 hours ago in reply to Thelonglegmackdaddy 5 Likes


poetopoet 1 comment
Collapse Expand If and when any U. S. Federal or State Court ignores and abandons the tenants of the law, meaning “We the People”, the tenants are its citizens who have the right to enforce that right by that law, called the right of suffrage (to vote), that is mandatory, given by the supreme law of the land, The U. S. Constitution, entrusted to each state individually.

Nothing supersedes the U. S. Constitution and nothing will. We the People have put our trust into our elected officials to protect and enforce those rights, to the point where “We the People” cannot even trust ourselves from ourselves or them. Today, with the onslaught and erosion of our personnel freedoms divided by party lines and affiliations. Now each state’s Electoral College will cast their deciding votes, upon each states vetted candidate and voters choice, not the veiled coronation by the mass media or the corrupt DNC or the GOP, whether popular or not. For “We the People” have abandoned and abdicated that right, by letting an illegitimate foreign child to rule the U.S., who is succinctly forbidden to, by documented law, the U.S. Constitution, Article II, § 1(5).

Unfortunately, no one, absolutely no one except a lone Georgia Administrative Judge will defend “We the People”, please God love him and protect him, before anarchy begins.

Amen to that!

Also see:

posted by null at American Thinker - 8 hours ago
Last week a sitting president ignored a subpoena to a historic court hearing that discussed his eligibility to run for a second term. Isn't there a headline in there somewhere?
Important video to view here:
Hat tips to all links.

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 12:04
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Domingo, 29 de enero de 2012

Will court allow Obama to be above the law?: Message from Van Irion- A Georgia Ballot Challenge Hearing Attorney

Posted by By  at 29 January, at 09 : 19 AMPrint

Will court allow Obama to be above the law?: Message from Van Irion- A Georgia Ballot Challenge Hearing Attorney
“Our President openly showed that he believes he is completely above the law. I wonder if the court even noticed its own death certificate. We will see in a few days.”


Fellow Constitutionalists,

One of my earliest childhood memories is of my parents talking about Nixon and the Watergate scandal. I remember the newspaper headline: “Nixon Resigns!” President Nixon’s fight against court subpoenas made international news. Yesterday President Obama completely ignored a court subpoena, and the world shrugged.

Obama’s behavior yesterday is even more disturbing than Nixon’s. Nixon at least respected the judicial branch enough to have his attorney’s show up in court and follow procedure. Nixon’s fight in the courts followed existing law. Nixon acknowledged the authority of the judicial branch even while he fought it. Obama, on the other hand, essentially said yesterday that the judicial branch has no power over him. He ordered his attorneys to stay away from the hearing. He didn’t petition a higher court in a legitimate attempt to stay the hearing. Instead he showed complete contempt for the entire judicial branch and for the rule of law. Rather than respecting the legal process Obama went around the courts and tried to put political pressure directly on the Georgia Secretary of State. When that failed, he simply ignored the judicial branch completely.

The rule of law, and our three-branch system of government, now hang in the balance. If the Georgia court issues a ruling on the merits and an order finding Obama in contempt of court, and if that contempt order actually results in real punishment of some kind, then we will still have a Constitutional Republic. If this doesn’t happen, then Obama will have been rewarded for showing complete contempt for the judicial branch.

Understand that the goal of the Georgia ballot challenge was to have a court rule on the merits of the Constitutional question: Does the term “natural born citizen” in Article II of the Constitution, require a Presidential candidate to have two parents that were U.S. citizens at the time the candidate was born? Obama wants to avoid having a court rule on this question. That is why he didn’t show up and ordered his attorneys to not show up. He was hoping that the Georgia court would enter a default judgment rather than rule on the merits. If the court enters a default judgment, Obama will have succeeded in avoiding the Constitutional eligibility question. He will then appeal the default judgment, get the appellate court to suspend the default judgment pending appeal, and then delay the appeal until after the primary. This is undoubtedly Obama’s plan.

If the Georgia Court rules that Supreme Court precedent must be followed and therefore Obama simply does not meet the minimum Constitutional requirements to hold the office of President, then we will at least have succeeded in finding one court in the nation willing to do its job. If that court finds Obama in contempt of court, then we still have three viable branches of government. The Georgia court has the authority to do both of these things. The world should be holding its breath.

Unfortunately the world is apparently unaware that a great Republic is on life support. The Roman Empire died a slow death. It’s death was so gradual that few people living at that time probably noticed the individual events that marked the death throes of that great empire. Apparently the same is true of America. Yesterday marked a stunning turn of events in the constant power struggle between the three branches of our government. Our President openly showed that he believes he is completely above the law. I wonder if the court even noticed its own death certificate. We will see in a few days.

I will certainly try to explain this to the court in our proposed findings of fact and law that the court requested we file before February 5th.

All of your encouragement and prayers have been greatly appreciated. They are needed even more over the next few weeks. This battle is FAR from over. And it has taken on importance beyond what we predicted (which is truly astounding). Please tell everyone you know about Obama’s contempt of the judicial branch. Please explain to them what it really means. Even those that agree with Obama politically and disagree with our ballot challenge should be shocked, appalled, and scared of Obama’s contempt for the judicial system.


In Liberty,

Van Irion

Co-Founder, Lead Counsel


9040 Executive Park Drive, Suite 200

Knoxville, TN 37923

Phone/Fax:             423-208-9953




Only a natural born citizen can legally be President of the USA.  ”Obama” is not either. See:

Subscribe free to Please forward. We’re also on Facebook



Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:16
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Viernes, 27 de enero de 2012

January 27, 2012

Georgia Ballot Challenge: Obama Walks On By

By Cindy Simpson and Alan P. Halbert

Two AT writers attended yesterday's hearing in Georgia over President Obama's eligibility for the presidential ballot. Cindy Simpson writes:

President Obama has a habit of turning his back and walking away from those with whom he disagrees, as recently discovered by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer. Professor John Lott, in an interview with Teri O'Brien, recalled similar experiences with Obama while at the University of Chicago.

Ms. O'Brien commented to Professor Lott: "Gods don't debate. They just issue decrees."

And apparently they also tend to place themselves above the law.

On January 26, I was in Atlanta to observe the hearings on the challenges to Obama's eligibility to appear on Georgia's 2012 ballot. In two previous American Thinker blog posts, "The Birthers Went Down to Georgia" and "Georgia on Obama's Mind," I described the content and history of the cases.

The courtroom was crowded to maximum capacity; however, the table for the defense was notably vacant. The defendant, Obama himself, was also not in attendance, even though the judge last week refused to quash the subpoena requesting his presence. Judge Michael Malihi, in his denial, stated:

...Defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend. Defendant's motion suggests that no President should be compelled to attend a Court hearing. This may be correct. But Defendant has failed to enlighten the Court with any legal authority...evidencing why his attendance is "unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony... [is] irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary..."

Obama's attorney, Michael Jablonski, had warned of his absence in a defiant and last-minute move on the afternoon of January 25, via a letter he sent to Georgia's Secretary of State Brian Kemp. He requested that Kemp "bring an end to this baseless, costly and unproductive hearing by withdrawing the original hearing request as improvidently issued." Jablonski's letter concluded: "We await your taking the requested action, and as we do so, we will, of course, suspend further participation in these proceedings, including the hearing scheduled for January 26."

A few hours later, the blogosphere lit up with the news that Secretary Kemp had responded with a letter stating that the hearings would continue on the 26th as scheduled, and concluded with the warning: "...if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril."

And the hearings did proceed, although approximately 20 minutes late, after Judge Malihi requested a pre-hearing conference with all of the attorneys in his chambers.

Van Irion of the Liberty Legal Foundation presented his case first, followed by J. Mark Hatfield and Orly Taitz. Irion's argument focused on the definition of "natural born" citizen in the holding of Minor v Happersett and the principle of "statutory construction" in the interpretation of the 14th amendment. Hatfield added the fact that the Interpretations of the Immigration and Naturalization Service recognize the delineation between "natural born" and "native-born" citizenship.

Orly Taitz also ably presented her evidence regarding the legitimacy of Obama's birth certificate and questions surrounding his Social Security number, even though she was rushed by the judge on several occasions, shortening her planned two-hour presentation by half.

After only two hours for three hearings that most spectators had expected to take several, Judge Malihi asked the attorneys to file briefs by February 5 and dismissed the courtroom. No date has been set for his decision.

Rumors began flying around the blogosphere almost immediately -- primarily one that the judge had informed the attorneys, in the pre-hearing conference, that he intended to enter a default judgment against Obama. If true, that would essentially mean that yet another action against Obama's eligibility has resulted in no decision on the merits.

Under Georgia law, the Secretary of State had properly deferred the ballot challenges to the OSAH for the court's opinion, and the determination of whether or not Obama's name will appear on the Georgia ballot ultimately rests with the Secretary.

Regardless of the outcome in Georgia, it appears that Obama has openly shown his disregard for the laws of that state. According to Irion, Obama has also "decided that he is above the Courts, the law, and the Constitution. He has just indicated...that he is not subject to their authority. This is the true story from today, yet almost no one will report it."

Obama has deliberately turned his back, and walked on by.

And most of the media has followed along right behind him.

Alan P. Halbert also attended the hearing and writes:

Obama Declares he is Above Georgia's Election Laws

Several back-to-back hearings were held on Thursday the 26th of January 2012 on the status of whether President Obama is Constitutionally eligible under Article II Sec 1 requirements as a "Natural Born Citizen" and appear on the Georgia primary presidential ballot. This came about by several Citizens filing challenges to Obama being placed on primary ballot with the Georgia Secretary of State Mr. Brian P. Kemp in accordance with Georgia election law. Obama had been given an Order to appear along with the production of documents by the presiding Administrative Law Judge assigned to hear the matter, the Honorable Michael Malihi. Obama and his Attorney chose not to comply with the Court's Order, provide the documents, present a defense or attend the hearing. Obama's attorney Mr. Jablonski chose instead to send a letter to Mr. Kemp requesting that the hearing be dismissed, as they claimed the Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter and that they would not attend if it was held as scheduled. Mr. Kemp responded with his regrets that they decided to forgo the Hearing and warned them "they did so at their own peril" if they failed to offer evidence disputing the allegation of the Citizens complaints.

The election of a President is done through the compilation and aggregation of the individual State Election returns which have the responsibility under the Constitution to conduct Elections. It most assuredly is a Citizen's Right to inquire into the Constitutional qualification of any Candidate to hold any elected office in Georgia whether it is a State or Federal Office which includes the office of President. This is also the case with the other forty nine States as well which have similar Statutes.

The evidence that was presented was varied and ran the gamut of the factual legal arguments to evidence of a personal nature attributed personally to Obama. Mr. Van Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation presented the facts of Minor V. Happersett and portrayed it front and center as to the definition of a "Natural Born Citizen" and as definitive from a unanimous ruling by SCOTUS in 1875 -- the legal heart of the matter. An Amicus Brief was filed in the case by Leo Donofrio Esq. and would be considered an authoritative discussion of the natural born citizen issue and its common law lineage. Each attorney (three in all) in due course presented their cases then rested as the next one presented the case; it appeared well coordinated among all attorneys.

Most all of the testimony was given by expert witnesses, except for the foundation testimony of the citizens that brought the actions; document experts on the authenticity of Obama's Birth Certificate, the Social Security number he uses (used on tax returns) and his and his mother's passport records. A private investigator testified that his Social Security Number (SSN) was originally issued to a deceased individual born in 1890, and was issued from Connecticut a State he is never been known to inhabit.

Orly Taitz, the last attorney to present her case, has been the subject of considerable criticism of her character by various persons during her four year ordeal stretching back to 2008 when she started down this road with Obama. She drew considerable ire and vitriol from Mr. Jablonski, in his letter to Mr. Kemp requesting the dismissal of the hearing. Her case was developed with credible skill however lacked the polish of an experienced litigator. Though appeared solid in evidentiary value and her presentation of the facts were damning. It was probably for the personal nature of her inquiry of Obama and his credentials which drew such criticism from others along the way and Obama's attorney in particular.

She presented through direct testimony the opinions of several document experts that declared the Birth Certificate presented by Obama last April as having the hallmarks of an assembled or false document, as it was layered similar to what would be produced with modern computer software, and not a simple copy of an official record from 1961. He also discussed anomalies of certain character spacing which would not have been present or possible with the typewriters of the 1960's. This layering issue was further verified by another expert witness for document scanning technology and his conclusion was that his long form birth certificate appeared to be falsified as well by certain abnormal patterns appearing in his Birth Certificate.

The compilation of this information was then verified by another expert witness, a retired Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) investigator. He testified that the anomalies seen on Obama's records, Social Security Number and birth certificate which had different Registrars for similar certificates that were issued within days of one another was difficult to explain. The out of Sequence birth certificate issuance numbers which were lower than Obama's, though issued several days after his birth, was difficult to explain as these numbers are issued sequentially. There were issues with the official embossed seal that were not accurate for similar records issued during this time period in Hawaii, his birthplace. He testified that these anomalies rose to the level that would require further investigation, possible arrest and prosecution for documents that had the cumulative defects that Obama's exhibited in similar investigation of false documents.

However, what I find most baffling was the decision of Obama and his Attorney choosing to be absent from the proceedings. However, Judge Malihi conducted the hearing in a manner of decorum and was an honest presentation of the facts. Though was hard to guard against the bias of the parties without Obama and his Council being present.

Many people who are unfamiliar with the Legal System do not know that the hearing or trial level is known as the "trier of the facts". Only matters of Law can be appealed, not the facts that are developed, presented or testified to in any hearing or trial. Only when there is overwhelming evidence of malfeasance, gross perjury or the denial of the admissibility of probative evidence is a new trial or hearing ordered when a mistake of law has been found on appeal. As a practical matter appellate courts rarely order such remedy, when ordered it is believed that the defendant did not have his constitutional right to face his accusers at the trier of the facts level!

Since Obama and his attorney chose not to be present a defense and dispute the evidence that was presented, this can be taken as an admission that all of the evidence admitted were indeed facts and may not be disputed at a later time on appeal! The irony of this course is that Obama is declaring that the court has no Jurisdiction in this matter and will appeal as a matter of law though these damning facts may very well stand! It also gives the impression that he considers himself above the law -- Georgia's. We have a plethora of data points on the sequestering of all of Obama's records and bona fides which he has spent millions of dollars to keep out the public's hands for the last four years. After this hearing we may eventually know why.


Below is a summary list of the physical evidence introduced in yesterday's hearing in GA.

P2. Affidavit of Senior Deportation Officer with the Department of Homeland Security John Sampson, showing that Obama is using Connecticut SSN 042-68-4425

p3. Affidavit of Adobe Illustrator expert Felicito Papa, showing Obama's alleged true and correct copy of his birth certificate to be a computer generated forgery

P4. Affidavit of witness Linda Jordan, attesting to the fact, that SSN 042-68-4425, used by Obama, does not pass E-Verify

p6. Selective service certificate showing Obama using SSN 042-68-4425 and official printout from Social Security Number Verification Services, showing that 042-68-4425 was never issued to Barack Obama, attached e-mail from Colonel Gregory Hollister

p7. Affidavit of Adobe Illustrator expert Felicito Papa, showing that Obama is using CT SSN 042-68-4425 on his 2009 tax returns

p9. Hawaiian birth certificate 61-00637 of Susan Nordyke, born a few hours after Obama in Kapiolani Hospital, looks completely different from alleged copy of birth certificate of Obama

p10. Passport records of Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, mother of Barack Obama, showing Obama listed in her passport under the name Barack Obama Soebarkah, attached affidavit by Chris Strunk, recipient of Obama's passport records under FOIA

p11. Barack Obama's Indonesian school registration card #203, date accepted January 1, 1968, released by the Associated Press in Indonesia, showing him using last name Soetoro and listing citizenship -Indonesia....

Amicus Brief. Mr. Leo Donofrio, Esq.

Read more:

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 8:49
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Jueves, 26 de enero de 2012


Constitutional expert says

arguments over Barack Sr.


'That alone is evidence he

was not born to two American

citizen parents'

Published: 2 hours ago

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


'My belief is if Supreme Court held he was ineligible, he might simply ignore the ruling'

Published: 1 hour ago

By Dave Tombers

One of the attorneys who fought a court case over Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court says he fears that even if the U.S. Supreme Court declared Obama unqualified, he’d simply ignore the ruling and continue issuing orders.

But those who observed a court hearing today in Atlanta say it could be the beginning of the end for the Obama campaign, because of the doubt that could surge like a tidal wave across the nation.

The comments came today from Leo Donofrio, who led the pack in filing lawsuits over Obama’s 2008 election and his subsequent occupancy of the White House.

He was commenting on today’s hearing before a Georgia administrative law judge on complaints raised by several state residents that Obama is not eligible to run for the office in 2012. That hearing went on after Obama and his lawyer decided to snub the court system and refuse to participate.

Discover what the Constitution’s reference to “natural born citizen” means and whether Barack Obama qualifies, in the ebook version of “Where’s the REAL Birth Certificate?”

A decision from the judge, Michael Malihi, is expected soon.

The Georgia residents delivered sworn testimony to a court that, among other things, Obama is forever disqualified from having his name on the 2012 presidential ballot in the state because his father never was a U.S. citizen. Because the Constitution’s requirement presidents be a “natural born citizen,” which is the offspring of two citizen parents, he is prevented from qualifying, they say.

The historic hearing was the first time that a court has accepted arguments on the merits of the controversy over Obama’s status. His critics say he never met the constitutional requirements to occupy the Oval Office, and the states and Congress failed in their obligations to make sure only a qualified president is inaugurated, while his supporters say he won the 2008 election and therefore was “vetted” by America.

In Georgia, the law requires “every candidate for federal” office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy “shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”

State law also grants the secretary of state and any “elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate” in the state the authority to raise a challenge to a candidate’s qualifications, the judge determined.

Citizens bringing the complaints include David Farrar, Leah Lax, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by Taitz; David Weldon represented by attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation;and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, represented by J. Mark Hatfield. Cody Judy is raising a challenge because he also wants to be on the ballot.

Donofrio’s case – like all the others that have reached the Supreme Court – simply was refused recognition.

“That President Obama’s attorneys didn’t show respect for the court, the citizens, the secretary of state, and the statutes of Georgia reveals the true character of the administration as being completely and utterly against state’s rights,” Donofrio said. “The federal government is growing out of control with every administration and this action today is a loud announcement that this administration is going to do what it likes, and you can imagine that their response to this judiciary would be exactly the same if this had been the U.S. Supreme Court.”

He said if Georgia does decide to keep Obama off its state election ballots, he won’t appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, “because if he were to lose there, his entire administration would be void, including his appointments to the Supreme Court.”

“If Obama were to appeal in Georgia, only this election is in play, and only as to Georgia’s ballots, but if he loses in Georgia, appealing to the SCOTUS brings in his entire eligibility, and the legitimacy of his current administration,” Donofrio warned.

“My personal belief is that if the U.S. Supreme Court held that he was ineligible, he might simply ignore the ruling, and test the will of the nation, just as he is testing the will of the state of Georgia,” he said.

The White House today was absolutely silent about the issue. The Georgia case is far different from the lawsuits over the 2008 election, in which judges virtually unanimously ruled that they could not make a decision that would remove a sitting president, no matter the circumstances.

This hearing was about concerns being raised, as allowed by Georgia state law, that Obama is not eligible for the office of president and therefore should not be allowed on the 2012 election ballot.

“If the judge’s recommendation – and I’ve been told that it’s going to be to disqualify Mr. Obama as a candidate – is followed by the secretary of state, Mr. Obama has got a real problem,” said Gary Kreep, of the United States Justice Foundation.

His organization pursued several of the lawsuits over Obama’s occupancy of the Oval Office to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the justices simply decided they wouldn’t be bothered with such issues as the constitutional eligibility of a president.

“He’s thumbed his nose at the court. He’s thumbed his nose at the secretary of state in Georgia. He’s thumbed his nose at the people and said, ‘I’m above it all. I’m above the law,’” Kreep said.

Kreep’s cases have outlined out there is precedent in the U.S. for the removal of a sitting chief executive because of an issue over ineligibility.

Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, had warned Secretary of State Brian Kemp yesterday that he needed to simply call off the hearing, and he and Obama would not participate.

Not only did Obama not participate, there also was no comment.

On a day when Obama was campaigning in Arizona and Colorado, he released formal statements about the retirement of Congressman Brad Miller, and the retirement of Gov. Bev Perdue.

But WND calls to the White House brought only the instructions to e-mail a question to the media affairs department. WND did but got no response. WND also contacted Obama’s campaign headquarters, to receive instructions to email a question. WND did again, but again got no response.

Jablonski, the Atlanta attorney representing Obama, also declined to return WND messages left at his office today.

Mario Apuzzo, who also shepherded a case to the Supremes, said Obama, by not showing, “actually failed to meet his burden of proof, to show that he is eligible and should be placed on the ballot.”

“For him to just ignore due process here is really telling a lot,” he said, noting, “This decision will have a ripple effect.”

“He’s not above the law. That’s a very important thing here. He’s a private person running for office, so he had no business not showing up. So the court can enter the judgment, and then the secretary of state does what he wants with it. And this will have a ripple effect for other secretaries of state, for other states, for the public. Also for any case that could be pending in the Supreme Court, where the issue of Mr. Obama’s eligibility is implicated,” he said.

“It’s a really important milestone that has been reached.”

Apuzzo warned that an administrative law judge certainly wields authority in such cases.

“We had a legitimate hearing in a legitimate court where this private person, Barack Obama, was asked to come there and satisfy the basic Georgia election law ballot procedure, and he doesn’t show up. Nor does he send an attorney. We don’t see this on television yet, but I can’t imagine this not being major news. It boggles the mind that a sitting president who is running for re-election doesn’t show up at a state’s legitimately constituted proceeding to make sure that he is indeed eligible to be on the ballot,” he said.

Charles Kerchner, on whose behalf one of those cases went to the Supremes, said, “Obama thinks he is a king and thus not subject to the election laws of Georgia and the United States Constitution. He will soon learn otherwise.”

He continued, “As the Georgia secretary of state said in warning Obama and his attorney if they did not show.up for the court hearing today … if they do that, they will do so at their own peril.”

Kreep, who has fought battles in both state and federal courts over the issue, said a ruling that would remove Obama’s name from the Georgia ballot would be a “tremendous victory for … America.”

“If the judge issues a default and rules that Barack Obama will not be on the Georgia ballot, and if the secretary of state upholds that, then Mr. Obama, having told the court to essentially stick it in their ear, he wasn’t going to participate, wasn’t going to recognize their power – he’s going to have a tough time convincing some other court to overturn the ruling, because he waived his right to object to it by not appearing,” he explained.

“That’s a big deal to judges. A judge may or may not agree with another judge’s ruling, but when one party waives their ability to object, judges are very reluctant to get involved, because the party has basically said, ‘We don’t care what you do, we’re not going to abide by it.’ Judges don’t like that. They don’t like to be blown off,” he said.

He said the election outcome also could be decided because of not being on a ballot in even one state. And he said there’s more to come.

“I can tell you from my own personal knowledge that there are challenges going on in other states. Van Irion has one in Arizona and one in Tennessee. We have one in Illinois that is has gone under the radar. We’re going to be filing similar challenges around the country. We’ll be filing one within a week and another right around the end of the month,” he said.

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 23:41
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Craig Andresen


By Craig Andresen on January 26, 2012 at 9:25 am

Given the testimony from today’s court case in Georgia, Obama has a lot of explaining to do. His attorney, Jablonski, was a NO SHOW as of course, was Obama.

The following is a nutshell account of the proceedings.

Promptly at 9am  EST, all attorneys involved in the Obama Georgia eligibility case were called to the Judge’s chambers. This was indeed a very interesting beginning to this long awaited and important case.

The case revolved around the Natural Born clause of the Constitution and whether or not Obama qualifies under it to serve. More to the point, if found ineligible, Obama’s name would not appear on the 2012 ballot in Georgia.

With the small courtroom crowded, several in attendance could be seen fanning themselves with pamphlets as they waited for the return of the attorneys and the appearance of the judge.

Obama himself, who had been subpoenaed to appear, of course was nowhere near Georgia. Instead, Obama was on a campaign swing appearing in Las Vegas and in Colorado ignoring the court in Georgia.

Over the last several weeks, Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, had attempted several tactics to keep this case from moving forward. He first tried to have it dismissed, then argued that it was irrelevant to Obama. After that, Jablonski argued that a state could not, under the law, determine who would or would not be on a ballot and later, that Obama was simply too busy with the duties of office to appear.

After all these arguments were dispatched by the Georgia Court, Jablonski, in desperation, wrote to the Georgia Secretary of State attempting to place Obama above the law and declared that the case was not to he heard and neither he nor his client would participate.

Secretary of State, Brian Kemp, fired back a letter hours later telling Jablonski he was free to abandon the case and not participate but that he would do so at his and his clients peril.

Game on.

5 minutes.

10 minutes.

15 minutes with the attorneys in the judge’s chambers.

20 minutes.

It appears Jablonski is not in attendance as the attorneys return, all go to the plaintiff table 24 minutes after meeting in the judge’s chambers.

Has Obama’s attorney made good on his stated threat not to participate? Is he directly ignoring the court’s subpoena? Is he placing Obama above the law? It seems so. Were you or I subpoenaed to appear in court, would we or our attorney be allowed such action or, non action?

Certainly not.

Court is called to order.

Obama’s birth certificate is entered into evidence.

Obama’s father’s place of birth, Kenya East Africa is entered into evidence.

Pages 214 and 215 from Obama’s book, “Dreams from My Father” entered into evidence. Highlighted. This is where Obama indicates that, in 1966 or 1967 that his father’s history is mentioned. It states that his father’s passport had been revoked and he was unable to leave Kenya.

Immigration Services documents entered into evidence regarding Obama Sr.

June 27th, 1962, is the date on those documents. Obama’s father’s status shown as a non citizen of the United States. Documents were gotten through the Freedom of Information Act.

Testimony regarding the definition of Natural Born Citizen is given citing Minor vs Happersett opinion from a Supreme Court written opinion from 1875. The attorney points out the difference between “citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen” using charts and copies of the Minor vs Happersett opinion.

It is also pointed out that the 14th Amendment does not alter the definition or supersede the meaning of Natural Born. It is pointed out that lower court rulings do not conflict with the Supreme Court opinion nor do they over rule the Supreme Court Minor vs Happersett opinion.

The point is, to be a natural born citizen, one must have 2 parents who, at the time of the birth in question, be citizens of the United States. As Obama’s father was not a citizen, the argument is that Obama, constitutionally, is ineligible to serve as President.

Judge notes that as Obama nor his attorney is present, action will be taken accordingly.

Carl Swinson takes the stand.

Testimony is presented that the SOS has agreed to hear this case, laws applicable, and that the DNC of Georgia will be on the ballot and the challenge to it by Swinson.

2nd witness, a Mr. Powell, takes the stand and presents testimony regarding documents of challenge to Obama’s appearance on the Georgia ballot and his candidacy.

Court records of Obama’s mother and father entered into evidence.

Official certificate of nomination of Obama entered into evidence.

RNC certificate of nomination entered into evidence.

DNC language does NOT include language stating Obama is Qualified while the RNC document DOES. This shows a direct difference trying to establish that the DNC MAY possibly have known that Obama was not qualified.

Jablonski letter to Kemp yesterday entered into evidence showing their desire that these proceedings not take place and that they would not participate.

Dreams From My Father entered.

Mr. Allen from Tuscon AZ sworn in.

Disc received from Immigration and Naturalization Service entered into evidence. This disc contains information regarding the status of Obama’s father received through the Freedom of Information Act.

This information states clearly that Obama’s father was NEVER a U.S. Citizen.

At this point, the judge takes a recess.

The judge returns.

David Farrar takes the stand.

Evidence showing Obama’s book of records listing his nationality as Indoneasan. Deemed not relevant by the judge.

Orly Taitz calls 2nd witness. Mr. Strump.

Enters into evidence a portion of letter received from attorney showing a renewal form from Obama’s mother for her passport listing Obama’s last name something other than Obama.

State Licensed PI takes the stand.

She was hired to look into Obama’s background and found a Social Security number for him from 1979. Professional opinion given that this number was fraudulent. The number used or attached to Obama in 1979, shows that Obama was born in the 1890. This shows that the number was originally assigned to someone else who was indeed born in 1890 and should never have been used by Obama.

Same SS number came up with addresses in IL, D.C. and MA.

Next witness takes the stand.

This witness is an expert in information technology and photo shop. He testifies that the birth certificate Obama provided to the public is layered, multiple layered. This, he testifies, indicates that different parts of the certificate have been lifted from more than one original document.

Linda Jordan takes the stand.

Document entered regarding SS number assigned to Obama. SS number is not verified under E Verify. It comes back as suspected fraudulent. This is the system by which the Government verifies ones citizenship.

Next witness.

Mr. Gogt.

Expert in document imaging and scanners for 18 years.

Mr. Gogt testifies that the birth certificate, posted online by Obama, is suspicious. States white lines around all the type face is caused by “unsharp mask” in Photoshop. Testifies that any document showing this, is considered to be a fraud.

States this is a product of layering.

Mr. Gogt testifies that a straight scan of an original document would not show such layering.

Also testifies that the date stamps shown on Obama documents should not be in exact same place on various documents as they are hand stamped. Obama’s documents are all even, straight and exactly the same indicating they were NOT hand stamped by layered into the document by computer.

Next witness, Mr. Sampson a former police officer and former immigration officer specializing in immigration fraud.

Ran Obama’s SS number through database and found that the number was issued to Obama in 1977 in the state of MA. Obama never resided in MA. At the time of issue, Obama was living in Hawaii.

Serial number on birth certificate is out of sequence with others issued at that hospital. Also certification is different than others and different than twins born 24 hours ahead of Obama.

Mr. Sampson also states that portion of documents regarding Mr. Sotoroe, who adopted Obama have been redacted which is highly unusual with regards to immigration records.

Suggests all records from Social Security, Immigration, Hawaii birth records be made available to see if there are criminal charges to be filed or not. Without them, nothing can be ruled out.

Mr. Sampson indicates if Obama is shown not to be a citizen, he should be arrested and deported and until all records are released nobody can know for sure if he is or is not a U.S. Citizen.

Taitz shows records for Barry Sotoro aka Barack Obama, showing he resides in Hawaii and in Indonesia at the same time.

Taitz takes the stand herself.

Testifies that records indicate Obama records have been altered and he is hiding his identity and citizenship.

Taitz leave the stand to make her closing arguments.

Taitz states that Obama should be found, because of the evidence presented, ineligible to serve as President.

And with that, the judge closes the hearing.

What can we take away from this?

It’s interesting.

Now, all of this has finally been entered OFFICIALLY into court records.

One huge question is now more than ever before, unanswered.


Without his attorney present, Obama’s identity, his Social Security number, his citizenship status, and his past are all OFFICIALLY in question.

One thing to which there seems no doubt. He does NOT qualify, under the definition of Natural Born Citizen” provided by SCOTUS opinions, to be eligible to serve as President.

What will the judge decide? That is yet to be known, but it seems nearly impossible to believe, without counter testimony or evidence, because Obama and his attorney chose not to participate, that Obama will be allowed on the Georgia ballot.

It also opens the door for such cases pending or to be brought in other states as well.

Obama is in it deep and the DNC has some…a LOT…of explaining to do unless they start looking for a new candidate for 2012.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 14:08
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Mi?rcoles, 25 de enero de 2012


Posted on | January 25, 2012 | No Comments








815.846.0719 (fax)

[email protected]


January 25, 2012

Hon. Brian P. Kemp

Georgia Secretary of State

214 State Capitol
Atlanta, Georgia 30334

via email to Vincent R. Russo Jr., Esq.

([email protected])

Re: Georgia Presidential Preference Primary Hearings

Dear Secretary Kemp:

This is to advise you of serious problems that have developed in the conduct of the hearings pending before the Office of State Administrative Hearings. At issue in these hearings are challenges that allege that President Obama is not eligible to hold or run for re-election to his office, on the now wholly discredited theory that he does not meet the citizenship requirements. As you know, such allegations have been the subject of numerous judicial proceedings around the country, all of which have concluded that they were baseless and, in some instances – including in the State of Georgia - that those bringing the challenges have engaged in sanctionable abuse of our legal process.

Nonetheless, the Administrative Law Judge has exercised no control whatsoever over this proceeding, and it threatens to degenerate into a pure forum for political posturing to the detriment of the reputation of the State and your Office. Rather than bring this matter to a rapid conclusion, the ALJ has insisted on agreeing to a day of hearings, and on the full participation of the President in his capacity as a candidate. Only last week, he denied a Motion to Quash a subpoena he approved on the request of plaintiff’s counsel for the personal appearance of the President at the hearing, now scheduled for January 26.

For these reasons, and as discussed briefly below, you should bring an end to this baseless, costly and unproductive hearing by withdrawing the original hearing request as improvidently issued.

It is well established that there is no legitimate issue here—a conclusion validated time and again by courts around the country. The State of Hawaii produced official records documenting birth there; the President made documents available to the general public by placing them on his website. “Under the United States Constitution, a public record of a state is required to be given ‘full faith and credit’ by all other states in the country. Even if a state were to require its election officials for the first time ever to receive a ‘birth certificate’ as a requirement for a federal candidate’s ballot placement, a document certified by another state, such as a ‘short form’ birth certificate, or the certified long form, would be required to be accepted by all states under the ‘full faith and credit’ clause of the United States Constitution.” Maskell, “Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement,” Congressional Research Service (November 14, 2011), p.41.

Nonetheless, the ALJ has decided, for whatever reason, to lend assistance through his office—and by extension, yours—to the political and legally groundless tactics of the plaintiffs. One of the attorneys for the plaintiffs has downloaded form subpoenas which she tried to serve around the country. Plaintiff’s attorney sent subpoenas seeking to force attendance by an office machine salesman in Seattle; seeking to force the United States Attorney to bring an unnamed “Custodian of Records Department of Homeland Security” to attend the hearing with immunization records; and asking the same U.S. Attorney to bring the same records allegedly possessed by “Custodian of Records of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.” She served subpoenas attempting to compel the production of documents and the attendance of Susan Daniels and John Daniels, both apparently out of state witnesses, regarding Social Security records. She is seeking to compel the Director of Health for the State of Hawaii to bring to Atlanta the “original typewritten 1961 birth certificate #10641 for Barack Obama, II, issued 08.08.1961 by Dr. David Sinclair…,” even though Hawaii courts had dismissed with prejudice the last attempt to force release of confidential records on November 9, 2011. Taitz v. Fuddy, CA No. 11-1-1731-08 RAN.

In Rhodes v. McDonald, 670 F. Supp. 2d 1363, 1365 (USDC MD GA, 2009), Judge Clay Land wrote this of plaintiff’s attorney:

When a lawyer files complaints and motions without a reasonable basis for believing that they are supported by existing law or a modification or extension of existing law, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer uses the courts as a platform for political agenda disconnected from any legitimate legal cause of action, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law….

As a national leader in the so-called ‘birther movement,’ Plaintiff’s counsel has attempted to use litigation to provide the ‘legal foundation’ for her political agenda. She seeks to use the Court’s power to compel discovery in her efforts force the President to produce a ‘birth certificate’ that is satisfactory to herself and her followers.” 670 F. Supp. 2d at 1366.

All issues were presented to your hearing officer—the clear-cut decision to be on the merits, and the flagrantly unethical and unprofessional conduct of counsel—and he has allowed the plaintiffs’ counsel to run amok. He has not even addressed these issues—choosing to ignore them. Perhaps he is aware that there is no credible response; perhaps he appreciates that the very demand made of his office—that it address constitutional issues—is by law not within its authority. See, for example, Flint River Mills v. Henry, 234 Ga. 385, 216 S.E.2d 895 (1975); Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-.22(3).

The Secretary of State should withdraw the hearing request as being improvidently issued. A referring agency may withdraw the request at any time. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-.17(1). Indeed, regardless of the collapse of proceedings before the ALJ, the original hearing request was defective as a matter of law. Terry v. Handel, 08cv158774S (Superior Court Fulton County, 2008), appeal dismissed, No. S09D0284 (Ga. Supreme Court),reconsideration denied, No. S09A1373. (“The Secretary of State of Georgia is not given any authority that is discretionary nor any that is mandatory to refuse to allow someone to be listed as a candidate for President by a political party because she believes that the candidate might not be qualified.&rdquoGui?o Similarly, no law gives the Secretary of State authority to determine the qualifications of someone named by a political party to be on the Presidential Preference Primary ballot. Your duty is determined by the statutory requirement that the Executive Committee of a political party name presidential preference primary candidates. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-193. Consequently, the attempt to hold hearings on qualifications which you may not enforce is ultra vires.

We await your taking the requested action, and as we do so, we will, of course, suspend further participation in these proceedings, including the hearing scheduled for January 26.

Very truly yours,


Georgia State Bar Number 385850

Attorney for President Barack Obama

cc: Hon. Michael Malihi (c/o Kim Beal ([email protected]))

Van Irion, Esq. ([email protected])

Orly Taitz, Esq. ([email protected])

Mark Hatfield, Esq. ([email protected])

Vincent R. Russo Jr., Esq. ([email protected])

Stefan Ritter, Esq. ([email protected])

Ann Brumbaugh, Esq. ([email protected])

Darcy Coty, Esq. ([email protected])

Andrew B. Flake, Esq. ([email protected])


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 17:42
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Lunes, 23 de enero de 2012

Put Up or Stand Down, Mr. Obama

January 23, 2012

Dear Editor,

The nation appears to be catching on to the fact that they were duped by the Democrat National Convention (DNC), through dissembling and deceit, nominating a candidate that was not eligible to be on the 2008 presidential ballot. The forces that worked to keep the fraud concealed are now using the entire power of all branches of the federal government to keep a never-vetted and unqualified putative president in office by whatever means necessary.

There are 9 types of citizen in the United States. “U.S. Citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen” do not equate yet liberal propagandists “dumb-downed” Americans through the decades to believe both types of citizenships are the same. It has been a deliberate plan to marginalize and/or silence the Article II, Section 2.5 Constitutionalists by calling them “birthers” and “racists.” The majority of Americans believe one only needs to be born in the United States to run for president. This misconception is the handiwork of anti-American entities who have worked diligently to shred the Constitution and usher in a different form of government.

All eyes and ears will be focused on an Atlanta courtroom on January 26, 2012 to see if Barack Hussein Obama will appear as a private citizen and prove his eligibility to be on the state ballot as compelled by subpoenas issued by Administrative Judge Michael Malihi. Obama’s counsel in Atlanta, Michael Jablonski, filed a Motion to Dismiss attorney Orly Taitz’s challenge to Obama’s eligibility to be on the GA ballot and for the first time in three years a judge denied an Obama request/motion in a court of law and the case moved forward. Then Obama’s counsel filed a request to quash the subpoena compelling Obama to attend the hearing complaining that [His] duties as president of the United States would be interrupted and that the subpoena was, “on its face, unreasonable.” Ironically, the motion was filed the day after Obama sang a solo at a fundraiser at the Apollo Theatre in Harlem. Again, request DENIED.

Contrary to popular opinion Obama’s eligibility to be president has never been heard on merit in a court of law. Until now all lawsuits filed against Obama had been dismissed for “no standing” or “wrong jurisdiction.” The decisions came from federal judges under the auspices of Eric Holder’s Justice department and Elena Kagan, Obama’s pre-election counsel and now, of course, sitting Supreme Court Justice.

There are many of us ‘birthers’ living in fear because we never fell for what we knew was brainwashing and propaganda being fed to the American people for generations. But we ‘birthers’ never forgot the words of a letter dated 25 July 1787 from John Jay to General George Washington as the Constitution was being drafted: “Permit me to hint, whether it would not 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 Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

On January 26th, 2012, will Obama again defy the will of the American people and maintain his status quo of living above the law or will we, the Article II Constitutionalists, have our day in court? Judge Malihi will consider the Supreme Court ruling in Minor vs. Happersett establishing the definition of ‘natural born Citizen’ as born in the United States of parents who are themselves United States citizens. The ruling is binding precedent as to the Constitutional definition of a natural born Citizen. Constitutional attorney, Mario Apuzzo at in my opinion has the most consistent and well-documented papers on the eligibility issue where I suggest is the place to go to for back up.

Obama is also compelled to produce his historic documents including but not limited to his birth certificate, adoption papers and Indonesian school records. Should he not comply with the subpoena to appear or present his papers he will lose anyway because his name will not be put on the GA State ballot and the plaintiffs in the three cases to be heard will submit evidence of Obama’s deception and fraud not the least of which is lying on his application to the Illinois Bar. In the space asking for other names used by the applicant Obama entered “none.” Add to this his use of a CT social security number that was never issued to him and fails the E-Verify check. Intriguingly, the social security number is shared by a Harrison J. Bounell from CT, long since deceased but at one time a roomer/tenant in a home owned by the Robinson family. Now that’s just too speculative, too coincidental to be Michelle Robinson Obama’s CT relatives.

But then there’s the selective service record that ties to the social security number but is so fraught with anomalies that taken with the recent problems of a suspicious “Frankenstein” document posted on the website on April 27, 2011, the whole business reeks of ineptitude or is it deliberate subversive activity.

I for one will be all eyes and ears on Jan. 26. A decision one way or another will help me in my plan to form a coalition of Oklahoma Ballot Challengers to take our case to the Oklahoma House of Representatives. We have been rebuffed by gatekeeper, “Fran” on the election board [who says we have to be a presidential candidate from Oklahoma to file a complaint] and by the Attorney General’s office who will only take cases from the FBI and the FBI that says, “Its beensettled” and by our own Sen. Tom Coburn who says “Its a non-issue” to Sen. James Inhofe who says “Its a non issue” but co-sponsored a bill to change the definition of natural born Citizen to mean born anywhere as long as one parent is a citizen. Thank God and the wisdom of our founding fathers the bill failed as did the other eight or so attempts in congress between 2004-2008 during Obama’s rise to political power.

Respectfully submitted,

Miki Booth
Former Congressional Candidate D2-OK

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 19:09
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Monday, January 23, 2012

Attorney Leo Donofrio Files Amicus Brief In Georgia Obama Ballot Access Challenge Cases

AMICUS BRIEF – Georgia POTUS Eligibility Cases
Attorney Leo Donofrio

This morning, I filed an AMICUS BRIEF in the Georgia POTUS eligibility cases. The brief complies with all Rules and procedures of the Administrative Court. The brief is 54 pages, and the appendix is 155 pages. The Rules of Court require attachment to the brief of all legal authorities, other than those issued by the federal government, or the State of Georgia. There’s some very esoteric law attached thereto.

I seriously urge everyone to familiarize themselves with Lord Coke’s Report from Calvin’s Case, as well as Chancellor Ellesmere’s argument, also in Calvin’s Case, for this is the true common law genesis of jus soli subjection, which happens to be a uniquely Christian tenet of law that has been completely misunderstood in this country for too long now. Calvin’s Case is universally recognized as the common law precedent relating to jus soli, but it is so much more fascinating than you can imagine. And it will forever revolutionize understanding of the words “natural-born”.

This book contains all of the relevant arguments and reports. But the original text of Lord Coke’s Report is the proper starting point. (This document is also in the appendix to my brief.) And here’s another source with slightly modernized English and extras.

You may download the AMICUS BRIEF here.

Leo Donofrio, Esq.

Farrar-Welden-Swensson-Powell v Obama, Amicus Brief From Attorney Donofrio, Georgia Ballot Challenge - 1/23...

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 17:21
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar




Posted by By  at 22 January, at 02 : 19 AMPrint




Article II Political Action Committee ( will be on site with uncut, uncensored, complete,  live streamed gavel-to-gavel video coverage of the first ever “Obama” Constitutional Presidential eligibility hearings. “The PAC saw the need to do this last month, because of the often incomplete and biased coverage of this issue by MainStream news media and recently received permission from the court,” said Director Helen Tansey, who will personally manage on-site efforts.

The PAC describes this upcoming event as “The hearing of the century, for the (alleged) political crime of the century,” referring to the breathtaking implications of an illegal “President” in the White House or on the presidential ballot.

, go to

These proceedings could lead to the removal of the incumbent from the Georgia ballot, which would raise questions nationwide. This would be the first time that these issues and related evidence are deliberated in open court. Numerous ballot challenges have been filed in dozens of states, contesting “Obama’s” questionable eligibility, based upon natural born citizenship requirements, in Article II of the U.S. Constitution and laws in multiple states. Georgia will be one of the first states heard. This is due to the timing of challenge filings and its unique state administrative court set up to handle such matters, in a jurisdiction potentially receptive to such cases.

Three cases are being heard on one momentous day, in this order: Plaintiffs David Welden (represented by Van Irion); Carl Swensson and Kevin Powell (represented by Mark Hatfield); David Farrar, Leah Lax, Cody Judy, Thomas Malaren, Laurie Roth (represented by Dr. Orly Taitz).

CONTACT: Helen Tansey, 804-560-1004, [email protected]

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 16:35
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Is it Ignorance or Betrayal?


by Neil Turner 

Members of Congress must swear an oath to support the U.S. Constitution. But do they?

(Jan. 23, 2012) — We all know how to read a simple 10 page document like the Constitution (~6,000 words: including the Declaration, 7 Articles, and 27 Amendments), and understand the plain English in which it is written; and we all know that everyone elected to Office and/or who enters the Military and/or becomes appointed to be a public servant – swears an oath to preserve, protect, and support that Constitution – in its entirety and without reservation.

Are we to believe that the brilliant wordsmith and #1 talk-show host in America, Rush Limbaugh, can’t tell the difference between the words ‘a natural born Citizen’ and ‘a citizen’?

Are we to believe that Chief Justice John Roberts couldn’t tell the difference between his oath to preserve and defend the Constitution and the swearing-in of a non-natural born Citizen on 20 January, 2009?

Are we to believe that the duly-elected natural born Citizen 43rd President George W. Bush did not know that he was surrendering the reins of our Constitutional Republic to a known non-natural born Citizen usurper on 20 January, 2009 – without uttering a word or sounding the alarm?

Are we to believe that the entire 112th Congress, when reading the Constitution aloud in January 2011, hearing the shouts of patriot Theresa Cao saying: ‘Except Obama! Except Obama! Help us Jesus’, after they heard the words ‘No Person, except a natural born Citizen, … shall be eligible to the Office of President;’ – are we to believe that it was an unlawful disruption of their dutiful work instead of a sounding of the alarm of their Treason?

And finally, are we to believe that the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission really believed that their only job was to ascertain that a presidential candidate’s application form was filled out correctly and their $1,000 check was ‘good’, and that their refusal to allow Sal Mohammed in 2007, and Abdul Hassan in 2011 to be on the ballot because they admitted they were non-natural born Citizens, while Obama perjured himself on his application swearing that he was a natural born Citizen – are we to believe that they did not know they were betraying their constituents and committing Treason?

Are they all just IGNORANT or BETRAYERS?

The answer to all the foregoing questions – obvious to even a 5th Grader – would be a resounding BETRAYERS ALL!

And the proper term for those who would betray the people, their country, and their Constitution – obvious to even a 5th Grader – would be TRAITORS ALL!

So now that we all are aware that we are faced with BETRAYAL and TREASON in our Executive, Judiciary and Legislative branches and our Media, and since Betrayal and Treason cannot be allowed to stand if our Constitutional Republic is to survive, the real question is:  What are YOU going to do about it – NOW – while you still can?

If you find yourself to be IGNORANT, then educate yourself and get on board the effort to Restore Our Constitution.  Here’s what YOU can do:

A simple act by We The People, repeated over and over again – before the elections of 2012: CHALLENGE THE POSTING OF ANY SUSPECTED NON-NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’s NAME ON ANY BALLOTS IN 2012. Details and instructions can be found for your State

And if you are among the BETRAYERS/TRAITORS – then educate yourself to the inevitable, and get on board the next train, plane, or ship out of our Constitutional Republic, or face a BETRAYER/TRAITOR’s ultimate punishment. The choice is yours.

NOTE: If supporting the Constitution – to include Article II and its requirement that the President be only a natural born Citizen – gets you labeled with the pejorative term ‘BIRTHER’, then the user of that term must obviously be against the Constitution (and their oath to support and defend it), and are therefore labeling themselves as BETRAYERS.

So when anyone says: ‘You must be a Birther’, you can respond with: ‘You must be a Betrayer’. If the label fits, then say it, and let those who would commit betrayal and treason wear it.

In Liberty and In Truth.

Neil B. Turner
Citizens for the Constitution

[email protected]

P.S  As of this writing, a Georgia judge has agreed to hear the issue of Barack Hussein Obama’s in-eligibility on its merits on 26 January 2012 in response to such ballot challenges and lawsuits there. Stay tuned – for more acts of BETRAYAL and/or acts of PATRIOTISM. The truth will eventually come out, and it will be very ugly indeed.

Click here for gavel-to-gavel coverage of this hearing starting at 9:00 am EST on July 26, 2012.


© 2012, 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 @ 16:32
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Short Takes

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 13:41
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Which Laws Could Have Been Broken?


by Sharon Rondeau

Can the U.S. Department of Justice fail to prosecute federal law-breakers?

(Jan. 23, 2012) — Numerous graphics, typesetting, Adobe® andscanning professionals have claimed that the long-form birth certificate image bearing the alleged details of Barack Hussein Obama II’s birth presented to the public on April 27, 2012 is aforgery.  If that is the case, which federal statutes have been violated, if any, by placing the image on federal government property?How many people might have participated in the crime, and what might the penalties be?

If the Hawaii Department of Health has been obfuscating the fact that they have no birth certificate bearing Obama’s name, or that what they have is falsified, of which crime(s) are they guilty?

If people within the Democrat National Committee or Democrat Party knew that identity theft had been committed and a “synthetic identity” presented to the American people as a ruse to win a presidential election, are they guilty of conspiracy?

If Obama ran for president under a false identity with a fabricated life story, was he ever really thePresident?

If misuse of government property, including computer servers, personnel, and occupation of the White House under false pretenses has occurred, what might the consequences be?

 18 USC 371 states:

Sec. 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.

If a person is aware that a crime has been committed and fails to report it to the authorities, he or she could be found guilty of Misprision of Felony and spend up to three years in jail:

Sec. 4. Misprision of felony

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

On Friday, January 20, 2012, Judge Michael Malihi denied Obama attorney Michael Jablonski’s Motion to Quash several subpoenas issued by Atty. Orly Taitz requesting original or certified documentation of his social security number application, birth record, and any aliases he might have used during his life.  The judge stated that a legitimate reason might exist as to why Obama cannot attend, but that his counsel failed to supply it.

The administrative court hearing in Atlanta, GA is scheduled to hear three ballot challenges filed underOCGA 21-2-5, which allows a registered voter to challenge the qualifications of any candidate for state or federal office.  Obama is being asked to prove his constitutional eligibility and placement on the presidential ballot for November.

The mainstream press has been interviewing Atty. Taitz about the upcoming hearing.  Taitz has statedthat federal officials, including judges, have participated in a “cover up.”

Lynn Sweet of The Chicago Sun-Times is reporting that Obama does not plan to attend, but instead will be holding “events” in the Western part of the country.  The report does not say “campaign events.”  The  official White House presidential calendar shows an empty schedule  for Obama from January 22 and forward but features the planned State of the Union address for January 24.  The Vice President’s calendar is empty.  UPI shows the January 23, 2012 presidential schedule as a meeting with the vice president and hosting of the Boston Bruins.

Update, 9:48 a.m ET:  The White House presidential schedule now reflects the UPI posting noted above, but no schedule is posted for the remainder of this week.  Obama’s previous weeks in office have shown full daily and weekly schedules.

Is Obama doing his job this week?  How busy is he?  Why is the White House showing no schedule for either Obama or Biden?  Is Obama really running for re-election, or just going through the motions?

Rather than attend the hearing in Georgia, could Obama simply supply the information requested in the subpoenas issued by Taitz?  In his book, he said he found his “birth certificate” with his vaccination forms and other personal papers.  If that is the case, what does the state of Hawaii have on file, and why do they refuse to reveal it?

Was Obama’s letter to Hawaii Health Department Director Loretta Fuddy a ruse?

Should Obama fail to attend the hearing or provide the requested documents to the Georgia court, is he guilty of contempt of court?

18 USC, Sect. 401 states:

Sec. 401. Power of court

A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as—
(1) Misbehavior of any person in its presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice;
(2) Misbehavior of any of its officers in their official transactions;
(3) Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.

For an event of potentially great magnitude, why would anyone encourage American citizens concerned about a candidate’s eligibility to stay home?  Could the judge have Obama jailed if he does not comply with the subpoena?

Did anyone in the Obama regime learn of crimes after they were committed and fail to report them?  18 USC, Section 3 states:

Sec. 3. Accessory after the fact

Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.
Except as otherwise expressly provided by any Act of Congress, an accessory after the fact shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not more than one-half the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the principal, or both; or if the principal is punishable by life imprisonment or death, the accessory shall be imprisoned not more than 15 years.


© 2012, 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 @ 10:06
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Domingo, 22 de enero de 2012

Ernesto Che Guevara ordered the killing of my father in law at the firing squad on 02/08/1959. 



The tortures of U.S. POWs by Castro's agents were "the worst sieges of torture any American withstood in Hanoi."

By  Humberto Fontova  Saturday, January 21, 2012 

Should Mercedes-Benz have Appologized for Che Guevara Ad Flap?

Why did only Americans of Cuban heritage get miffed at Mercedes Benz for their Che promotional flap. From USA Today to Forbes and from the Miami Herald to The Blaze, it was the same story “Cuban-Americans angered.” Then “Mercedes apologizes toCuban-Americans.”

“The U.S. is the great enemy of mankind!”In fact, Che Guevara’s hate-obsession was the U.S. He murdered Cubans because of their supposed affiliation with the U.S. (“U.S.—Backed” Batista, the CIA, etc.) As a public service to Americans of other ethnic heritages, here are some reasons, in the form of Che Guevara’s ravings, why Mercedes Benz (among many, many others) should also apologize to you:

“The U.S. is ‘a carnivorous animal feeding on the helpless!”

“Against those hyenas there is no option but extermination!”

“We will bring the war to the imperialist enemies’ (Americans) very home, to his places of work and recreation. The imperialist enemy (Americans)must feel like a hunted animal wherever he moves. Thus we’ll destroy him!

“We must keep our hatred (against the U.S.) alive and fan it to paroxysm!”

“The U.S. is the perpetrator of exploitation and oppression against all the peoples of the world!”

“If the nuclear missiles had remained (in Cuba) we would have fired them against the heart of the U.S. including New York City.The victory of socialism is well worth millions of atomic victims.”

“What!” Khrushchev gasped on Oct. 28, 1962 upon a message from Cuba, as recalled by his son Sergei. “Is he (Fidel Castro) proposing that we start a nuclear war?! That we launch missiles from Cuba?! But that is insane! Remove them (our missiles) as soon as possible! Before it’s too late. Before something terrible happens. (Please note that Nikita Khrushchev’s own son, an eye witness to the near calamity, presents a radically different version of the “solution” to the Cuban Missile Crisis than do Kennedy court scribes and publicists, most recently in the form of Chris Matthews.)And here’s the probable reason—despite Fidel Castro and Che Guevara’s genocidal lust—why many tens of thousands of Americans are alive today:

According to the Cuba Archive, the regime co-founded by Che Guevara—with firing squads, forced-labor camps, torture and drownings at sea—has caused an estimated 102,000 deaths, mostly Cuban of course. But whenever they could get their hands on an American “hyena” they really indulged. To wit:

When during the summer of 1960 Castro and Che’s gunmen stormed into almost 6000 U.S. owned businesses and stole them at Soviet gunpoint, a few owners resisted. One of these was Howard Anderson who owned a filling stations and Jeep dealership (not a casino or brothel, which were relatively rare in pre-Castro Cuba, by the way.) I’ll quote from Anderson v. Republic of Cuba, No. 01-28628 (Miami-Dade Circuit Court, April 13, 2003). “In one final session of torture, Castro’s agents drained Howard Anderson’s body of blood before sending him to his death at the firing squad.”

Castro and Che’s blood-lust against Americans was such that they sent their torturers thousands of miles to get their hands on (defenseless) ones. According to the bookHonor Bound the tortures of U.S. POWs by Castro’s agents were “the worst sieges of torture any American withstood in Hanoi.”

Testimony during Congressional hearings titled, “The Cuban Torture Program; Torture of American Prisoners by Cuban Agents” held on November 1999 provide some of the harrowing details.

For their experiment in torture the Castroites chose twenty American POWs. One died: Lieutenant Colonel Earl Cobeil, an Air Force F-105 pilot. His death came slowly, in agonizing stages, under torture. Upon learning his Castroite Cuban affiliation, the American POWs nicknamed Cobeil’s Cuban torturer, “Fidel.”

“The difference between the Vietnamese and “Fidel(the nickname for the Castroite torturer) was that once the Vietnamese got what they wanted they let up, at least for a while,” testified fellow POW Captain Ray Vohden USN. “Not so with the Cubans. Earl Cobeil had resisted ‘Fidel’ to the maximum. I heard the thud of the belt falling on Cobeil’s body again and again, as Fidel screamed “you son of a beech! I will show you! Kneel down!—KNEEL DOWN!” The Cubans unmercifully beat a mentally defenseless, sick American naval pilot to death.”

“Earl Cobeil was a complete physical disaster when we saw him,” testified another fellow POW, Col. Jack Bomar. “He had been tortured for days and days and days. His hands were almost severed from the manacles. He had bamboo in his shins. All kinds of welts up and down all over; his face was bloody. Then ‘Fidel’ began to beat him with a fan belt.”

In fact I’m amazed that Mercedes-Benz bothered to apologize. “What’s the big deal?” their Chairman Dieter Zetsche had every reason to reply. “Why pick on us? Doesn’t half of Hollywood hail Che Guevara and Fidel Castro? Didn’t one of America’s most celebrated leading men, Robert Redford, produce a movie in Che Guevara’s honor in collaboration with the Stalinist regime Guevara co-founded? And didn’t this movie get a whooping, hollering standing ovation at the Sundance Film Festival and the Academy awards?

“And didn’t Academy Award- winner Stephen Soderbergh recently one-up Redford with a four-hour hagiography on Che, also co-produced with the Stalinist regime Che co-founded?

“And after his speech at the UN where Che Guevara raved some of the insults cited above wasn’t he the guest of honor at ‘Bobo’ Rockefeller’s Manhattan suite, where cocktail guests from Norman Mailer to Eugene McCarthy lined up for his autograph?”

“Did any of them apologize?

“And wasn’t Che Guevara’s partner in mass-murder, terrorism and nuclear-war-lust hailed as “The Toast of Manhattan!” and “The Hottest Ticket in Manhattan!” by Time and Newsweek owing to the social swirl that engulfed Fidel Castro on his 1995 visit to Manhattan which involved everyone from Robert McNamara to Mort Zuckerman to Mike Wallace and Peter Jennings, Tina Brown, Barbara Walters and Diane Sawyer feting him and lining up for his autograph and photo-ops?

“And doesn’t Charles Rangel Bear-hug Fidel Castro on the racist mass-murderer’s every visit to Harlem?

“Did any of them apologize?

“And doesn’t a former U.S. President now known as the Democratic Party’s “Elder Statesman” (Jimmy Carter) regard the Stalinist who issued Che Guevara’s every order for mass-murder and torture (Fidel Castro) as “an old friend” who “has brought great healthcare to his people?”

“And doesn’t a former Democratic Presidential candidate now known as “The Conscience of the Democratic Party” (George Mc Govern) also compliment Fidel Castro as “a man I consider a friend?”

“And weren’t posters of Che Guevara plastered on some campaign offices of the man who was overwhelmingly elected as your current President (Barack Obama)?

“And didn’t this president invite, as guests of honor to your White house, notorious Che Guevara Groupie Jay-Z?

“And didn’t the Time -Warner corporation (Time Magazine) magazine hail Che Guevara a “Hero and Icon of the Century,” alongside Mother Theresa? And this in a long and detailed article. This was no “gaffe,” no momentary screw-up like ours. Time’s reporter knew full well what he was doing.

“Did any of them apologize? So again, what’s the big deal with our little gaffe? And at least we apologized.”

Indeed, Herr Zetsche. All the items above are fully documented here.

Humberto Fontova 
Most recent columns

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


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:10
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
S?bado, 21 de enero de 2012

Republican Leaders’ Fear and Corruption Will Re-Elect Obama


by Lawrence Sellin, ©2012

The invasion of Normandy, France was part of Operation Overlord begun on June 6, 1944, now known as "D-Day"

(Jan. 21, 2012) — Unless stopped now, Obama will win re-election and the Republicans are well on their way to helping him do that.

If the current Republican Party leadership had planned the D-Day invasion, the troops would have attacked the Normandy beaches in rowboats armed with B-B guns.

Rather than apply a political full-court press against Obama, Republicans have chosen to stay in the locker room.

Hiding the truth transfers all the initiative to the Obama campaign.

The Big Lie and Big Stall strategy will not only lead to a Republican defeat, it will lead to the destruction of the country.

The reason for their choice is simple – the Republican leadership is complicit in the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people.

Barack Hussein Obama is a Constitutionally illegal President. He has committed felonies by forging his birth documents and his Selective Service registration. He uses a Social Security Number not issued to him.

Starting in 2008 and continuing today, Obama and the mainstream media have successfully intimidated the cowardly Republicans by threatening to call them names like “racist” or “birther.”

None of those issues will be raised in the Republican 2012 campaign because they have now joined the Democrats and the mainstream media in a cover-up of the truth.

That truth, if ever made public, would shake the foundations of the two-party system and expose the endemic corruption in Washington, D.C.

To protect their wealth and privileged status, both the Republican and the Democrat leadership have a vested interest in maintaining the Big Lie.

An Obama victory will permit the Democrats to bury the Big Lie forever and permanently transform the United States into a de facto totalitarian state.

The Republican long-term political strategy, like its 2012 campaign strategy, is far less ambitious. They only wish to maintain the corrupt status quo and continue the illusion of a democratic republic, which, in actuality, is a country of the American people, but for and by a wealthy elite.

Ergo – the Big Stall.

The Republicans hope to beat Obama on “the issues”, that is, arcane policy points, while ignoring blatant violations of the Constitution and criminal behavior by an illegal President.

Similar to the Democrats, the Republicans want to bury the truth, but through stalling and allowing Obama’s crimes to be overtaken by events, like a Republican Presidential victory in 2012.

Republicans also see political advantages to Obama’s violations of the Constitution.

Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the Constitution states that only a natural born citizen can be President of the United States.

Binding Supreme Court precedent Minor v. Happersett (1874) defines natural born as a US citizen born of citizen parents at the time of the child’s birth.

Obama has never been eligible for the presidency because his father was a British subject at the time of his birth.

The precedent of a Constitutionally illegal President having been established by the inauguration of Obama, both parties believe that they have successfully amended the Constitution by fiat.

Republicans now feel free to promote their own illegal candidates.

Not only has the Constitution been violated, but the process for amending the Constitution has been violated.

The Republican leadership will continue their collaboration with the Democrats and the mainstream media by perpetuating the Big Lie.

Permitting themselves to be held hostage by the Big Lie, the Republicans will be vulnerable to the dirtiest, most violent, most racist and most fraudulent election campaign in US history.

Through their own lack of courage and conviction, the Republicans will lose the Presidency in 2012.


Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq. He receives email at [email protected]

© 2012, 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 @ 22:25
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Huckabee advised Romney to challenge the media and demand,that when Obama releases his college records, to show, whether he was admitted as a foreign student, then Romney will show his tax returns.

My advise to Romney, not to limit himself to college records. Challenge corrupt officials in Hi to show Obama’s 1961 original birth certificate and  our corrupt SSA commissioner Michale Astrue to release an original application to CT SSN 042-68-4425, which Obama is fraudulently using. We have to end this corruption in the government and in the judiciary. 

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:47
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Viernes, 20 de enero de 2012


Breaking: Georgia Judge Denies Obama’s Motion to Quash Subpoenas


by Sharon Rondeau

Judge Michael Malihi has denied a Motion to Quash Subpoenas submitted by Barack Hussein Obama's attorney, Michael Jablonski

(Jan. 20, 2012) — 11:45 a.m., ET – Atty. Orly Taitz informed The Post & Email moments ago that Georgia Administrative Hearings Judge Michael Malihi has denied Obama counsel’s request to quash subpoenas requesting originaldocumentation of Obama’s birth, aliases and social security number application, school records, and other records.

Taitz will be posting the order from the judge on her website shortly.

Taitz had written an Opposition to Obama counsel Michael Jablonski’s Motion to Quash the subpoenas she issued as a result of Malihi’s denial of Jablonski’s Motion to Dismiss in the challenge to the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to run for president in 2012.

The order is posted elsewhere here.

Jablonski had claimed that the hearing scheduled for January 26, 2012 would cause Obama to “interrupt [his] duties as President of the United States” and that the subpoena was, “on its face, unreasonable.”

However, last night Obama sang a solo at The Apollo Theater in New York City.

This is a developing story.


© 2012, The Post & Email. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 13:58
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Jueves, 19 de enero de 2012



'Electors, Congress, not Georgia, hold responsibility for qualifications of candidates'

Published: 11 hours ago

Barack Obama has outlined a defense strategy for a multitude of state-level challenges to his candidacy on the 2012 presidential ballot in a Georgia case that is scheduled to come before a judge later this month – simply explain that states have nothing to do with the eligibility of presidential candidates.

“Presidential electors and Congress, not the state of Georgia, hold the constitutional responsibility for determining the qualifications of presidential candidates,” Obama’s lawyer argues in a motion to quash a subpoena for him to appear at the hearings Jan. 26.

“The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant,” the lawyer said.

Hearing have been scheduled for that date for three separate issues to be handled. They all are raised by Georgia residents who are challenging Obama’s name on the 2012 ballot for various reasons, which they are allowed to do under state law.

It is states, usually through the office of secretary of state, that run elections, not the federal government. The national election is simply a compilation of the results of the individual elections within states.

The schedule for the hearings was set by Judge Michael M. Malihi of the Georgia state Office of State Administrative Hearings. In Georgia, a state law requires “every candidate for federal” office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy “shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”

State law also grants the secretary of state and any “elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate” in the state the authority to raise a challenge to a candidate’s qualifications, the judge determined.

Three different plaintiffs’ groups are lined up for separate hearings, including one represented by California attorney Orly Taitz. She had the judge sign a subpoena for Obama’s testimony, and Michael Jablonski, Obama’s attorney for these cases, argtued that he should be exempted.

Jablonski earlier had argued that state eligibility requirements didn’t apply toObama, but the judge said that isn’t how he reads state law.

“Statutory provisions must be read as they are written, and this court finds that the cases cited by [Obama] are not controlling. When the court construes a constitutional or statutory provision, the ‘first step … is to examine the plain statutory language,” the judge wrote. “Section 21-2-1(a) states that ‘every candidate for federal and state office’ must meet the qualifications for holding that particular office, and this court has seen no case law limiting this provision, nor found any language that contains an exception for the office of president or stating that the provision does notapply to the presidential preference primary.”

In Obama’s attempt to be excused from providing testimony and evidence such as his original birth certificate, he argues that such testimony would “interrupt duties” as president.

He also argues that the documents and testimony “is, on its face, unreasonable.” And further, the documents and testimony already have been made public, he argued.

“The president made the documents available to the general public by placing it on his website. Although the document has been generally available for years, the president took the extraordinary step of acquiring a copy of the record of birth, informally known as the ‘long form,’ making it available to anyone who cares to check the website,” the filing argues.

And the state should mind its own business anyway, he argued.

“The sovereignty of the state of Georgia does not extend beyond the limits of the State. … Since the sovereignty of the state does not extend beyond its territorial limits, an administrative subpoena has no effect,” the filing explains.

Taitz’ supporters joined a discussion on her website, where she also solicits support for the expenses of the battles she’s confronting, judging that Obama is on the defensive.

“What a joke. He claims to be too busy performing the duties of the president of the United States. How many days of vacation has he taken? How many rounds of golf? If he is too busy to provide the documents that provide the basis for meeting the requirements of the office, then perhaps he better sit out the next four years,” said one.

Wrote another, “The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant. … This is complete utter nonsense!”

In fact, a presidential elector in California brought a lawsuit challenging Obama’s eligibility at the time of the 2008 election, and was told the dispute was not yet ripe because the inauguration hadn’t taken place. The courts later ruled that the elector lost his “standing” to bring the lawsuit after the inauguration.

Barack Obama

Those bringing the complaints include David Farrar, Leah Lax, Cody Judy, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented byTaitz; David Weldon represented by attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation; and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell,represented by J. Mark Hatfield.

Irion said not many court observers believed Obama actually would comply with the subpoena for a number of reasons. He said for his clients’ arguments the testimony wouldn’t even be an issue.

His argument is that the Founders clearly considered a “natural born citizen,” as the Constitution requires of a president, to be the offspring of two citizen parents. Since Obama himself has written in his books that his father, Barack Obama Sr., was a Kenyan, and thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, Irion argues that Obama is disqualified under any circumstances.

Those who argue against his birth in the United States note that a multitude of experts have given testimony and sworn statements that they believe Obama’s Hawaiian birth documentation to be fraudulent.

It is that concern that also has prompted Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona to turn over an investigation of that issue to his Cold Case Posse. Their investigation report is expected to be released in the next few weeks.

The Georgia hearing will be the first time among dozens of so-far unsuccessful lawsuits brought over Obama’s eligibility issue that evidence will be heard in a court. Other cases all have been dismissed over issues such as standing, without a presentation of the evidence.

Top constitutional expert Herb Titus explains that the use of “natural born citizen,” does, in fact, require parents who are citizens. That argument also is supported by a 19th-century U.S. Supreme Court decision

The hearing is set at 9 a.m. on Jan. 26 for the complaint brought by Weldon. Following immediately will be hearings for the cases brought by Swensson and Powell, and the issue raised by Farrar, Lax, Judy, Malaren and Roth will be third.

Malihi’s ruling said: “The court finds that defendant is a candidate for federal office who has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party, and therefore must, under Code Section 21-2-5, meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”

There are similar challenges to Obama’s 2012 candidacy being raised before state election or other commissions in Tennessee, Arizona, Illinois, New Hampshire and other states as well.

The U.S. Supreme Court opinion cited is Minor v. Happersett from 1875. It includes one of very few references in the nation’s archives that addresses the definition of “natural-born citizen,” a requirement imposed by the U.S. Constitution on only the U.S. president.

That case states:

“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

What the White House in April released was as an image of a “Certificate of Live Birth” from the state of Hawaii in support of Obama’s claim that he was born in the state. The White House has not addressed the questions raised by Obama’s father’s nationality.

The image that the new lawsuits contend is irrelevant:

Obama long-form birth certificate released April 27 by the White House

An extensive analysis of the issue was conducted by Titus, who has taught constitutional law, common law and other subjects for 30 years at five different American Bar Association-approved law schools. He also was the founding dean of the College of Law at Regent University, a trial attorney and special assistant U.S. attorney in the Department of Justice.

“‘Natural born citizen’ in relation to the office of president, and whether someone is eligible, was in the Constitution from the very beginning,” he said. “Another way of putting it; there is a law of the nature of citizenship. If you are a natural born citizen, you are a citizen according to the law of nature, not according to any positive statement in a Constitution or in a statute, but because of the very nature of your birth and the very nature of nations.”

If you “go back and look at what the law of nature would be or would require … that’s precisely what a natural born citizen is …. is one who is born to a father and mother each of whom is a citizen of the U.S. or whatever other country,” he said.

“Now what we’ve learned from the Hawaii birth certificate is that Mr. Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States. His mother was, but he doesn’t qualify as a natural born citizen for the office of president.”


UPDATE: Obama’s Georgia Attorney Files Motion to Quash Subpoenas in Ballot Challenge. CASE TO BE HEARD ON JANUARY 26 IN ATLANTA - MORE HERE

Farrar(Taitz) v Obama - Motion to Quash Georgia Subpoenas - Obama Ballot Access Challenge - 1/18/2012

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:51
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Lunes, 16 de enero de 2012

CDR Kerchner's Blog

January 16, 2012

Ad – Obama Not a Natural Born Citizen – Washington Times Natl Wkly | by CDR Kerchner (Ret)

Click on ad image to read and/or download or print a copy

Full Page Ad – Obama Not a Natural Born Citizen – Washington Times National Weekly Edition – 16 Jan 2012 issue – Page 5 – 2nd Ad in Support of Article II Super PAC | by CDR Kerchner (Ret)

Simply being ‘Born a Citizen’ or a ‘Citizen by Birth’ is not sufficient. The person who is constitutionally eligible to be President and Commander of our Military must be a “natural born Citizen” at birth, i.e., born in the USA to two U.S. Citizen (born or naturalized) parents.  A “natural born Citizen” has no divided loyalties, foreign citizenship, allegiances, or foreign influence or claim of allegiance on them via their birth.  John Jay and George Washington insisted on it for reasons of national security for the future generations after the founding generation was passed – which is why they put the “natural born Citizen” presidential eligibility clause into the U.S. Constitution in Article II Section 1.

Given the immense power of our military, both conventional and nuclear, this concern that the person in control of our military forces be a person with sole allegiance to the United States, at and since birth, is an important national security issue that very much needs to be protected and not usurped. Article II Section 1, the presidential eligibility clause, is that national security protection element in our Constitution, put there by the founders and framers, and it must not be ignored or usurped.

Read these essays for more about how and why the natural born Citizen clause got put into the Constitution for national security reasons and what it truly means:

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lehigh Valley PA USA

“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened.” Ronald Reagan alerting us to Norman Thomas’ and the socialist/progressive’s long-term stealth agenda to transform the USA from a constitutional republic into a top-down, central controlled, socialist form of government

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 12:17
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Jueves, 05 de enero de 2012


Posted by: Dean C. Haskins
[email protected]
Posted: January 5, 2012
© 2012 The Birther Summit

Download a PDF

photo_3As was previously reported, in October and November, we spent a total of 2 ½ weeks in Hawaii on an investigative assignment. It was at the beginning of that stay that we met Duncan Sunahara, a highly informed, but unassuming guy, complete with his signature coconut palm frond hat. He was a military veteran with an obvious deep love for his country.

Early last year, Duncan had become aware of some possible issues surrounding his late sister Virginia's birth certificate, and had spent quite a bit of time on his own trying to get his questions answered. As he related to us, it seemed he was getting nothing but a "run around" from the Department of Health, and the area hospitals. Oddly, it had been reported in 2010 that DOH Director, Loretta Fuddy, had claimed that no records existed for Virginia Sunahara.

Duncan knew that his sister was born in the same hospital that he had been a few years earlier, and that she was transferred to another hospital, but he didn't know which one (and his elderly mother could not remember). He had visited the birth hospital, Wahiawa General, and both Queen's and Kapi'olani Medical Centers, but was not able to obtain any information from them. We were able to help him procure all of the medical records from the day Virginia spent in Wahiawa General, and found that she was transferred to Kapi'olani, but Kapi'olani insists they have no records on file. It does seem odd that Wahiawa would have the records, but Kapi'olani supposedly does not (how much room could it take to store a roll of microfilm?). This certainly seems "convenient" for them.

When we visited the Department of Health, we weren't quite sure what we would find, since Loretta Fuddy had insisted that Virginia's records didn't exist. However, we were pleasantly surprised that Duncan's application produced several certified copies of Hawaii's new short form birth certificate (which they now absurdly call their "long form"). Upon closer inspection, we learned that the number assigned to Virginia's birth certificate is 151-1961-011080, and realized that, statistically, that number simply cannot be legitimate.

Now, here's what's wrong with that number: we all know that the last group of numbers on the "certificate" Barack Obama claims is his official record is 10641, and his certificate was supposedly processed on August 8, 1961. We also know that the Nordyke twins were assigned the numbers 10637 and 10638, and their certificates were processed on August 11, 1961. Virginia Sunahara's birth certificate states that it was processed on August 10, 1961, but the number it was assigned is 443 higher than the Nordyke twin whose certificate was stamped with the number 10637.

We know that there were 17,616 births in Hawaii in 1961, which shows a statistical average of 48 births per day. To arrive at the number now assigned to Virginia's birth certificate, nine to ten days would have had to have lapsed after the Nordyke twins' certificates were processed, but Virginia's processing date was the day BEFORE the Nordyke's.

To refute the ridiculous argument that birth certificate worksheets were pre-numbered, and clerks kept small stacks of them on their desks for processing, that isphoto_1 not only patently false, but also, by federal law, would be illegal. Birth certificate "worksheets" (what they call blank birth certificate forms) are kept at the hospitals, and it is there where the information is entered onto them. Once all the information has been entered, they are sent to the DOH, where they are processed using a Bates machine, which enters certificate numbers sequentially, and then the date of processing is stamped onto them. Basement bloggers who suggest otherwise simply prove their lack of factual knowledge with that argument (as if any further proof of that were needed).

We went back to the DOH the next day to try to obtain a photocopy of Virginia's original birth certificate, but were told that Duncan was not allowed to receive that (according to DOH rules). When we pointed out to Supervisor Jesse Koike that their "rules" were illegal, according to Hawaiian statutes, he told us that Duncan would have to discuss that with Dr. Alvin Onaka. We spent four hours waiting to speak with Onaka, who eventually instructed the security guard to throw us out of the facility (which seems to be outrageous behavior from someone with nothing to hide). Duncan also made several phone calls trying to make an appointment to see Onaka, but could not get him even to return his calls.

We then sent a certified letter to Onaka requesting the photocopy, and also included the relevant statutory information, and were informed in writing that we would have to take the matter up with Hawaii's Attorney General, which we did. The response we received from the AG contained the same deceptive misinterpretation of the statute, so, as a final step toward filing a complaint with the court, Duncan sent a letter asking for an estimate of how much it would cost for the DOH to perform the necessary research to copy, and send, Virginia's original birth certificate. No response was ever received from the DOH.

Having attempted every administrative procedure to obtain that to which Duncan is statutorily entitled, a lawsuit was filed on Tuesday, January 3, 2012.

Here is a video interview of Duncan Sunahara.

It is still unbelievable that, in 2008, our so-called media dispatched teams to sift through Sarah Palin's trash looking for anything they could find to discredit her, but did nothing of the sort regarding an empty suit Marxist from Chicago who refused to provide any substantive documentation regarding his eligibility. When the media and the politicians refuse to do their jobs, it is up to "We the People" to do it for them—and that is exactly what we are continuing to do. Please stay tuned, as we will keep you up to date on this case.


If you would like more information about the Birther Summit, please visit our website often at or contact Dean Haskins at [email protected].

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 17:15
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Court to Hear Obama Eligibility Challenge on Merits, First Time Ever, Jan. 26

Contribuotr: CJ in TX @TellTheTruth1

“This will be the first time ever, since this whole thing began, that it will be looked on, on merit.” Those are the words of Carl Swensson, Republican Party Chairman of Clayton County, Georgia. “This” refers to an actual judicial hearing of the case against the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. to be, according to the United States Constitution, “Commander in Chief” and United States President.

The attorneys of Barack Obama requested a pretrial dismissal, as it had done on so many other occasions, against so many other cases. But yesterday, one judge denied and scheduled an official hearing of the case to commence, January 26.

From 2008 to the present, judicial standing has been refused the plaintiff, often via convoluted rationale, many say sophistry. The question however is elementary to our constitutional republic: can we as Citizens be assured those presented to us for our votes are eligible to hold office?

Unlike many other states, Georgia has a statue requiring just that. For Swensson’s part, he had  “resolved that I would not let anyone on the ballot who is not demonstrably qualified to hold that office.” That would appear to be part of his job as party official and it is the job of Georgia’s Secretary of State, Brian Kemp (R) to assure election law is justly carried out. Swensson relates, “We have been hounding him at hearings he’s been having across the state.”

And so it came to pass that Kemp after some delay, followed due process and called forth the court designated by Georgia law, to hear such a case. This particular case was brought by Swensson and co-litigant, Kevin Richard Powell, attorney: J. Mark Hatfield, judge: Michael M. Malihi.

As veteran Obama eligibility beat reporter Bob Unruh details at

While Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, had argued that the requirements didn’t apply to candidates for a presidential primary, the judge said that isn’t how he reads state law.

“Statutory provisions must be read as they are written, and this court finds that the cases cited by [Obama] are not controlling. When the court construes a constitutional or statutory provision, the ‘first step … is to examine the plain statutory language,” the judge wrote. “Section 21-2-1(a) states that ‘every candidate for federal and state office’ must meet the qualifications for holding that particular office, and this court has seen no case law limiting this provision, nor found any language that contains an exception for the office of president or stating that the provision does not apply to the presidential preference primary.”

Swensson and Powell’s is one of three cases, Unruh again:

The decision from Malihi came as a result of a series of complaints that were consolidated by the court. They were brought against Obama’s inclusion on the 2012 election primary ballot by David Farrar, Leah Lax, Cody Judy, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by attorneyOrly Taitz; David Weldon represented by attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation; and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, represented by J. Mark Hatfield.

As Sharon Rondeau explains in The Post & Email, standing was even granted the one mere voter’s case. Who would have thought that a Sovereign Citizen (actually, the highest position in the United States of America) would have such authority?

Judge Malihi appeared to support Blanchard’s claim in his decision:

Both the Secretary of State and the electors of Georgia are granted the authority under the Code to challenge the qualifications of a candidate.  The challenge procedures are defined in Code Section 21-2-5(b), which authorizes any elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate to challenge the qualifications of the candidate by filing a written complaint with the Secretary of State within two weeks after the deadline for qualifying.  O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(b).

A former secretary of state, Karen Handel, utilized the law when she disqualified someone from his candidacy for local office.

This was one of three rulings of Mahili on these matters, yesterday. Another separated these three cases, at the request of the plaintiffs, which he had earlier lumped together into one. Swensson respectfully explained that the integrity of his particular case required separation from the methods of at least one other case’s attorney, Orly Taitz. And as for his own attorney, about their own particulars, “Mark has been doing a Hell of a job.” (statement left unvarnished since the job of doing Hell is one of God’s own works of justice, justice being a blessing we would invoke here).

Yesterday’s remaining ruling denied an early deposition to the plaintiffs, a move which may have brought a sense of bargaining power to the proceedings, when faced up to the Obama request for dismissal. A Super PAC has been formed to provide a modicum of assistance to some of the plaintiffs across the country. Its site, features all three of Mahili’s rulings.

While the manipulated mainstream media’s “birther” blackout and ridicule campaign is expected to continue, many eyes will focus on Judge Mahili’s court, come January 26. Finally, the definition of Article II’s “natural born Citizen” will be discussed, regarded at the time and upheld by the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, as requiring both of a president’s parents to be U.S. Citizens, by the study of numerous scholars of constitutional language and original intent. (Link – Link)

And the quest for the truth of Barack Obama’s birth certificate will finally be put to the court as well, his Donald Trump induced 2011 submission being deemed a forgery by numerous experts of electronic document renderings. (Web Search Link)

The journey to this milestone has been arduous to the Citizen activists involved and costly to us, the taxpayers, footing Obama’s legal bills. About his own involvement, Swensson relates, “We’ve been in this battle… for three years…”

It is also costly to the pocketbooks of the plaintiffs and their attorneys. After prompting, Swensson further confesses, “I could definitely use the help of like minded patriots who want Obama removed from the ballot, if and only if he is not qualified to be there in the first place.” (Swensson’s site, Rise up for America)

While Gulag Bound will continue to monitor these cases and report on them, for day to day perusal, we also suggest sites including those to which we link, in this and in yesterday’s entry, plus the blog of CDR Charles Kerchner, listed in our sidebar. Another site,, also keeps track of this overall effort to maintain America’s integrity by our Constitution.

While on the phone yesterday with Swensson, he was emailed the following graphic, showing the Georgia state flag in a facetious but poignant position. He forwarded that to us.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:24
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Martes, 03 de enero de 2012

Click on the Image to See More About How Obama is Deceiving the People of NH

Jane Clemons admits on the air that her NH Ballot Law Commission Committed Election Fraud!

Listen to the interview here:

# # # #

Barack Obama is NOT a “natural born Citizen of the United States” and is thus constitutionally ineligible to be the President and Commander in Chief of our military. Obama was born to a FOREIGN NATIONAL FATHER who was NEVER a U.S. Citizen nor was Obama’s father even an immigrant to the USA or even a permanent resident in the USA. For no other U.S. President in the history of the nation since the founding generation (who were exempt from the natural born Citizen clause in the U.S. Constitution via a grandfather clause in Article II Section 1) was that the case, i.e., having a foreign national father who was never a U.S. Citizen or even an immigrant to this country. Obama being seated as the putative president is an outrageous violation of Article II Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, the presidential eligibility clause. Obama was not born with sole allegiance to the USA. Sole allegiance and unity of Citizenship at birth was the goal and purpose for putting the natural born Citizen clause into Article II Section 1 of the Constitution as to who could serve as president once the founding generation has passed away. Obama (II) was born a British Subject via his foreign national father Obama (Sr.) who was a British Subject. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen of the United States” to constitutional standards since he was born with dual allegiance and citizenship. The founders and framers did not want anyone with foreign allegiance to ever get command of our military, i.e., be the president. Obama is constitutionally not eligible to be president and commander in chief of our military.

Adjectives mean something. A “Citizen at Birth” is not logically identically equal to a “natural born Citizen at Birth”. Barack Obama may be a ‘Citizen of the United States’ but he is not a ‘natural born Citizen of the United States’ and does not meet the constitutional standards as to who can be the President and Commander in Chief of our military:

The natural born Citizen clause in our Constitution is a national security clause inserted into our Constitution by John Jay and George Washington. Read why the natural born Citizen clause is still important and worth protecting.

Five Citizenship Terms Mentioned in the U.S. Constitution:

Of Trees and Plants and Basic Logic and Citizenship Types:

See evidence Obama forged the birth certificate posted on White House servers 27 Apr 2011:

See evidence Obama is using a SSN 042-68-4425 not legally issued to him:

See evidence of Obama’s forged and back dated draft registration here:

This is not a fringe issue! South Carolina Poll Results – A poll done by Public Policy Polling (PPP) shows that almost 2/3 of GOP voters want Obama eligibility investigated. This is not a fringe issue:

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lehigh Valley PA USA

“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened.” Ronald Reagan alerting us to Norman Thomas’ and the socialist/progressive’s long-term stealth agenda to transform the USA from a constitutional republic into a top-down, central controlled, socialist form of government

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 13:26
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar


  1. Posted on | January 3, 2012 | 7 Comments

  1. Farrar Motion to dismiss by Obama is denied

  1. I still can’t believe this. The order is in the link above. Judge Malihi, Deputy Chief judge of the Administrative court in GA, ruled, that Obama’s motion to dismiss is denied. He will have to stand trial and prove his eligibility for office.

  2. This is particularly sweet, as it is happening in GA, where judge Clay D. Land maligned me so badly and attacked me with $20,000 of sanctions  in order to silence me, to stop me from challenging Obama.

  3. Judge Land was sending a message to other attorneys and intimidating them, de facto telling them, “you dare to go after Obama, raise the issue of his forged birth certificate and invalid Social Secrity number, establishment will attack you and sanction you, just like attorney Taitz”

  5. Now judge Malihi is sending a message: “nobody is above the law”

  6. I am filing a motion for judicial notice in the other 5 courts, where I have cases. Please, spread the word.

  7. I wanted to thank evrybody, who was helping me so far to repay those $20,000, who donated to help me fly to other states, including my prior flights to GA.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 12:51
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

New Hampshire Legislators Send “Another Shot Heard Around the World” From Concord


January 3, 2012


Representative Larry Rappaport[email protected]

603 359 4150 or 603 237 4429

Representative Harry Accornero –[email protected]

603 387 9708


New Hampshire State Representatives Challenge

State Attorney General on Election Fraud Investigation

Today concerned New Hampshire State Representatives delivered a signed affidavit to the State Attorney General Michael Delaney, stating that in 2009 Representative Larry Rappaport, Mr. Lucien Vita (now a State Representative), and Representative Carol Vita met with New Hampshire State Attorney General Michael Delaney and argued that they believed Barack Obama was not eligible to be President of the United States and requested that Attorney Delaney launch an investigation of Mr. Obama’s credentials.  The three believed that the people of New Hampshire had been defrauded by Mr. Obama’s candidacy.  The Attorney General stated it was a federal matter and refused to investigate.

We believe that according to the United States Constitution (Article ll section 1 paragraph 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.”

A natural born Citizen, as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in “Minor vs. Happersett”, Vattel’s “Law of Nations”, and the 2008 (S.Res. 511) Senatorial resolution, is one wherein both parents of whom were Citizens of the United States of America. According to the record, Mr. Obama’s father was born in Kenya. He never was a Citizen of the United States of America, making Mr. Obama ineligible to be a Presidential Candidate on the New Hampshire ballot.

Our attorney, Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. had previously delivered a written request to the Secretary Of State requesting him to review the challenge to Mr. Obama’s eligibility to be on the New Hampshire Ballot. The Ballot Law Commission met on November 18th to review our complaint.  We were represented at that hearing by Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq.  Our complaint was denied, but there appears to be an inconsistency in the process of the challenge. According to the Assistant Secretary Of State, Karen Ladd, and the Ballot Law Commission, they testified that they can only rule on the Ballot Petition making sure it is filled out properly and is accompanied by a check for $ 1000.00. They claimed that it is not in their purview to determine if a person is a Natural Born Citizen.   However, the inconsistency becomes obvious when the record shows that on November 15th. 2007 the Secretary of State’s office ruled that a Mr. Sal Mohamed was disqualified, and on July 19th. 2011 a Mr. Abdul K. Hassan Esq. was denied a place on the Presidential Ballot because they were not natural born citizens. Both letters were signed by Karen Ladd Assistant Secretary of State.

Despite what we consider overwhelming evidence, our attorney, Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. was denied by the Ballot Law Commission, then was denied a rehearing, and filed an action before the New Hampshire Supreme Court where she was subsequently denied.   We can provide copies of her challenges.

The oath we took when we were sworn in as legislators was to uphold and defend the Constitutions of both the United States and that of New Hampshire. We believe it is our duty as your Representatives to support the Constitution and to insure that anyone seeking the highest office in the land is qualified to be on the New Hampshire “First in the Nation” ballot.


Editor’s Note:  The order from the New Hampshire Supreme Court declining Taitz’s appeal and denying her petition was received this morning from the Communications Director at the New Hampshire Supreme Court:

Document denying the appeal of Atty. Taitz and petitioners for a rehearing on the Ballot Law Commission's decision to include Obama's name on the state ballot. No reason is given for the declination and denial.

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 12:21
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Domingo, 01 de enero de 2012

HONOLULU (AP) - Leaving behind a year of bruising legislative battles, President Barack Obama enters his fourth year in office having calculated that he no longer needs Congressto promote his agenda and may even benefit in his re-election campaign if lawmakers accomplish little in 2012.

Absent any major policy pushes, much of the year will focus on winning a second term. The president will keep up a robust domestic travel schedule and aggressive campaign fundraising and use executive action to try to boost the economy.

Partisan, down-to-the-wire fights over allowing the nation to take on more debt and sharply reducing government spending defined 2011. In the new year, there are almost no must-do pieces of legislation facing the president and Congress.

The one exception is the looming debate on a full-year extension of a cut in the Social Security payroll tax rate from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent. Democrats and Republicans are divided over how to put in place that extension.

The White House believes GOP lawmakers boxed themselves in during the pre-Christmas debate on the tax break and will be hard-pressed to back off their own assertions that it should continue through the end of 2012.

Once that debate is over, the White House says, Obama's political fate will no longer be tied to Washington.

"Now that he's sort of free from having to put out these fires, the president will have a larger playing field. If that includes Congress, all the better," said Josh Earnest, White House deputy press secretary. But, he added, "that's no longer a requirement."

Aides say the president will not turn his back on Congress completely in the new year. He is expected to once again push lawmakers to pass elements of his jobs bill that were blocked by Republicans last fall.

If those efforts fail, the White House says, Obama's re-election year will focus almost exclusively on executive action.

Earnest said Obama will come out with at least two or three directives per week, continuing the "We Can't Wait" campaign the administration began this fall, and try to define Republicans in Congress as gridlocked and dysfunctional.

Obama's election year retreat from legislative fights means this term will end without significant progress on two of his 2008 campaign promises, an immigration overhaul and closing the military prison for terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Presidential directives probably won't make a big dent in the nation's 8.6 percent unemployment rate or lead to significant improvements in the economy. That's the chief concern for many voters and the issue on which Republican candidates are most likely to criticize Obama.

In focusing on executive actions rather than ambitious legislation, the president risks appearing to be putting election-year strategy ahead of economic action at a time when millions of Americans are still out of work.

"Americans expect their elected leaders to work together to boost job creation, even in an election year," said Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio.

Still, Obama and his advisers are beginning 2012 with a renewed sense of confidence, buoyed by a series of polls that show the president's approval rating climbing as Congress becomes increasingly unpopular.

They believe his victory over Republicans in the payroll tax debate has boosted his credentials as a fighter for the middle class, a theme he will look to seize on in his Jan. 24 State of the Union address.

Obama's campaign-driven, domestic-travel schedule starts in Cleveland on Wednesday, the day after GOP presidential hopefuls square off in the Iowa caucuses. He will also keep up an aggressive re-election fundraising schedule, with events already lined up in Chicago on Jan. 11.

Campaign officials say Obama will fully engage in the re-election campaign once the Republicans pick their nominee. He will focus almost exclusively on campaigning after the late summer Democratic National Convention, barring unexpected developments at home or abroad.

Among the issues that could disrupt Obama's re-election plans: further economic turmoil in Europe, instability in North Korea following its leadership transition and threats from Iran.

The president's signature legislative accomplishment will also come under greater scrutiny in the new year, when a critical part of his health care overhaul is debated before the Supreme Court.

Obama's foreign travel next year will be limited mainly to the summits and international gatherings every U.S. president traditionally attends. He's expected to travel to South Korea in March for a nuclear security summit and to Colombia in April for the Summit of the Americas. He's also likely to visit Mexico in June for the G-20 economic summit.

Two other major international gatherings—the NATO summit and the G-8 economic meeting—will be held in Chicago, on home turf. 

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 12:56
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar