ELECTIONS 2012 USA
Thursday, January 26, 2012

http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/obama-accused-of-disrespecting-court-state-americans/

OBAMA ACCUSED OF DISRESPECTING COURT, STATE, AMERICANS

'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 @ 11:43 PM
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/?p=4138

Craig Andresen

OBAMA ELIGIBILITY COURT CASE…BLOW BY BLOW

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.

WHO THE HELL IS THIS GUY?

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 @ 2:11 PM
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Monday, January 23, 2012

http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/01/23/which-laws-could-have-been-broken/

Which Laws Could Have Been Broken?


MISUSE OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY, CONSPIRACY, MISPRISION OF FELONY?

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 @ 10:10 AM
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Sunday, January 22, 2012

Experts Debate Obama's Birth Certificate

by Mark Gillar

h:113755
s:2778005
archived

John Woodman debates Mara Zebest, Tom Harrison, and Karl Denninger on the authenticity of Obama's birth certifciate.

Then, in the second half of hour two, Woodman will debate New York Times best-selling author Jerome Corsi who is the author of Where's The Real Birth Certificate.

Note:  We will be unable to take calls during this program.

Listen to internet radio with Mark Gillar on Blog Talk Radio

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:24 AM
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Saturday, January 21, 2012

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/

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 @ 10:51 AM
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Friday, January 20, 2012

http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/01/20/breaking-georgia-judge-denies-obamas-motion-to-quash-subpoenas/

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

GEORGIA BALLOT CHALLENGE WILL PROCEED WITH DISCOVERY

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 @ 1:55 PM
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Thursday, January 19, 2012

http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/obama-argues-against-appearing-at-eligibility-hearing/


OBAMA ARGUES AGAINST APPEARING AT ELIGIBILITY HEARING

'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 to Obama, 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 not apply 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 @ 9:44 AM
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Monday, January 16, 2012

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/category/ballot-news-blog

Ballot News Blog


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 12:33 PM
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/01/16/ad-obama-not-a-natural-born-citizen-washington-times-natl-wkly-by-cdr-kerchner-ret/

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:  http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
http://www.protectourliberty.org/
http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/

“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 @ 12:13 PM
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Thursday, January 05, 2012

http://www.birthersummit.org/news/73-was-baby-virginia-sunaharas-identity-stolen.html

WAS BABY VIRGINIA SUNAHARA'S IDENTITY STOLEN?

Posted by: Dean C. Haskins
[email protected]
202.241.3648
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 www.birthersummit.org or contact Dean Haskins at [email protected].


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 5:16 PM
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Tuesday, January 03, 2012

http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/01/03/georgia-judge-denies-obamas-motion-to-dismiss-in-ballot-challenge/

Georgia Judge Denies Obama’s Motion to Dismiss in Ballot Challenge


DOES THE RULE OF LAW STILL STAND IN THE PEACH STATE?

by Sharon Rondeau

Georgia's flag contains the phrase "In God We Trust" under a sentry guarding the state constitution

(Jan. 3, 2012) — Atty. Orly Taitz has posted on her website an order from Judge Michael Malihi denying the request of an attorney representing Barack Hussein Obama to dismiss three ballot challenges filed respectively by Taitz, Atty. Van Irion, and Atty. J. Mark Hatfield on behalf of Georgia registered voters and others.

Taitz represents four presidential candidates and a Georgia voter, David Farra; Irion represents David Welden, a Georgia voter; and Hatfield represents Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, both Georgia voters.

The Post & Email published an article on January 2, 2012 regarding Taitz’s ballot challenge in Georgia as well as in other states.

Also on January 2, 2012, The Post & Email spoke with Atty. Van Irion, who described his ballot challenge on behalf of David Welden.  Irion had stated that a hearing was scheduled for January 26, 2012, and we have contacted him to inquire as to whether or not that hearing will take place given today’s order from Judge Malihi.

In his order, Malihi wrote, in part:

The Georgia Election Code (“the Code”) mandates that “[e]very candidate for federal and state office who is certified by the state executive committee of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.” O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(a).

The Post & Email had published another Georgia voter’s petition asking that a special grand jury be convened to investigate the non-response of Secretary of State Brian Kemp to the voter’s previous FOIA request and formal letter inquiring as to the information Kemp relied upon in 2008 to place Obama’s name on the ballot.  The voter cited the same statute as Malihi in contending that registered voters have a right to challenge candidates’ qualifications for any office.  The voter, Millard Blanchard, claimed that Kemp had broken the law by failing to remove Obama’s name from the 2012 presidential ballot.

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.

Of the new development, Taitz stated on her website, “I still can’t believe this…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…Now judge Malihi is sending a message: ‘nobody is above the law.’”

Questions have swirled since 2008 regarding Obama’s constitutional eligibility for the office of president.  While he claims a birth in Hawaii, many experts deemed the long-form birth certificateissued on April 27, 2011 a forgery.  Obama also claims having been born to a foreign father who never held U.S. citizenship, thereby raising the issue of whether or not he meets the criterion of “natural born Citizen” as stated in Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

The Post & Email is aware of at least one researcher who has stated that Obama falsified his entire background and that he was actually born in New York City to two U.S.-citizen parents but sent to live in Indonesia as a toddler.  Trowbridge has asked Obama to “step forth in integrity.”

In 2010, a candidate for U.S. Congress from Texas was disqualified by the Secretary of State for apparently having a party affiliation as he was planning to run as an Independent.

© 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 @ 1:00 PM
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Sunday, January 01, 2012

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9RVHE981&show_article=1




HONOLULU (AP) - Leaving behind a year of bruising legislative battles, PresidentBarack 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 atGuantanamo 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 toColombia 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 @ 12:59 PM
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar