ELECTIONS 2012 USA
Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Birther Report: Obama Release Your Records

Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Obama Lawyers Threaten Legal Action to Pull and Suppress NJ Ballot Challenge Hearing Video

Obama Lawyers Want the Video of the NJ Obama Ballot Access Challenge Public Hearing Pulled and Suppressed
Commander Charles Kerchner

I heard this morning that the Obama lawyers are trying to suppress the videos of the NJ Obama Ballot Access Challenge public hearing.  So I called and spoke with Attorney Mario Apuzzo and he confirmed that Obama’s lawyers have called him and told him they are planning to take legal action to get the videos of the NJ Ballot Access Challenge Public Hearing pulled and suppressed. What is the Obama side ashamed of and doesn’t want the world to see.  Could it be that their Obama “emperor has no clothing on”, i.e., has no known conclusively proven true legal identity clothing/papers to show the world which Attorney Mario Apuzzo forced them to admit to and stipulate to in the NJ public hearing?  Obama’s side obviously does not want people to see this video. Watch it yourself at the below links and learn why.
In these videos, the Obama side even wants to allow Mickey Mouse to run for President. To Obama and his lawyers the U.S. Constitution and presidential eligibility clause in Article II is a joke.  You can see that in Part II at about 40 minutes into that segment.  It was interesting that Obama’s lawyer chose and mentioned Mickey Mouse running for President and making a mockery of the election process in her statements in the hearing as Mickey Mouse was a contributor to Obama’s campaign in 2008 as part of the untraceable debit and credit card contributions that Obama accepted online, a good chunk of it alleged to have been illegally provided to Obama operatives from foreign sources.
Full Video of the NJ Obama Ballot Access Challenge Public Hearing. Obama’s attorney did not wish the proceedings video taped.  It has been learned from sources who recorded these videos with the court’s permission under NJ law that Obama’s lawyer did not want the hearing video taped and she tried before the start of the public hearing to get the cameras removed. However under NJ state law, video taping of public hearings is permitted.  Now the Obama legal team wants to suppress these videos.   See this channel link for the videos of this public hearing and/or via the other embedded links below:  http://www.youtube.com/haggz51
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) Lehigh Valley PA USA http://www.protectourliberty.org http://www.scribd.com/protectourliberty http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com
3 HEARING VIDEOS HERE: http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/04/18/full-video-of-the-nj-obama-ballot-access-challenge-public-hearing
Adolf Hitler and Obama's Illegal Alien Aunt Able to Donate to Obama 2012: Verification Disabled - DETAILS HERE
FLASHBACK: Will Mickey Mouse Get To Contribute Like In 2008? A screenshot below(at link)  from the FEC website shows a $2,000 contribution from Mickey Mouse to  Obama's 2008 campaign. You can replicate the finding yourself at the FEC  website here; http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/norindsea.shtml
DETAILS HERE: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/10/how-low-will-obama-go-obama-for-america.html

 
HD VIDEO FROM 3/31 TEA PARTY EVENT WITH SHERIFF JOE POSTED HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/arizonavideo.html
-WATCH THE COMPLETE SHERIFF JOE PRESS CONFERENCE HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/joe.html-

-ARTICLE II ELIGIBILITY FACTS HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

 

 


 

 


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 4:42 PM
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Thursday, April 12, 2012

http://thedailypen.blogspot.com/

THURSDAY, APRIL 12, 2012

OBAMA LAWYER ADMITS FORGERY BUT DISREGARDS "IMAGE" AS INDICATION OF OBAMA’S INELIGIBILITY

DAMAGE CONTROL: A recent ballot challenge hearing in New Jersey exposes a desperate strategy by Obama to distance himself from his forged certificate and induce the contrived value of his transient political popularity as the only “legitimate qualification” needed to hold the office of the presidency.

By Dan Crosby
of THE DAILY PEN

NEW YORK, NY – After a Maricopa County law enforcement agency conducted a six-month forensic examination which determined that the image of Obama’s alleged 1961 Certificate of Live Birth posted to a government website in April, 2011 is a digital fabrication and that it did not originate from a genuine paper document, arguments from an Obama eligibility lawyer during a recent New Jersey ballot challenge hearing reveals the image was not only a fabrication, but that it was likely part of a contrived plot by counterfeiters to endow Obama with mere political support while simultaneously making the image intentionally appear absurd as evidence toward proving Obama’s constitutional eligibility in court.

Taking an audacious and shocking angle against the constitutional eligibility mandate, Obama’s lawyer, Alexandra Hill, admitted that the image of Obama’s birth certificate was a forgery and made the absurd claim that, therefore, it cannot be used as evidence to confirm his lack of natural born citizenship status. Therefore, she argued, it is “irrelevant to his placement on the ballot”.

Hill went on to contort reasoning by implying that Obama needs only invoke his political popularity, not legal qualifications, in order to be a candidate.

At the hearing, attorney for the plaintiffs, Mario Apuzzo, correctly argued that Obama, under the Constitution, has to be a “natural born Citizen” and that he has not met his burden of showing that he is eligible to be on the New Jersey primary ballot by showing that he is indeed a “natural born Citizen.” He argued that Obama has shown no authenticate evidence to the New Jersey Secretary of State demonstrating who he is and that he was born in the United States. Apuzzo also argued that as a matter of law, Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” because he was born to a father who was not a U.S. citizen.

As Obama’s legal argument becomes more contorted, he is being forced to avoid an ever shrinking legal space, and an increasing weight, of his failure to meet constitutional eligibility requirements.

Hill, of Genova, Burn & Giantomasi Attorneys in Newark, made a desperate motion to dismiss the ballot objection arguing that Obama’s lack of natural-born citizenship status was not relevant to being placed on the New Jersey presidential ballot because no law exists in New Jersey which says that a candidate’s appearance on the ballot must be supported by evidence of natural born citizenship status. Only the U.S. constitution restricts eligibility to hold the office of president to natural born citizens.

Judge Masin denied the motion to dismiss and the case proceeded to trial.


“Sadly, regardless of her moral deficiency, Hill is legally justified,” says TDP Editor, Penbrook Johannson, “Evidence of forgery by as yet unidentified counterfeiters working on behalf of Obama does not legally exclude Obama from appearing on a ballot, by itself, until some authority is willing to consider this as evidence on its merit in a court of legal authority. Until some court of competent jurisdiction is willing to hear evidence of forgery and fraud, you can’t legally punish a political candidate for a crime which has not been proven that they committed.”

According to Johannson, there is an overwhelming level of moral certainty that Obama is a usurper, but until a court with jurisdiction considers this case, Obama’s status as a legitimate president is in limbo.

"He does not exist as a president except in the imagination of those who blindly support him. Whereas he is politically desired by a transient consensus, his legality is unresolved until a responsible court makes a determination. This is the essence of our crisis. Our nation exists in a state of non-authorized identity. Obama is just some guy calling himself a president and living in the White House without the confirmative authority to do so."

Obama’s document forgery and fraudulent presidency have now forced him to flee to a “strange twilight zone” between political popularity and legal legitimacy where poorly counterfeited records are apparently allowed to be published by Obama using government media resources for political purposes, yet those same records are held by the courts as irrelevant for determining Obama’s legal eligibility status because they are, according to judges, “so poorly forged” they are obviously meant to be satirical and not to be taken seriously as evidence.

Shockingly, parting from widespread public ignorance, Hill actually acknowledged two of the three necessary components of determining natural born citizenship as being place of birth and citizenship status of both parents. However, she argued that, “No law in New Jersey obligated him (Obama) to produce any such evidence in order to get on the primary ballot.”

The third component of natural born eligibility is maintenance of natural born citizenship status from birth to election without interruption, involuntarily or voluntarily, due to expatriation, extradition, renouncement or foreign adoption.

“Obama is mocking our constitution,” says Johannson, “His position is that he never claimed the image was an indication of his natural born status, just that it was information about his birth. Whether it is forged or authentic is irrelevant to Obama because plausible deniability affords him the security in knowing that no legal authority is willing to hang him with it.”

Of course, Johannson adds that it makes Obama look like a willing accomplice and a liar, but, he says, “…show me a politician who cares about being seen as a liar by the public. If people who support him want to vote for a person like that, it reveals more about the reprobate character of Obama supporters than competency of any legal determination about his lack of constitutional eligibility. Degenerates will vote for a degenerate while patriots will exhaust all civil means to remove him…until those civil means are exhausted. Then things get ugly for government.”

“However, Hill is also essentially admitting that Obama is not a legitimate president and that Obama believes that his illegitimacy does not matter to his legal ability to hold the office. Obama holds to a political tenet, not a legal one with respect to his views on his eligibility. That’s what corrupt, criminal politicians do. When the law convicts them, they run to public favorability for shelter with the hope that their supporters will apply pressure to disregard law in their case.”

Obama is now arguing that because he is politically popular, as he points to as being indicated by his so-called ‘election’, despite accusations of eligibility fraud and election fraud, the constitutional eligibility mandate is not relevant, in his view. Until a courageous authority is willing to disagree and hold Obama to an equally weighted legal standard, civil remedies for the Obama problem are limited.

Johannson adds that Obama is making the same argument on behalf of Obamacare.

“If he had the gall to actually tell the Supreme Court that they have no authority to determine the unconstitutionality of his illegitimate policies, what makes anyone think he believes they have the authority to disqualify him due to his lack of constitutional eligibility? Obama believes he holds preeminent power over all branches of government because of his delusions of political grandeur.”

He correctly points to a lifetime pattern of behavior and testimony by Obama which indicates a complete lack of regard for the U.S. Constitution when it restricts Obama’s political agenda and lust for power.

“This is a guy who illegally defaced public property when he scribed his aspirations to be ‘king’ in a concrete sidewalk at the age of ten, for God’s sake. Now, his ‘majesty’ wants to put his illegal ‘graffiti’ into American law books. However, his problem is that he has to face the fact that he is an abject failure in his capacity to meet any standard required by the 250-year-old U.S. Constitution, in everything he tries to do. The Constitution owns him and he can’t stand it. He hates it. Therefore, instead of admitting his lack of constitutionality, he simply breaks the rules and proceeds to illegally scribe his fake authority on everything until someone is willing to physically stop him. Obama is not just an illegitimate politician, he is a rogue outlaw without regard for the divine providence of American law.”

Apuzzo submitted that New Jersey law requires Obama to show evidence that he is qualified for the office he wishes to occupy and that includes showing that he is a “natural born Citizen,” which includes presenting evidence of who he is, where he was born, and that he was born to two U.S. citizen parents. Apuzzo added that the Secretary of State has a constitutional obligation not to place any ineligible candidates on the election ballot.

The account of the trial can be read at:

http://www.teapartytribune.com/2012/04/11/nj-ballot-access-challenge-hearing-update/

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 2:48 PM
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Wednesday, April 04, 2012

Michael Savage: Obama threatens Supreme Court


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:49 AM
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

http://theobamahustle.wordpress.com/2012/03/29/alabama-supreme-court-serious-questions-about-authenticity-of-obamas-birth-certificates/

Alabama Supreme Court: Serious Questions About Authenticity of Obama’s Birth Certificates

with 3 comments

Great Seal of The State of Alabama

Great Seal of The State of Alabama

Alabama Supreme Court: Serious Questions About Authenticity of Obama’s Birth Certificates

Alabama Supreme Court Justice Notes EvidencePresented Raises Serious Questions to Authenticity of Both Obama’s Birth CertificatesSheriff Joe Arpaio‘s and Mara Zebest’s reports were included in the Petition submitted to the Alabama Supreme Court

Alabama Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker noted in the Order to Strike Hugh McInnish’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus:
Mclnnish has attached certain documentation to his mandamus petition, which, if presented to the appropriate forum as part of a proper evidentiary presentation, would raise serious questions about the authenticity of both the “short form” and the “long form” birth certificates of President Barack Hussein Obama that have been made public.”

COMPLETE ORDER HERE: http://www.scribd.com/doc/87140552/McInnish-v-Chapman-Order-Striking-Petition-for-Writ-of-Mandamus-Alabama-Supreme-Court-Obama-Ballot-Challenge-3-27-2012

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS HERE: http://www.scribd.com/doc/87140413/McInnish-v-Chapman-Petition-for-Writ-of-Mandamus-Alabama-Supreme-Court-Obama-Ballot-Challenge-3-6-2012
Article II Super PAC

Providing Video Coverage of Sheriff Joe’s March 31st Event: Interview with Lord Monckton here:http://www.art2superpac.com/arizonavideo.html 

COMPLETE DETAILS ABOUT LORD MONCKTON / SHERIFF JOE VIDEO HERE:http://www.art2superpac.com/arizonavideo.html

-WATCH THE COMPLETE SHERIFF JOE PRESS CONFERENCE HERE:http://www.art2superpac.com/joe.html-

-ARTICLE II ELIGIBILITY FACTS HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:39 AM
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

http://michellemalkin.com/2012/04/03/usurper-in-chief-rails-against-unelected-supreme-court-demands-deference-to-congress/

Usurper-in-chief rails against “unelected” Supreme Court, demands “deference” to Congress

Share
By Michelle Malkin  •  April 3, 2012 05:48 PM

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Okay, got that out of my system. Yesterday, as you all know, President Obama went after the “unelected” justices of the Supreme Court. So much for the constitutional law lecturer’s appreciation of the separation of powers.

Today, during another of his regular press conference diatribes against everyone who stands in his way, the man who has circumvented Congress with dozens of czar appointments and scores of executive orders and administrative fiats, warned the court again — to show “deference” to Congress.

From the transcript:

MR. SINGLETON: Mr. President, you said yesterday that it would be unprecedented for a Supreme Court to overturn laws passed by an elected Congress. But that is exactly what the Court has done during its entire existence. If the Court were to overturn individual mandate, what would you do, or propose to do, for the 30 million people who wouldn’t have health care after that ruling?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, let me be very specific. We have not seen a Court overturn a law that was passed by Congress on a economic issue, like health care, that I think most people would clearly consider commerce — a law like that has not been overturned at least since Lochner. Right? So we’re going back to the ’30s, pre New Deal.

And the point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws, and all of us have to respect it, but it’s precisely because of that extraordinary power that the Court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to our duly elected legislature, our Congress. And so the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this.

Now, as I said, I expect the Supreme Court actually to recognize that and to abide by well-established precedence out there. I have enormous confidence that in looking at this law, not only is it constitutional, but that the Court is going to exercise its jurisprudence carefully because of the profound power that our Supreme Court has. As a consequence, we’re not spending a whole bunch of time planning for contingencies.

Somehow, I suspect the high court is not going to take to Obama’s finger-wagging very lightly.

At least one lower court is already leading a legal backlash:

In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president’s bluff — ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom.

The order, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, appears to be in direct response to the president’s comments yesterday about the Supreme Court’s review of the health care law. Mr. Obama all but threw down the gauntlet with the justices, saying he was “confident” the Court would not “take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented — since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional. The three-judge appellate court appears to be asking the administration to admit that basic premise — despite the president’s remarks that implied the contrary. The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:50 AM
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar