Thursday, December 29, 2011


Barack Obama: Communist or Socialist?


by Paul R. Hollrah, ©2011

Was Obama groomed to be the first socialist or communist "leader" of the U.S.?

(Dec. 28, 2011) — Dr. Paul Kengor is a professor of political science at Grove City College in Pennsylvania, a school that ranks with Hillsdale College in Michigan as one of the nation’s finest, but least known, liberal arts colleges.  Kengor is the author of The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism; William P. Clark, Ronald Reagan’s Top Hand; and God and Hillary Clinton: A Spiritual Life.  

In his most recent book: Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century, Kengor makes the point that American Communists have always been quite realistic about their inability to impose a Soviet-style Communist regime on the American people.  He writes, “We now know that American Communists and their masters in Moscow were acutely aware that they could never gain the popular support they needed to enlist the support of a much wider coalition that could help them push their private agenda.”

But what should be most distressing for Americans is Dr. Kengor’s discovery that “it was nothing short of stunning to research this book during the presidential bid of Barack Obama and hear so many of the names in my research surface repeatedly in the background of the man who became president of the United States of America.  The way in which so many names and themes from the Cold War past aligned and made their way into Obama’s orbit was chilling.”

As conservative Alan Caruba points out in his December 12 column, America’s Communist President,“Obama’s December 8th speech in Osawatomie, Kansas revealed to anyone paying attention that the president is a Communist.”  Referring to the free market system that has made this the most prosperous nation on Earth, Obama said, “It doesn’t work.  It has never worked.”

It brings to mind an article titled The First Time I Heard of Barack, by Tom Fife, first published on November 20, 2008, and which has been held in reserve on countless computer hard drives, awaiting confirmation of its legitimacy.  Fife wrote, “In the period of roughly February 1992 to mid 1994, I was making frequent trips to Moscow, Russia, in the process of starting a software development joint-venture company with some people from the Russian scientific community.  One of the men in charge on the Russian side was named V. M.; he had a wife named T.M.

“V. was a level-headed scientist while his wife was rather deeply committed to the losing Communist cause – a cause she obviously was not abandoning.”

Fife goes on to describe a dinner party at the Russian couple’s Moscow apartment early in 1992. He tells us that, as the evening progressed and the dinner conversation became more and more political in nature, Mrs. M. “developed a decidedly anti-American edge.”

According to Fife, she said, “You Americans always like to think that you have the perfect government and your people are always so perfect.  Well then, why haven’t you had a woman president by now?  You had a chance to vote for a woman vice-president and you didn’t do it… Well, I think you are going to be surprised when you get a black president very soon.”

The Americans responded matter-of-factly that there was nothing to bar a black person from being elected president and that, given the right person and the right circumstances… “America would try to vote for the right person, be he or she black or not.”

Not satisfied with that response, Mrs. M. continued, “What if I told you that you will have a black president very soon and he will be a Communist?”

Fife reports that the Americans stared at her in disbelief.  One responded, “It sounds like you know something we don’t know.”  To which Mrs. M. replied, “Yes, it is true.  This is not some idle talk.  He is already born and he is educated and being groomed to be president right now.  You will be impressed to know that he has gone to the best schools of Presidents.  He is what you call ‘Ivy League.’  You don’t believe me, but he is real and I even know his name.  His name is Barack.  His mother is white and American and his father is black from Africa.  That’s right, a chocolate baby!  And he’s going to be your President.”

As Fife reported, the woman then became much more specific, saying that the man being groomed for the presidency was from Hawaii, that he went to school in California, that he lived in Chicago, and that he would soon be elected to the state legislature.  She said, “Have no doubt; he is one of us, a Soviet.”

Most who are aware of the Fife article question its authenticity.  Is it fact or fiction?  Does Fife really exist?  Did the 1992 dinner party in Moscow really happen?  While the Fife article is still available on the Internet, it has yet to be proven or disproven and Fife is a difficult man to track down.  And while the story of the dinner party conversation in Moscow may be pure fiction, the specifics appear to fit nicely with what we actually know about Obama’s path to power.

For example, we know that a young black man from Hawaii who was educated in California and in Ivy League schools, lived in Chicago, entered American politics, was elected to the Illinois state senate and to the U.S. Senate, and later became president.  We know that to be true.

We are also aware that Democrats in Congress attempted to amend the U.S. Constitution to make it possible for an individual who is not a “natural born” U.S. citizen to serve as president or vice president.  The first of these attempts was made in June 2003, followed by a second attempt in September 2003, a year before Obama exploded onto the national scene as keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.  Was that pure coincidence, or are we allowed to suspect that it might have been part of some grand international conspiracy?

If the “natural born Citizen” requirement of the U,S. Constitution has not represented a major problem at any time in history, why were Democrats suddenly so concerned about it in 2003 when a young black man, fathered by an African Communist, raised by a radical left mother and grandparents, and mentored by a well-known black Communist, was emerging as a rising star in the Democratic Party?  Was it pure coincidence, or was it part of a grand conspiracy?

Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate in 1996, one of 6,978 state legislators in the United States.  He served eight totally unremarkable years in the legislature… voting “present” on some 129 occasions so as not to create a record that might later be difficult to defend… before announcing his candidacy for the United States Senate in 2004.  Then, months before being elected to the U.S. Senate, he was selected to deliver the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.  Of the thousands of capable young Democrats available to them… men and women of experience and accomplishment… why did convention officials find it necessary to award that “plum” to a young man who had accomplished little or nothing in his life?  Was his name drawn out of a hat, or was his selection dictated by a grand international conspiracy?

Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate in November 2004 and was sworn into office on January 4, 2005.  Almost immediately, he launched his campaign for the presidency.   In the ensuing three years he devoted most of his time to his presidential ambitions and on August 28, 2008 he defeated Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination.  Was his victory over the vaunted Clinton machine the result of tactical superiority, or was it purchased for him?

Following his nomination, when the Chairman and the Secretary of the Democratic National Convention, Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travis Germond, respectively, were required to certify the names, home addresses, and qualifications of their candidates to the election boards of the 50 states, so that ballots could be printed, why did they certify to only one state, the State of Hawaii, that Obama and Biden were eligible to serve under provisions of the U.S. Constitution?

So the question arises, what role did the Communist Frank Marshall Davis, Obama’s childhood mentor, play in his intellectual development?  And what did two Democratic Congressmen know that caused them to offer proposed constitutional amendments in 2003 that would benefit no one but Obama in 2008?  Specifically, what did they know about Obama’s presidential ambitions and his inability to meet the “natural born Citizen” standard, and when did they know it?  And why did Speaker Pelosi, third in line to the presidency, purposely aid and abet in the commission of a felony by purposely hiding from state election board officials, and from the American people, the fact that the man nominated for President of the United States at the 2008 Democratic National Convention was, in fact, ineligible to serve in that office?

The speech that Obama delivered at Osawatomie, Kansas was a speech that could just as easily have been delivered in the Presidium of the Communist Party, USSR.  Now, as Republicans focus on the Iowa caucuses, they must choose a candidate capable of convincing the American people that everything that Obama has accomplished in eight years can and must be undone.  But first, they must nominate a candidate who can not only defeat Obama, but defeat him utterly and completely.  His defeat must be of such a magnitude that he will not want to remain in the country that he has been taught from childhood to hate… and where he will be forever an object of derision.  Short of impeachment and conviction, it is the only thing that will send the proper message to those who put him where he is.

[email protected]

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:05 AM
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Sunday, December 25, 2011


"This video will be upsetting, having to trip down memory lane, seeing what this “der leader” has done to our country, in the past 3 years… based on this 3 year look-back, and what has been done, we might not make it till next November…and God help us if he wins re-election…"

"Bill Whittle never disappoints.."

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:54 AM
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Saturday, December 24, 2011


Obama says he's not bound by Guantanamo, gun-control provisions

By Erik Wasson 12/23/11 04:19 PM ET

President Obama said Friday he will not be bound by at least 20 policy riders in the 2012 omnibus funding the government, including provisions pertaining to Guantanamo Bay and gun control.

After he signed the omnibus into law Friday, the White House released a concurrent signing statement saying Obama will object to portions of the legislation on constitutional grounds. 

Signing statements are highly controversial, and their legality is disputed.

"I have advised the Congress that I will not construe these provisions as preventing me from fulfilling my constitutional responsibility to recommend to the Congress's consideration such measures as I shall judge necessary and expedient," Obama said in a statement as he signed the bill into law.

The signing statement says that on the issue of accused terrorist detainees, Obama will interpret and apply provisions that bar the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, "in a manner that avoids constitutional conflicts."

Obama also objected to Defense provisions in the bill that limit the president's ability to put troops under foreign command and require 30 days advance notice to Congress for any use of the military which would involve more than $100,000 in construction costs.

The president also objected to a section aimed at blocking health, climate, auto policy and urban affairs "czars" from being employed by the White House and a provision that bars health officials from advocating for gun control. The signing statement also objects to a portion of the omnibus that limits funding for the Copyright Office. 

The statement also objects to numerous unnamed provisions in the bill that would require executive branch officials to clear everyday spending decisions with appropriators.

Of these extra conditions, Obama writes, "our spending decisions shall not be treated as dependent on the approval of congressional committees."

Obama also objected to 13 sections of the State department bill, arguing they limit his ability to conduct foreign policy. In particular he objected provisions that withhold funding from Middle East allies unless the administration reveals details on ongoing negotiations to Congress.

The 1,200-page omnibus funds all parts of the federal government except for the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Justice, Transportation and Housing and Urban Development, as well as the science agencies. Those were funded by a smaller bill that passed Congress in November.

The signing of the spending bill caps a year of contentious spending battles that saw a near-government shutdown in April and a debt-rating downgrade in August as the U.S. nearly defaulted on its obligations when Congress threatened not to raise the debt ceiling.

That debt-ceiling debacle resulted in an agreement on spending caps that greatly smoothed passage of the omnibus. 

The bill was not without incident, however, and last week the White House and the GOP had a mini-standoff about policy riders in the bill. The White House was able to get a ban on family travel to Cuba removed but did not get extra funding for Wall Street reform that it had been seeking. 

The White House also gave up on a provision in the bill blocking District of Columbia-funded abortions.

Comments (61)

Why would the Bamster be obliged to adhere to the separation of powers. We thinks he can wreck the economy and country without limits. No surprise hereBY KEN on 12/23/2011 at 16:32
Obama needs to know that we are sick of him behaving like a dictator. To ALL in congress. We do not live in a dictatorship where Obama gets to write which rukes he will implement or defend from congress.
Obama will be smart to wise up. In the meantime Obamas illegal uncle will be blaming the police for his arrest. Blame someone else. It's an Obama trait.

BY MARY on 12/23/2011 at 16:38
2012 and your sorry azz is back in chicago with the rest of the trash!BY PAUL on 12/23/2011 at 16:39
No surprises there. He is the dictator of the USSA.BY TRACYW on 12/23/2011 at 16:39
Obama is a Hamas and Hezbolla supporter. As he makes rules to not insult Muslims, Christians and Israelis are mocked. 

BY PATTY on 12/23/2011 at 16:44
Government of Obama, by Obama, and for Obama. He is not a great president, nor a lawyer who respects the rule of law. It is the style of leadership you expect from a third world thug.BY GRAHAM on 12/23/2011 at 16:46
Welcome Dictatorship, America. A clear message from King Barry the Only.BY PETE WENZEL, ESQ on 12/23/2011 at 16:46
If Obama will not follow rules we are now a lawless nation. Community organizers make terrible presidents. Caos and anarchy are the Obama way. Getting the feeling all those Fema camps are there when Obama tries to get the people to rise up against him. Stay calm. Agitation is all part of Obamas game.BY THERESA on 12/23/2011 at 16:48
So in other words the only part of the Bill the Community Agitator likes is the spending part? No news there! What a sorry lazy (his words) no good for nothing liar.BY COME ON 2012 on 12/23/2011 at 16:48
With all this the REPUBLICANS are still to cowardly to call for his impeachment.BY PLAINOLAMRICAN on 12/23/2011 at 16:54

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

State Supreme Court deciding if politician 'ineligible' for office

Ruling to determine whether elected secretary of state properly registered

Posted: December 24, 2011
1:00 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WND

A ruling awaited from the Indiana Supreme Court is expected to determine whether Secretary of State Charlie White will remain in office after a lower court decided he was ineligible at the time he was elected.

Marion County Circuit Court Judge Louis Rosenberg previously ruled White was ineligible to be on the 2010 ballot and Democrat runner-up, Vop Osili, should be declared the winner.

The case was moved up to the state Supreme Court today, and its eventual ruling is expected to gather much attention.  While the specific situation is different, the issue of removing an elected official from office over eligibility has been dogging Barack Obama since before his inauguration in 2009.

Obama's critics argue that he doesn't meet the Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural-born citizen." He, therefore, can't be impeached, they further contend, because he never should have been installed in the Oval Office.

White has been confronted with series of other problems, including a pending trial in Hamilton County where there are voter fraud and perjury counts lodged against him. A spokesman for White's office told the Journal & Courier newspaper of Lafayette, Ind., that the situation was "unprecedented."

The controversy began when Democrats alleged before the 2010 election that White was guilty of voter fraud by voting in a precinct where he didn't live. While White won the election by hundreds of thousands of votes, Democrats continued to insist he never was registered correctly.

He was scolded by the Indiana Recount Commission, but that decision said state law required only that he be registered in the state. Judge Rosenberg, a Democrat, thought otherwise.

He ruled that White was not registered properly in time for the election in which he was a candidate.

"The fact that Mr. White knowingly registered in the wrong precinct is sufficient to render him ineligible for the office of secretary of state," he ruled.

Numerous court cases have been filed against Obama over his occupancy in the White House. But none has succeeded yet even in reaching the point of discovery where plaintiffs' might determine whether concealed documentation for Obama reveals his status.

Some say he was not born in Hawaii as he has maintained and, therefore, is not eligible. Other critics say the Constitution's "natural born citizen" requirement means that since his father never was a U.S. citizen, he wouldn't qualify under any circumstances.

There are impeachment campaigns that have been launched encouraging his removal from office, but others say he doesn't even qualify for impeachment, as a lack of eligibility should mean he never was president.

The Indiana decision, when it eventually is released, however, is not the only precedent that courts will have available.

Attorney Gary Kreepof theUnited States Justice Foundationhas raised in his arguments before the California courts several related issues.

He explained, "In 1968, the Peace and Freedom Party submitted the name of Eldridge Cleaver as a qualified candidate for president of the United States. The then-Secretary of State, Mr. Frank Jordan, found that, according to Mr. Cleaver's birth certificate, he was only 34 years old, one year shy of the 35 years of age needed to be on the ballot as a candidate for president.

"Using his administrative powers, Mr. Jordan removed Mr. Cleaver from the ballot. Mr. Cleaver, unsuccessfully, challenged this decision to the Supreme Court of the State of California, and, later, to the Supreme Court of the United States, which affirmed the actions."

Further, Kreep has argued, is the case of Thomas H. Moodie. He was a Democrat nominated by his party for governor in North Dakota in 1934. He beat his Republican opponent, Lydia Langer.

"As soon as the election was over, there was talk of impeachment, but no charges were filed," the state's archives say. "After Moodie's inauguration on January 7, 1935, it was revealed that he had voted in a 1932 municipal election in Minnesota. In order to be eligible for governor, an individual has to have lived in the state for five consecutive years before the election. The State Supreme Court determined that Governor Moodie was ineligible to serve, and he was removed from office on February 16, 1935."

The Indiana case could update the precedent that was established then for the removal of a politician from office, or from a ballot, because of ineligibility.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled just this weekthat although other candidates for the presidency in 2008 would have reason to think they would have standing to file a case alleging fraud against Obama, they lost their standing because they waited until minutes after the inauguration.

That ruling came even though Obama flubbed the oath during the public inauguration and the chief justice of the Supreme Court thought it necessary for him to retake it later in the privacy of the presidential quarters.

The Supreme Court justices repeatedly have refused to address the constitutional questions involved. Thejustices apparently are "avoiding" the Obama issue, according to one member of the court. Justice Clarence Thomas appeared before a U.S. House subcommittee when the issue arose. Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., raised the question amid a discussion on racial diversity in the judiciary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

One recent case against Obama to go to the high court wasbrought by attorney John Hemenway on behalf of retired Col. Greg Hollister.

When the justices refused to listen to the concerns, Laurence Elgin, an expert working with theConstitutional Rule of Law Fund and websiteand monitoring the case, said their "defiance of the court cases, their attitude they don't really need to adhere to the law, is really unparalleled."

"The public is going to grow increasingly concerned about Obama and the failure of the courts to deal with these concerns," he told WND.

Read more:State Supreme Court deciding if politician 'ineligible' for officehttp://www.wnd.com/?pageId=380641#ixzz1hSyDcevQ
  • Kellie Driver · Wetumpka, Alabama
    It doesn't seem they can attack anyone but conservative people.
  • Tom Mc ·  Top Commenter
    AP declared Obama “Kenyan-Born”
    What most people know is that the Associated Press (AP) is one of the largest, internationally recognized, syndicated news services. What most people don’t know that is in 2004, the AP was a “birther” news organization.
    How so? Because in a syndicated report, published Sunday, June 27, 2004, by the Kenyan Standard Times, and which was, as of this report, available at
    The AP reporter stated the following:

    Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race on Friday night amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations.

    This report explains the context of the oft cited debate, between Obama and Keyes in the following Fall, in which Keyes faulted Ob...See More
  • Tom Mc ·  Top Commenter
    Obama is Barry Soetoro, not Barrack Hessian Obama, born in Canada or Kenya, not America, adopted in Indonesia. Obama appeared in Seattle Washington when 12 days old, from where? His mother’s parents both dedicated known communists all their life, may have called Honolulu’s papers for his birth announcement, for no Hawaiian or other U.S. hospital has ever confirmed his birth to date. The senior Dunham’s, after his Indonesian schooling raised him to be a communist in Hawaii and he associated with known communists, like cop killer Bill Ayers, his ghost writer, neighbor and long time confidante supporter in Chicago.

    Obama/Soetoro is not legally qualified to be president and never will be: because wherever he was born, he was born a British subject; for he was fathered by one. Obama/Soetoro is at minimal a duel citizen, prohibited by the U.S. Constitution to hold presidential office. Barack Obama /Barry Soetoro, wherever and who ever he claims to be a citizen of or from; Indonesia, Kenya or just an American repatriated, he is denied by the U.S. Constitution’s Article. II, § 1(5); Obama cannot hold presidential office. 
  • Nedd Kareiva ·  ·  Top Commenter · Central Bible College
    Living in Indiana, I am aware of this case. Besides the eligibility implications WND conveys in this story, the fact is that Judge Rosenberg is an activist judge. The proper call for him to make was that Mr. White be removed from the ballot and a new election take place with the defeated Democrat and another candidate of the state GOP's own choosing. To let this judge's decision stand as is disenfranchises the majority of Hoosier voters who selected Mr. White as Secretary of State. Like the usurper in the White House, Judge Rosenberg warrants impeachment and removal from office.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:32 AM
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

@@[email protected]@http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=380197

Election fraud? Sorry, vote's over

Court rules inauguration cancels 'standing' in Obama case

Posted: December 22, 2011
10:45 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WND

The judges on the9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appealshaveruled that election fraud suspected in the 2008 presidential campaign essentially was canceledby the inauguration of Barack Obama.

The ruling comes in a lawsuit that was filed on the same day Obama was inaugurated in Washington by a team of taxpayers, voters, presidential candidates, members of the military and others who alleged Obama failed to meet the Constitution's requirements for the presidency.

The case represents the work of two groups of plaintiffs, one led bylawyer Orly Taitzand the other by attorney Gary Kreep of theUnited States Justice Foundation.

Taitz said her plaintiffs definitely will pursue further action, probably a request for rehearing at two levels of federal court, while Kreep told WND he was working with his clients on the results, and they soon would make a decision regarding an appeal.

Get Jerome Corsi's "Where's the Real Birth Certificate?"

The issue was the "standing" of the groups bringing the complaint against Obama. The district court essentially said nobody had standing to bring a complaint, but the appellate judges said the individuals who were politically connected to the race should hold an interest in a fair outcome – including whether there was an ineligible candidate aboard the ticket.

The individuals were Alan Keyes and Wiley S. Drake, candidates for the White House on the American Independent Party ticket in California; Gail Lightfoot, a member of the California Libertarian Party; who was a write-in candidate; and Markham Robinson, a certified California elector for the American Independent Party.

The judges' panel observed: "These plaintiffs argue that they have standing because, as candidates running against Obama in the 2008 election, they had an interest in having a fair competition. … If Obama entered the presidential race without meeting the requirements for the office, they contend, the candidates did not have a fair opportunity to obtain votes in their favor."

The opinion from judges Harry Pregerson, Ray Fisher and Marsha Berzon explained the concept is called "competitive standing," and they affirmed it as legitimate grounds for concern.

"This notion of 'competitive standing' has been recognized by several circuits," the opinion said. "We, too, have upheld the notion of 'competitive standing.' In Owen v. Mulligan, we held that the 'potential loss of an election' was an injury-in-fact sufficient to give a local candidate and Republican party officials standing. In that case, the candidate for local office sued the Postal Service for giving his rival a preferential mailing rate, in violation of its own regulations."

The opinion said the case had the candidate and party officials seeking "to prevent their opponent from gaining an unfair advantage."

However, in Obama's case, the court panel simply said once the inauguration was held, the claims evaporated.

"The original complaint was filed on Jan. 20, 2009, at 3:26 p.m. Pacific Standard Time, after President Obama was officially sworn is as president," the judges wrote. "Once the 2008 election was over and the president sworn in, Keyes, Drake and Lightfoot were no longer 'candidates' for the 2008 general election. Moreover, they have not alleged any interest in running against President Obama in the future.

"Therefore, none of the plaintiffs could claim that they would be injured by the 'potential loss of an election,'" the court said.

Actually, Obama flubbed the Jan. 20 public oath, and retook it later, out of public view, according to the White House.

In a footnote, the judges confirmed that "some cases" have held that competitive standing continues beyond a given election, but they don't think so in this case.

The court also dismissed a quo warranto action – essentially a court case demanding to know by what authority a given official is acting – because they believe such an action can be filed only in the District of Columbia, as well as FOIA claims requesting information.

The case also unsuccessfully alleged violations of the federal racketeering law, RICO.

"We've sent our recommendation to the plaintiffs," said Kreep. "I was surprised [by the opinion] given the comments made by the justice Berzon about this was an important constitutional issue that needed to be resolved."

Taitz told WND that it is important to note that the court did not confirm that Obama is eligibile; just that there were technical troubles with all of the current case claims.

"They were careful not to state that Barack Obama is eligible for the presidency," she said. "[The opinion] doesn't say he has a valid birth certificate, valid Social Security number."

"All is says is nobody has standing," she said.

Her plan is to submit motions for rehearing at the 9th Circuit and other courts, based on the newest ruling, which seems to contradict earlier rulings she said she obtained in related cases. Her cases that were dismissed because they were brought before the inauguration and therefore lacked the requisite "ripeness" demanded by courts.

"It seems we are residing within a dictatorship, a totalitarian regime where the courts and judges are simply used as puppets to come up with some excuse to deny the complaints," she told WND.

WND previously reportedthe case claims Obama's qualifications were not checked properly, and that has resulted in a violation of the U.S. Constitution, a man occupying the Oval Office who does not meet the requirements that only a "natural born Citizen" can hold the office.

Since his election, sometimes using private attorneys and sometimes using taxpayer-funded legal teams, Obama has battled almost six-dozen lawsuits across the country, including several that reached the U.S. Supreme Court, to keep his records concealed from the public.

He even withheld the document he has since released when a career Army doctor, Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, was court-martialed and imprisoned for asking for verification that the commander-in-chief was legitimate.

Kreep, on behalf of Wiley S. Drake, a vice-presidential candidate on the 2008 ballot in California; and Markham Robinson, an elector from the state; had argued that there is precedent in the U.S. for removing an unqualified chief executive.

That happened in North Dakota, Kreep argued, when Thomas H. Moodie was removed from the office of governor in the 1930s. Moodie had failed to meet a state residency requirement to be governor. But he was elected anyway, installed and ultimately removed from office by the state Supreme Court over that failure.

The plaintiffs also cite an earlier California case in which a candidate for president was removed from the ballot by state officials because he failed to qualify for the office under the U.S. Constitution's age requirements.

The plaintiffs had argued that the Constitution was too important to ignore.

"A provision of the Constitution may not be disregarded by means of a popular vote of the people," the plaintiffs' earlier brief said, "as there are specific guidelines for amending the Constitution of the United States. … Even if the people of the United States voted to elect as president a candidate who did not qualify for the position, that vote would not be sufficient to overcome the constitutional requirements for office and make that candidate eligible.

"Here, the underlying issue is one arising under the Art. 2, Paragraph 1 of the United States Constitution, whether Obama meets the eligibility requirements. … As established above, plaintiffs have standing to bring this action as they have suffered a concrete injury in fact, caused by Obama's ineligibility for the office of United States president, for which the court has a remedy," the brief said.

The issue stems from the constitutional demand that the president – unlike others in the federal government – must be a "natural born citizen." WND has covered numerous challenges and lawsuits over Obama's eligibility. Some have alleged that he was not born in Hawaii in 1961 as he has claimed or that the framers of the Constitution specifically excluded dual citizens – Obama's father was a subject of the British crown at Obama's birth – from being eligible for the office.

While Obama's "Certificate of Live Birth" was released by the White House, other documentation for him remains sealed, including kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.

The justices on the Supreme Court repeatedly have refused to address the constitutional questions involved. Thejustices apparently are "avoiding" the Obama issue, according to one member of the court. Last year, Justice Clarence Thomas appeared before a U.S. House subcommittee when the issue arose. Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., raised the question amid a discussion on racial diversity in the judiciary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The video:

One recent case to go to the high court wasbrought by attorney John Hemenway on behalf of retired Col. Greg Hollister.

When the justices refused to listen to the concerns, Laurence Elgin, an expert working with theConstitutional Rule of Law Fund and websiteand monitoring the case, said their "defiance of the court cases, their attitude they don't really need to adhere to the law, is really unparalleled."

"The public is going to grow increasingly concerned about Obama and the failure of the courts to deal with these concerns," he told WND.

The same two attorneysalso had another case that ran through the state court system that raised similar issues and ultimately was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court, which simply posted a notice it would not hear the case.

The image that Obama released as his birth documentation, which has been challenged repeatedly by computer, imaging and document experts as a fraud:

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:18 AM
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Tuesday, December 20, 2011


December 20, 2011

US not headed towards Euro-socialism...it's far worse than that

By Sher Zieve

Are you as tired as am I about the talking heads — leftists, RINO and faux conservatives — advising us on an almost daily basis that "If we don't stop it (presumably the government, Obama and maybe even Obama's sycophant Congress) we're heading for 'European-style Socialism.'" Ahhh...as if that were the only thing about which we have to worry. Of course, the truth is that the [former] USA is not heading for Euro-Socialism. Instead, it is careening at full speed — with no discernable braking — into full-fledged Marxist Communo-Fascist elitist-ruled Islamo-Drug cartel Narco/Nazi State — replete with its own apparent and visible concentration camps. Said State has been meticulously planned over, at least, decades and is now being forcefully implemented against We-the-People who seem to have been replaced by "We-the-Sheeple."

President Ronald Reagan said: "Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have."

As we take a look at our present survival possibilities, let us pray to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that there are enough of We-the-People still remaining who have both the moral courage and strength of will to bring our country back from its destruction at the hands of our "elected" traitors.

Isn't it almost Past Time to start actually telling the Truth?

First and foremost, it is incumbent upon me to, again, report on the FEMA camps and their relationship to the now-passed unconstitutional NDAA bill; a bill that was largely non-threatening prior to this year. This year, however, a great deal was added; not the least of which is the designation of the entire USA as essentially a battlefield and the authorization of the US military to arrest and detain US citizens without legal or other charge, the disallowance of legal counsel and the ability to hold said citizens indefinitely. These provisions contained within Sections 1031 and 1032 effectively nullify the Bill of Rights. The danger to our very existence — both as a nation and We-the-People individually — has taken an extremely dark turn, America. We are now decidedly living under tyranny.

Second, we are living under an apparent dictator-driven oligarchic government. Whether many are aware of it or not, the US Constitution officially ended with the passage of the "new and revised" NDAA and we are, also, officially no longer a Republic. Both had been on their last legs for years and now have come to an end under Usurper and Dictator-in-Chief Barack "the smiling Muslim" Hussein Obama.

Third, since establishing a hard-line rulership over the former United States of America, the Obama syndicate has methodically and with great and unprecedented alacrity gutted the US Treasury.

Who's Really to Blame?

For those of you who still insist upon blaming Obama's predecessor, the US economy was extremely sound, GNP was continuing to rise and unemployment was at 4.6% prior to 3 January 2007 (NOT 3 January 2009) when the Democrats took over both Houses of Congress. Unemployment rates before Democrats took over Congress went down every year of the G.W. Bush presidency: 2003 = 5.7 to 6.3 %; 2004 = 5.4 to 5.7 %; 2005 = 4.8 to 5.4%; 2006 = 4.4 to 4.8%.

The rise in unemployment AFTER Democrats took both Houses of Congress (and literally astounding after the Obama syndicate took up residency in the White House) was meteoric! The unemployment rate — despite the phony numbers released by the corrupt ObamaGov — is still continuing to rise today.

Obama has been and is a job killer — one who now denies the middle class jobs. For example, to date Obama has fought against the Keystone Pipeline project that — according to Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) — would provide 20,000 direct jobs and 100,000 indirect jobs. Obama is closing coal plants around the country leaving thousands more unemployed. Of course, this is the aim of Obama's New World Order; an Order where he and his acolytes determine who will succeed and who will not. Obama's world also now decides whom he believes worthy of life and whom he does not...thus entered ObamaCare.

Socialists, Communists, Nazis, Fascists and all totalitarian 'leaders' believe they — and only they — have the divine right (divine because of their own assumed "divinity") to rule and determine that which truly lies with God. You request an example? Witness what unapologetic Nazi collaborator and Obama handler/mentor George Soros has said: "I have always harbored an exaggerated view of my self-importance. To put it bluntly, I fancied myself as some kind of god or an economic reformer like Keynes, or, even better, like Einstein. My sense of reality was strong enough to make me realize that these expectations were excessive, and I kept them hidden as a guilty secret. This was a source of considerable unhappiness through much of my adult life. As I made my way in the world, reality came close enough to my fantasy to allow me to admit my secret, at least to myself. Needless to say, I feel much happier as a result."

This is how all 'leaders' of the hard-Left feel and it is also what they believe — they are the rulers (aka slave masters) and we are supposed to be their willing and subservient vassals.

Some Facts to Remember before they are scrubbed

To again quote the late and great President Ronald Reagan "Facts are stubborn things." Since Obama became POTUS (although an illegal one), I suspect there has been more scrubbing of truth and facts about him and his adherents than has ever occurred in the still-short history of the Internet. But, despite the Left's rewriting of the truth, eventually the truth does prevail. Even when truth is obscured, if it's hitting them in the face each and every day humans know it and will not buy the snake oil lies attempting to be sold.

The information I have presented above and in other columns is accurate. If there are any questions about that statement, one need only check the references/sources I have provided. In order to survive and — dare I suggest — begin to live again under liberty instead of oppression, we must work to make it happen. If we simply sit back and 'assume' others will do it for us...all will continue to be lost and will even worsen.

President Reagan spoke of a shining city on a hill. I will leave you with the original source:

13"Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.

14"Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.

15"Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house." — Matthew 5:13-15

It's good to remember He who gave We-the-People our right to life and liberty.

Iron Curtain begins Descending onto the United States of America (FEMA Camps):

Unemployment Rates at 4.6% before Democrats took over both Houses of Congress: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111011191804AAgQW3Q

Map of Unemployment rise after Democrats take both Houses of Congress:http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

Keystone Pipeline: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline

Profile: George Soros: God of all he surveys:

© Sher Zieve

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:31 AM
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar



The National Defense Authorization Act has

Obama Marxist 

Redistribution of Your Wealth and Freedom----That's my Hope and Change for you America--It's Called Marxism!

already passed in the US Socialist Democrat Politburo Senate
and is now waiting for Comrade Barry Boy to sign it and make it a Law.

This Act is one of the most anti-American bills that has ever been so much as suggested in the United States Congress. If those were American’s in our Government, the Marxist oriented “National Defense Authorization Act” would have never been taken seriously by any branch of the US government.

It would have been shredded along with all the other communist bile that has ever been posed on the floor of the Senate.

But we aren’t dealing with Americans in our Senate now. Those are Marxist, pure and simple. All sworn enemies of the United States of America.

As it stands now, if Usurper Barry Boy the Despot Marxist decides to sign that Bill into Law, Americans better hope and pray they have a good supply of ammunition and food stored up and hidden away in a secure location.

The passage of this despotic Bill will mean, Americans can …and likely will… be arrested and detained for storing a 7 day supply of food at their homes.

But, it most likely won’t be the local police department doing the arresting. It will likely beComrade Barry Boy’s loyal Homosexual Military who will break down our doors and haul American Citizens away in shackles.

The Posse Comitatus Act won’t allow that to happen to US Citizens,you say?

Indeed it will. The Marxist Barry Boy Administration and merry band of despots in the Senate Politburo have taken the liberty to re-write the definition of “Terrorist” and “Terrorism” as they apply to the Law.

Once Comrade Barry Boy signs that bill, it will mean that Americans, for nearly any excuse at all, can be labeled as a “terrorist” and arrested by the US military.

Moreover, the detainees can be transported from American soil, and imprison at a facility located in a foreign country—Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

And, they can be detained there indefinitely according to Marxist Barry Boy’s new Law.

Here is the story…

Storing 7 Days of Food Could Send You to Gitmo Indefinitely


Written on December 19,
2011 by da Tagliare

If President Obama signs the National Defense

National Defense Authorization Act

Stoe Up a Supply of food---talk bad about the Government---missing a couple of fingers ---You can be arrested and imprisoned indefinitely!

Authorization Act that is sitting on his desk, it will give him the power to arrest any American citizen and send them to Guantanamo Bay without any charges, without a trial and the imprisonment can be indefinite.

Contained in the over 1800 pages of the massive bill is a provision that gives the military the power to indefinitely detain any suspected terrorists without filing charges. Since the President is Commander in Chief of the armed forces, that provision also gives him the same powers.

The real danger lies in the government’s definition of what a suspected terrorist is.

According to Sen Rand Paul (R-KY),

“We’re talking about American citizens who can be taken from the United States and sent to a camp at Guantanamo Bay and held indefinitely. There are laws on the books right now that characterize who might be a terrorist: someone missing fingers on their hands is a suspect, according to the Department of Justice. Someone who has guns, someone who has ammunition that is weatherproofed, someone who has more than seven days of food in their house can be considered a potential terrorist. If you are suspected because of these activities, do you want the government to have the ability to send you to Guantanamo Bay for indefinite detention?”

Paul says this is why he and twelve other senators voted against the bill, because they saw the dangerous implications of this provision which was designed to give the military certain powers during the current conflict with al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.

A number of Democrats deny that the bill contains any provision that would allow for the indefinite detainment of American citizens without due process of law. However, if you look at the list of the Dems making the denials, you will quickly discover that they are the loyal minions of the president and have already proven that they will lie and pervert the law so as to support Obama.

The truly frightening aspect of this is that Obama has placed a number of provisions in place to set the stage for his dictatorial takeover of the country. Once he touches the ink to this piece of legislation, he will have the power to accuse anyone who opposes him of being a suspected terrorist and have them sent to Gitmo or some other military facility where they can be held without any formal charges for as long as the government determines that we are still at hostility with terrorism.

This provision is another nail in the coffin of free America, mark my word.

Read the full story…



Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:45 AM
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Wednesday, December 14, 2011

What is the Obama State Ballot Challenge?

Occupy White House: Help Stop Obama From Another 4 Un-Constitutional Years

This is a national call to action to help ensure Article II, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution is upheld by stopping Obama from getting back in the White House for another 4 un-Constitutional years. The Obama State Ballot Challenge 2012 project was created to help organize and report on the Herculean effort to keep Obama off the Presidential election ballot in 2012 because he does not meet the Constitutional standard of Natural Born Citizen that was established by Minor v. Happersett, and because of his massive fraud crimes committed before and during his tenure in the White House.

We need your help now! Challenges can be filed in the primary season. You can file your own complaint with your state without hiring a attorney and without any cost. We are working on providing a generic example complaint that you can use for reference. Please go to the Contact page and email the Director Pamela Barnett if you can file a complaint in your state. See if we have election law on your state by clicking on your state page above. See the Obama State Ballot Challenge 2012 page of this website for more details.

The first ballot challenge is ongoing in New Hampshire and citizens have additionally filed ballot challenges in Georgia, Hawaii, Tennessee, Arizona, and Alabama, and many more are in the works. We need to challenge Obama in all 50 states many times. More news to come soon on new ballot challenges and a new partnership that could provide legal resources to citizen voters filing complaints. Join our campaign to stop Obama in 2012 by filing a ballot complaint or volunteering to help with advertising our effort to recruit more people to file complaints.

We do this because we are a nation of laws, and the political ruling class has failed to uphold the law regarding Obama's usurpation. We do it for God, country, and family.... and for justice. We will also fight against any non Natural Born Republican that appears on the Presidential ballot. This is not a political initiative, it is about respecting the Constitution.

We all lose if we continue to be a nation of men and not of laws. This enables corruption in Congress, the White House and the Courts. As it stands now, they are all operating above the law. This state ballot initiative brings the power back to the states to ensure their citizens are voting for only qualified candidates.

This site will mostly concentrate on news related to the Obama State Ballot 2012 initiative. Please subscribe for email updates. Your privacy will be safeguarded to the best of our ability. Your emails will not be shared with anyone. Also, sign up on our Facebook page and Twitter.

This is a sister website to www.unlawfulpresident.com.

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:51 AM
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
December 14, 2011

JustiaGate: 'Natural Born' Supreme Court Citations Disappear

By Dianna C. Cotter with L. Donofrio Esq.

Did Justia.com deliberately aid Barack Obama in 2008 by helping to hide the one legal case that might prevent him from legally qualifying for the presidency?

On October 20, 2011, New Jersey attorney Leo Donofrio accused online legal research behemoth Justia.com of surgically redacting important information from their publication of 25 U.S. Supreme Court opinions which cite Minor v. Happersett, an 1874 decision which arguably contains language that appears to disqualify anyone from presidential eligibility who wasn't born in the country to parents who were citizens.  According to the decision in Happersett:

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.  (Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 [1874])

Justia is a Google Mini-powered website which has singled itself out as one of the most comprehensive and easy-to-search legal sites on the internet.  Other legal resources such as Lexis can cost as much as $5,000 a month for a subscription, and it's impossible to hyperlink to cases which include copyrighted headnotes and analysis.  This is why powerful law firms such as Perkins Coie (where former Obama White House Counsel Bob Bauer practices law) have cited Justia's pages.

The Wayback Machine, run by InternetArchive.Org, is the means by which the changes made at Justia were documented over time.  Among the first responses from Justia regarding this controversy was to block its Supreme Court Server from being viewed by the Wayback Machine.

Click the following link for an image documenting the pattern of changes made to one of those 25 cases, Luria v. U.S., 231 U.S. 9 (1913).  Notice that the case name "Minor v. Happersett" has been removed, minimizing the case searchability.

The cover-up simply reeks.  While Justia owner Tim Stanley told CNET that there were more cases which had also been "mangled," there is no way to identify how much bogus law was published by Justia over the three-year period in question.  Minor v. Happersett simply disappeared from cases which cited it, minimizing its footprint on the internet at a critical juncture in history -- the election of 2008.

McCarthy v. Briscoe, 429 U.S. 1317 (1976)

On Nov. 3, 2008, one day before the election, Donofrio petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the ballots in New Jersey from being used the next day in the case Donofrio v. Wells, claiming that the eligibility of both Obama and McCain had not been verified by the NJ secretary of State as required by law.

In his research, Donofrio had found a reference to McCarthy v. Briscoe, 429 U.S. 1317 (1976), an important precedent which allows the Supreme Court -- or even one justice acting alone if an emergency stay is requested -- to order a secretary of state to insert a name on the ballot.  The holding of the case implies a reciprocal power to remove names from ballots for the several secretaries of State, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court.

Back in '08, Donofrio couldn't find the in chambers decision anywhere online.  Forced to go old-school, he procured it from a brick-and-mortar law library.  But to this day, McCarthy v. Briscoe remains elusive at Justia.  If you look in their "Volume" database and click "429," all of the in chambers opinions are mysteriously absent. 

In chambers opinions generally begin on pg. 1,301, but not every official volume has them.  For example, Volume 428 has no in chambers opinions, but 429, 434, and 439 do.  Justia's database for Volumes 434 and 439 do exhibit the in chambers opinions, but Volume 429 has them scrubbed.

If you search Justia's Cases & Opinions by Year in 1976, McCarthy v. Briscoe is listed.  There are two cases, an insignificant one-page opinion at page 1,316, followed by the relevant decision on pg. 1,317.  There are links to the preview as well as "Full Text."  However, all of the links are broken, leading back to Justia's front page.

Additionally, Justia's publication of a following 1977 5th Circuit case, 553 F.2d 1005, includes a hyperlink back to 429 U.S. 1317, and that link is also mysteriously broken.

It would be instructive to track the timeline of changes in the Wayback Machine, but Justia is steadfastly preventing that transparency.  Furthermore, if Justia continues its previous pattern, the links (eg: http://supreme.justia.com/us/429/1317/) will be restored upon publication of this article.  Take your screenshots now.


With numerous state-level challenges being prepared by opponents of Obama's eligibility for 2012, McCarthy v. Briscoe will be a required citation.  That it continues to be unavailable at Justia seriously calls into question Stanley's contention that the cases on Justia's servers were mangled by an innocent coding error.

This claim of innocent technical error was debunked by Dr. David Hansen, a Ph.D. in computer science.  McCarthy v. Briscoe, 429 U.S. 1317 (1976) at Justia shows a completely different pattern of information removal from what could be explained away by a single coding error which erased case names.

The removal of prior versions of cases from the Wayback Machine by Justia amounts to nothing less than supreme hypocrisy considering Stanley's high stature as a leading light championing transparency of legal information for the public.  

Use at your own risk

Justia in 2008 tangled with the State of Oregon when it downloaded and republished the State Statutes without either informing the state or gaining its permission, in violation of copyright law.  Dexter Johnson, the head of the Office of Oregon State Legislative Counsel Committee reported that the Committee received information that the State Statutes were available at a website other than the state.  Upon investigation, the Committee ultimately decided not to pursue legal action against Justia for copyright violation; instead, "the committee decided to waive its copyright on the Oregon Revised Statutes going forward," said Johnson in a phone interview.

It is left to a user of Justia to verify the information to be found within its pages, despite a disclaimer of "Full Text of Case" on its pages.  Upon inquiry with the U.S. Supreme Court, Patricia McCabe Estrada, deputy public information officer of the U.S. Supreme Court, responded that "the official opinions of the Supreme Court are posted on the Court's Website and we don't generally monitor other sites." 

Johnson says Oregon also does not have a monitoring policy in place.  When asked how a person using Justia's services would know if he were receiving accurate information or not, Johnson replied:

The only way, it seems to me, would be to compare that with what's on the legislature's website. In which case you might as well go directly to the legislature's website. It's one of the reasons why we had originally suggested that they have their website simply point in the direction of our own.

Justia publishes SCOTUS cases with the positive affirmation "Full Text of Case."  Clearly this was not done with regards to the specific opinions it redacted and covered up.  Whether a violation of law or not, various non-profit agencies, students, law firms, and private researchers who relied upon Justia's services remain in the dark, unable to determine if their research materials were altered by Justia, as the company has released neither what it redacted nor in what cases.  Without an effective means of verifying accuracy, Justia's transparency and credibility are questionable.


It turns out that Justia received additional help from their close counterpart in the open government information movement, Public.Resource.Org (PRO), founded and run by Carl Malamud.  Malamud was also the chief technology officer for The Center for American Progress, a progressive think-tank funded in part by none other than George Soros.  Tim Stanley is on the Board of Trustees at Public.Resource.Org, and Justia is PRO's top benefactor.  Stanley is also a co-convenor of Malamud's Law.gov organization, which, despite appearances, is not a government entity. 

PRO makes available a huge database of court cases to other organizations such as the Cornell Legal Institute, which has now been dragged into the Justia mess through a case that cements Minor v. Happersett as defining "Natural Born Citizen."  Ex Parte: Lockwood  states:

In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word 'citizen' is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since[.]"  (Emphasis added.)

However, at Cornell, the opinion is cut off right after "Minor v.".  Someone searching for "Minor v. Happersett" will be detoured from this case and its holding in support of Minor's precedence.  Cornell's version of Ex Parte: Lockwood is completely mangled.  Yet Lockwood helps prove that the decision in Minor created a legal definition of "Natural Born Citizen," something the national narrative states that no Supreme Court Case has ever done, in part because Minor's importance was effectively obscured.

There has been a deliberate, targeted effort to minimize if not erase the legal importance of Minor v. Happersett in defining the term "Natural Born Citizen."  Justia and PRO champion freedom of information yet at the same time hypocritically redacted the law to suit a political goal.  Justia and Tim Stanley butchered these cases and, when caught, removed Wayback Machine's access to Justia's entire Supreme Court server.  The only thing hidden now is the evidence of Justia's deliberate scrubbing, as the cases are available in the public domain.

Tim Stanley has not returned messages asking for comment on this story at time of publication.  Sometime last week, Justia added a disclaimer at the bottom of its SCOTUS case texts:

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.

The disclaimer speaks volumes about the credibility and accuracy of Justia.com.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/justiagate_natural_born_supreme_court_citations_disappear.html#ixzz1gVx7nM64

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 8:17 AM
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Tuesday, December 13, 2011

President Obama's Osawatomie Speech was a Marxist Attack on America

December 07, 2011


RUSH: Ah, you know, you people are so lucky. All you have to do is listen to this. I have to be the one to actually do it. And that's okay. This is Wednesday. Right. Okay. Pearl Harbor Day. A day that will live in infamy, absolutely right, Pearl Harbor Day. Of course yesterday was Pearl Harbor Day number two: The attack on the country by the president of the United States in that speech in Osawatomie, Kansas. As I promised yesterday, we have the audio sound bites from that speech. I've studied it. It's depressing to actually have the most powerful man in the country aligned against it. To have the most powerful man in the country seeing this country through crosshairs. I run the gamut of emotions. I mean it's anger, frustration, sadness, it's just amazing.

Ladies and gentlemen, this speech, we've got the sound bites coming up, but I want to do a little analysis of it even before we get to it. And, by the way, welcome. It's Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network. Here's the telephone number if you want to be on the program: 800-282-2882.

Look, let me just give you a sample summary of Obama's speech yesterday. The president of the United States, not Fidel Castro, not Kim Jong-il, not Mao Tse-tung, not Lenin, not Stalin, not Gorbachev, not Saddam Hussein, not Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, not Hugo Chavez, but the president of the United States said that while a limited government that preserves free markets speaks to our rugged individualism as Americans, such a system doesn't work and has never worked. The president of the United States said that the United States of America, as founded, "has never worked." Stop and think of that. Ponder that for a moment. The president. Not the head of the SEIU. Not the chairman of some congressional committee. Not a Democrat presidential hopeful. The elected president of the United States said in Osawatomie, Kansas, trying to be Teddy Roosevelt, that the United States of America has never worked. That is a quote, "has never worked."

Really? What was the first Thanksgiving all about? What was George Washington's first Thanksgiving proclamation all about? What was 250 years of the greatest prosperity and standard of living known to exist in all of humanity?
The president of the United States said yesterday that it has never worked. But he didn't stop there. He said that Americans must look to a more activist government that taxes more, spends more, and regulates more if the middle class is to be preserved. I can't get my mind around this. This is antithetical to me. This is foreign. This is what we have faced from our enemies since our founding, this characterization of our country. If you just substitute the word "proletariat" for every time he said "worker" or "middle class" in his speech, if you subject "bourgeois" or "capitalists" for the rich, this same speech could have been given by Lenin a hundred years ago.

In fact, it is, my friend, and don't doubt me, the same speech that Stalin always gave, that Mao Tse-tung always gave, that Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and Kim Jong-il still give. Communist leaders around the world give this speech constantly. We've heard it all before, because class warfare is the fundamental principle of Marxism. Class warfare is how Marx explained economics and explained history. In fact, class warfare is how Marx explained everything. Now, oddly enough it's how Obama explains everything now. He blames all of the current problems on the rich. And to think some people still say Obama's not a Marxist. They won't even call him a socialist. It's willful blindness on the part of people who, I don't know what kind of state of denial you have to be in to have heard this speech yesterday or to have read this speech and to have not heard a call to arms.

This is how Barack Obama plans to win the future. Remember, that's the slogan for his reelection campaign, gonna win the future by channeling a president from a hundred years ago. Teddy Roosevelt, he gave this speech in 1910, the same place, Osawatomie, Kansas. He then went on to lose at the head of the Bull Moose Party ticket the presidential race in 1912. I don't know if he got the moderates or not. Teddy Roosevelt, I don't know. All I know is that Obama refuses to be himself. He's gotta channel Lincoln and he's gotta channel FDR. He's gotta channel Reagan at times, even tries to be Reagan. Tried to be Teddy Roosevelt yesterday. This is winning the future. Everything Barack Obama said he was for yesterday has been tried throughout history over and over again, the same Marxism has been tried, and it's failed everywhere. It's led to nothing but untold millions of dead people and incalculable misery and suffering.

Now, who wants a future like that? He said some things yesterday that I don't know if he's really that dumb or if it was just written for him and he said it, but sitting there and blaming economic woes on the Internet and the fact that there aren't any more travel agents or telephone operators, it's not hard to look at the Internet and see how many jobs have been created, how much wealth has been created, how much growth in the economy has been created by the Internet. The Internet is an enemy as far as Obama is concerned. He recycled this ATM business again as being indicative of lost American promise. All this automation, all this efficiency, all of this that has led to increased productivity, this guy finds to be the enemy, to be a problem. So what we have is Barack Obama, president of the United States, announcing yesterday in full voice that he is running for reelection as a socialist.

Do you remember how in 2008 he scoffed at anyone who called him a socialist? Do you remember how the media went after Joe the Plumber for reporting Obama told him he just wanted to "spread the wealth around"? Remember how we were mocked for calling Obama a "socialist" during the campaign? Well, yesterday Obama announced to the world in no uncertain terms that he is a socialist if not a Marxist. The news media won't notice. Ron Fournier, who used to write for the AP and who now writes for the National Journal, wrote a piece and said that it was the best speech Obama has ever given. That's not surprising, but still depressing. It's depressing. (interruption)

Snerdley is shouting at me that he's elated over this speech. You are elated over this speech because you think... (interruption) Snerdley is elated over this because he thinks it means that we have finally flushed Obama out. No question now who the guy is. No question now what he's always been. Obama is running against me for reelection, but he's not running against me. If he were just running against me, that'd be fine. Barack Obama is running against the United States of America. This is what gave birth to Ronaldus Magnus. I mean, I have quotes I could give you from Reagan: I'm not gonna stand by and watch a cabal of people like this single-handedly destroy the country. That's a paraphrase but Reagan said it, and he said it back in the sixties.

He said it in the seventies. He said it in the eighties as well. But wherever you go in the Drive-By Media, Ron Fournier's opinion of this speech is repeated: Best speech he's ever given! Yeah, did you hear how Obama talked about college degrees? Did you hear what he said? He said (paraphrased), "College ought not cost a hundred thousand dollars. Everybody ought to be able to go there. Everybody ought to be able to go to college; it ought not cost anything." Fine. Mr. President! Then tell all your friends in academia to start working for free. Tell the professors to start working for free. Tell the universities to start working for nothing. Show us how this is done!

Well, it's not how it's done. How it's done is to take as much money from "the rich," quote, unquote, as he can and redistribute it. Barack Obama wants everybody poor, but there's a sad little reality: The only people who are gonna end up poor if Obama succeeds, the middle class. The rich are not gonna get dinged. You're gonna be told... Have they ever been? I mean, all of this talk. We've had all this "income gap" crap my whole life. I've been hearing about it my whole life. I've been hearing a Democrat Party targeting the rich my whole life. "We're gonna cut 'em down! We're gonna get 'em," and all the while they continue to complain about the widening gap.

"The rich are getting richer!" How do you think that happens? It's much like the Democrat Party promising black America, "You vote for us and we're gonna make sure you're never discriminated against -- and if you are, we're gonna punish those who do it, and we're gonna make sure that you're prosperous, and we're gonna take care of you. We're gonna make sure you're okay," and after 50 years of supposed stewardship and love, compassion, the black family's been destroyed! Blacks are angrier than ever, unhappier than ever.

After all this compassion, concern, attention offered them by the Democrat Party -- after all this help, after all these decades of attacking the rich -- who is it that feels like they're losing everything? It's the middle class! How does that happen? Do you ever stop to think about this? The rich are not gonna get dinged. The middle class is gonna be wiped out. The little guy, the supposed beneficiary of all this Marxism. I want you people who believe Obama to go around the world for me. I want you to find any socialist, Marxist, communist country and I want you to find for me a prosperous, thriving, happy middle class. I want you to find for me a country where a wall has not been built to keep them in. Boone Pickens was on MSNBC this morning. He admitted that he paid over $685 million in income taxes since he was 70. He's in his eighties. Mika Brzezinski told him it wasn't enough.


RUSH: Barack Obama yesterday said that the free market is "a license to steal." A license to steal! A license to steal. This from the guy who has stolen as much wealth from the private sector as he can under the guise of "stimulus spending." No, not personally. I don't mean he's enriched himself. I mean he's enriched his ideology, the Democrat Party. He has grown government. He is stealing from you and from me each and every day. Being president is what's a license to steal. Being a committee chairman is what's a license to steal. You really want to start comparing corruption at the highest levels of government to the private sector? Have the people of this country decided that they all of a sudden now want to give up on their dreams of wealth and prosperity for themselves and their kids?

Is that gone?

A majority of Americans now just want to sit around and wait for whatever crumbs are redistributed from Barack Obama and his compassionate band of bureaucrats? Government has the license to steal. Government gets to steal, and it's not even called a crime. It's called liberalism, communism, socialism, Marxism; and they don't want any competition. They don't want anybody able to steal the money but themselves. Obama's people, the Occupy Wall Street crowd, heard his clarion call. Yesterday all across the country and decided to start moving into houses, just taking them over, giving these foreclosed houses to their leaders. "Just take it! You're entitled! You're entitled. You're an American and you don't have anything. That's not fair! So if you see something you want, go take it. It's unfair somebody else has it and you don't. If you want it, go take it."

We have a president of the United States who now endorses that very way of thinking.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 3:31 PM
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar



Donald Trump to tap his wallet for probe of 'forged' document?

Billionaire gets asked to help Sheriff Joe

Posted: December 12, 2011
8:50 pm Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2011 WND

Donald Trump

Despite his continued assertions that Obama's birth certificate is a forgery, billionaire Donald Trump has refused to contribute financially to Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's law-enforcement investigation into Obama's eligibility to be president.

Michael Cohen, executive vice president and special counsel to Trump, told WND it was "highly unlikely" Trump would be making a financial contribution to the Cold Case Posse conducting the investigation under Arpaio's direction.

Brian Reilly, the member of the Tea Party of Surprise, Ariz., who initiated the request for an Obama investigation, shared with WND six emails he sent to Trump asking for a financial contribution.

Freshly updated! Find out what Obama's story truly is, in "Where's the REAL Birth Certificate?" by Jerome Corsi.

"I was just made aware of a news report that mentioned that you still wanted a further investigation into President Barack Obama's Certificate of Live Birth," Reilly emailed Trump on Oct. 21.

"If you are truly concerned about discovering the truth about the Obama birth certificate, I would respectfully request that you consider making a generous tax-deductible financial donation to this effort."

As WND has reported, Trump, in an interview with the Fox News Channel's Greta Van Susteren, had just questioned the authenticity of the Obama birth certificate once again.

"I don't know just how it miraculously appeared ... all of a sudden after years and years it was produced out of nowhere," Trump said. "In fact, if it's not 100 percent, he's not supposed to be president of the country."

Trump said people "have real questions about the validity."

A few days later, on Oct. 26, Trump explained to CNN's Piers Morgan that he was not yet convinced the long-form birth certificate released by the White House on April 27 was authentic.

"My gut tells me a couple things," Trump explained. "Number 1, you know, it took a long time to produce this certificate, and when it came out, as you know, check the Internet, many people say it is not real, you know, that it's a forgery."

Reilly told WND he was frustrated by Trump's continued refusal to put his money where his mouth is.

"We are disappointed and perplexed that we at the Surprise Tea Party have not received a single reply to our numerous emails," Reilly told WND.

"If Mr. Trump truly believes that Barack Obama's birth certificate warrants further investigation, we would respectfully ask Mr. Trump to consider making the success of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office Cold Case Posse investigation his top priority. Actions speak louder than words."

Trump's dollars favor Democrats

Trump contributed $50,000 to former White House chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel in the recent Chicago mayoral election contest, ahead of the implementation of regulations that change the amount an individual is permitted to contribute to a state or municipal candidate from an unlimited amount to a cap of $5,000 per candidate.

Trump also employs Rahm Emanuel's brother, Avi Emanuel, as an agent.

"'Deal' would be the best word to describe the relationship among Rahm, Ari, and Trump," wrote Chicago biographer Carol Felsenthal in Chicago Magazine in April. "First, the Rahm connection: Trump, who opened the Trump International Hotel and Tower here in 2008 and will undoubtedly hope to add another pastel namesake to Chicago's skyline, recognized that Rahm will soon be running the nation's third largest city. Why wouldn't he want to curry favor?"

Regarding Ari Emanual, Felsenthal commented, "As for Ari, pit-bull co-CEO of William Morris Endeavor Entertainment and the model for Jeremy Piven's Airi Gold in HBO's 'Entourage,' he seems made-to-order for Trump who has called the younger Emanuel a 'close friend.' Why wouldn't the boldest, hyper-active builder (and host of NBC's 'The Apprentice') and the boldest, hyper-active agent get together?"

Chicago commentator, attorney Brian C. Thomas, speculated in print last May that Trump would stand to gain if Rahm Emanuel succeeds in his continuing push to get Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn to support legislation that would allow Chicago to open casino gambling.

"Is a casino coming to Trump Tower?" Thomas asked in a May article published in Chicago Magazine.

Trump has a history of donating predominantly to Democratic Party candidates.

"The Democratic recipients of Trump's donations make up what looks like a Republican enemies list, including former senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), Rep. Charles B. Rangel (N.Y.), Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), and the late liberal lion Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.)," wrote Washington Post reporters Dan Eggen and T. W. Farnam in an April article documenting Democrat favoritism in Trump's political donation history.

Eggen and Farnam documented that the biggest recipient of Trump political contributions has been the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee of New York, which has taken in more than $125,000 from Trump and his companies.

"Overall, Trump has given nearly $600,000 to New York state campaigns, with more than two-thirds going to Democrats," the Washington Post reporters noted.

NBC renews Trump show for $160 million

Immediately following the April 27 White House press conference announcing the release of Obama's birth certificate, Trump landed in Portsmouth, N.H., and gave a press conference in which he took credit for forcing Obama's hand.

"Today, I'm very proud of myself, because I've accomplished something that no one else has been able to accomplish," Trump told the press. "Our president has finally released a birth certificate."

At that time, Trump was entertaining a decision to run for president as a Republican, a decision Trump said he would announce once NBC's "Celebrity Apprentice" season was over.

"Look, I'm already leading the polls, and I'm not running," Trump said. "I think I'd beat Obama."

Then, on May 15, NBC announced its decision to renew Trump's television show.

The following day, May 16, Trump announced he had decided not to run for president.

"I maintain the strong conviction that if I were to run, I would be able to win the primary and ultimately, the general election," Trump said in a statement reported by ABC News. "I have spent the past several months unofficially campaigning and recognize that running for public office cannot be done half heartedly. Ultimately, however, business is my greatest passion, and I am not ready to leave the private sector."

ABC further reported that in 11th hour negotiations between NBC and Trump, the network had lined up three years worth of sponsors for the television show, contingent upon Trump hosting it himself. The requirement would make it impossible for Trump to run for president or to serve in office if elected.

Who's Trump's daddy?

"Those who thought Donald Trump's chatter about running for president was merely a ploy to extort more money out of NBC for 'Celebrity Apprentice' may have had their 'toldja' moment," wrote screenplay writer and media critic Robert Seldman. "According to the New York Post, NBC is ponying up $160 million to Mark Burnett productions and Donald Trump for two more years of 'Celebrity Apprentice.' According to the story, Trump will personally pocket $65 million per year, a sizable boost over his current contract."

WND founder and CEO Joseph Farah has raised the question whether Trump is secretly working for Obama.

"I think I have an insight," Farah wrote July 19. "Don't listen to a thing [Trump] says. He has no problem with Barack Obama. In fact, I have absolute conviction that he is doing Obama's bidding."

Obama's influence over the NBC decision was certainly within reach, given that even after the Comcast acquisition, GE continues to own 49 percent of NBC, according to an analysis published by CNN Money.

Obama has continued to support his appointment of GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt to head the White House jobs council, even though GE paid no federal income taxes in 2010.

Responding to a reporter who asked whether Obama was "bothered" by GE's tax avoidance strategy, White House press secretary Jay Carney defended GE by claiming its practice was just "part of the problem with the corporate tax structure that companies hire armies of lawyers to understand how it works and to take advantage of the various loopholes that are legal in order to reduce their tax burden."

Trump at it all over again

In a Dec. 5 conference call with reporters, WND asked Trump why, if he believes defeating Obama is so significant in 2012, doesn't he use his influence to mount a formal investigation into Obama's eligibility.

"A lot of people agree with me and find it amazing," Trump responded. "It's miraculous how this birth certificate just appeared."

Trump said many people have questioned the birth certificate's authenticity.

"It's strange that after years all of a sudden it appears," Trump mused. "How come there are no records his mother ever was in the hospital?"

He noted there are records of other births in the Hawaii hospital at the time.

"There's no record of Obama or his mother," he said.

Trump added that members of Obama's own family have pointed to different hospitals in Hawaii as being his birth location, and his grandmother reportedly made statements linking his birth to Kenya.

"I have real questions [about Obama's eligibility]," he said.

But he said he's working to rebuild the country's job-creating ability and is not focusing on Obama's eligibility right now.

"I also know that Obama is totally protected by the press, unfairly so, I would say," he said.

"They protect him like I've never seen anything protected," he said. "He's protected like a landmark in New York."

Trump said, after all, should the allegations about Obama prove true, it "basically is a violation of the law."

But then, deflecting attention from the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate, Trump said his work now is to provide solutions to the job problem.

In recent weeks, Trump has again indicated he might yet be a candidate for president, this time suggesting he might run as an independent.

In a commentary, Farah said Trumps motivations remain suspect.

"Here's my theory," Farah wrote. "Trump is a very successful businessman for whom there's never enough money. I don't think he has any interest in politics beyond what it can do for his enterprises. I actually think he may have been involved in shaking Obama down for something he wanted with that birth certificate charade. Because he got cold feet when Obama released the phony birth certificate, now Obama is shaking him down."

Farah continued with his analysis that the tables have now turned on Trump, noting: "To get whatever it is [Trump] wants from Obama and company, he may be asked to throw the 2012 election into chaos by running as an independent."

How to contribute to Arpaio's investigation

Those wishing to contribute to the 501(c)3 supporting the Cold Case Posse investigation may send tax-deductible donations to the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office at: MCSO Cold Case Posse, P.O. Box 74374, Phoenix, Ariz., 85087.

WND has begun today a banner ad campaign permitting those wanting to make after-tax contributions to the MCSO Cold Case Posse to do so by credit card.

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 2:03 PM
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Monday, December 12, 2011

Hawaii Issued Subpoena For Obama's Original Birth Certificate and 1961 Microfiche Roll

Farrar, Roth, Lax, Judy, MacLaren v. Obama, Kemp, GA Democratic Party: Loretta Fuddy(Hawaii DOH) Served Subpoena Signed By Judge Michael Mailhi For Obama's Original Birth Certificate and 1961 Microfiche...

Atty Apuzzo: Emer de Vattel, Hitler, America’s Youth, and the Natural Born Citizen Clause

Emer de Vattel, Adolf Hitler, America’s Youth, and the Natural Born Citizen ClauseMario Apuzzo, Esq.December 11, 2011 I read with interest the story published on December 10, 2011 at WND entitled, “4th-graders...

Saturday, December 10, 2011

Rush Limbaugh: No Media Vetting; Larry Sinclair and Obama's College Records & Friends

Rush Limbaugh: No Media Vetting; Larry Sinclair and Obama's College Records & Friends - VIDEO HERE On a lighter note: Michelle Obama Secret Affair Allegations Surface The Globe magazine just released...

Friday, December 9, 2011

Wolf v. Fuddy Dismissed on Basis Plaintiff Not a Relative of Obama: Reconsideration Being Filed

Wolf v. Fuddy(Hawaii-Department of Health): Dismissed on Basis Plaintiff Not A Relative of Barack Obama; Motion for Reconsideration Being Filed Dean Haskins: In case you all haven't heard, Wolf v. Fuddy...

Michele Bachmann: You Can Test My Birth Certificate And You Will Find It Is Legitimate

Michele Bachmann on Sheriff Joe and Donald Trump: Test My Birth Certificate And You Will Find It Is Legitimate - VIDEO HERE Numerous Computer/Document Experts Tear Apart Obama's Forged Birth Certificate...

Thursday, December 8, 2011

Trump Takes MSNBC Host To The Woodshed: No Hospital Records For Obama's Mother

Donald Trump Takes MSNBC Host To The Woodshed: No Hospital Records For Obama's Mother - VIDEO HERE Obama's SSN Fails E-Verify System - 17 Oct 2011 Wash Times National Wkly edition - pg 5 (function()...

An Article II PAC Formed: Ensuring Sole Allegiance to the U.S.A. for Presidents

Article II Super PAC: After the Office of the President of the United States was usurped by a dual-citizen candidate in 2008, the nation was awakened to the realization that the U.S. Constitution, in...

Wednesday, December 7, 2011

Sheriff Arpaio Gets Death Threats Over Obama Birth Certificate & Eligibility Investigation

Arpaio gets death threats over Obama investigationWarned he 'will be filled with thousand bullet holes'Jerome Corsi @ WND Maverick Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio says his "Cold Case Posse" investigating...

Tuesday, December 6, 2011

Wolf v. Fuddy: Another Obama Birth Certificate Hearing in Hawaii is Set for December 8th

Wolf v. Fuddy(Hawaii-Department of Health): Another Obama Birth Certificate Hearing in Hawaii is Set for December 8th, 2011 The full Complaint to Compel Agency to Disclose Public Records under UIPA provided...

Monday, December 5, 2011

Donald Trump on Fox News: How Come There's No Hospital Records For Obama's Mother

Donald Trump on Fox News: How Come There Are No Records That Obama's Mother Was Ever In The Hospital - VIDEO HERE Obama's SSN Fails E-Verify System - 17 Oct 2011 Wash Times National Wkly edition -...

Donald Trump: Media Protecting Obama's Unconstitutional Tenure in the White House

Trump: Media protect Obama's 'ineligibility''How come there are no records his mother ever was in hospital?'Bob Unruh @ WND The mainstream media are "protecting" Barack Obama's "unconstitutional" tenure...

Video: Hawaii Court Hearing Regarding Obama's Nonexistent Long-Form Birth Certificate

Orly Taitz the Obama trials 11-30-11 JeffrayPacificNet The case of the lost briefs. Court can be a gamble, but when the court loses your briefs, you can lose your shirt. A close up view on how our court...

Saturday, December 3, 2011

Dr. Polland: St. Pete Times Head Perpetrator In Obama's Forged Short-Form Birth Certificate

Dr. Ron Polland: The St. Petersburg Times Head Perpetrator In Barack Obama's Forged Short-Form Birth CertificateLong Live America DR. RON POLLAND, author of ALIAS BARACK OBAMA “A lie is Born”, the man...

Friday, December 2, 2011

Another Sojourner for Truth: Barack Obama: The Invisible Man; Creation of the Obama Myth

Barack Obama: The Invisible ManBy Another Sojourner for Truth H.G. Wells, who was a socialist, wrote The Invisible Man, which was published in 1897. In this revealing clip from the 1933 film, the invisible...

Thursday, December 1, 2011

David Farrar v. Barack Obama: First Georgia Ballot Access Challenge Filing Released

David Farrar v. Barack Obama - Georgia Ballot Access Challenge - Pre-Trial Filing David Farrar, Plaintiff in the first GA primary ballot challenge releases the first pre-trial filing which is due December...

Attorney Donofrio: Debunking The Natural Born Citizen Congressional Research Propaganda

Debunking The New Natural Born Citizen Congressional Research PropagandaAttorney Leo Donofrio Yesterday, attorney Jack Maskell issued yet another version of his ever changing Congressional Research Memo...

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

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

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

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

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

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 1:43 PM
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

My original blog about The Usurper is not longer available.

This blog will replace it. Sorry for the inconvenience.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 1:24 PM
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar