Obama GA ballot challenge, Natural born citizen status, Judge Michael Malihi, Why did Obama refuse matching funds in 2008?, Part 3, Citizen Wells FEC FOIA, FEC bias?
“Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.”…C. S. Lewis
“I am certain that the devil is watching Barack Obama and taking notes.”…Citizen Wells
“Why is Obama now employing private attorneys to keep his name on state ballots, despite compelling evidence that he is not a natural born citizen?…Citizen Wells
WHY DID OBAMA REFUSE MATCHING FUNDS IN 2008?
PART 3
Citizen Wells FEC FOIA request reveals FEC bias?
Part 1 in this series documented that Barack Obama opted out of Federal Matching Funds after a pledge to receive them and repeatedly spoke about campaign finance reform.
Part 2 dealt with the legal posturing involving Obama, Robert Bauer, et al with the FEC and the first lawsuit challenging Obama’s eligibility and Natural
Born Citizen status initiated by Philip J. Berg.
From Part 2:
Philip J Berg files lawsuit in Philadelphia Federal Court
August 21, 2008
Defendants: Obama, DNC, FEC
Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen and therefore ineligible to be President.
August 27, 2008
Complaint served on the U.S. Attorney for DNC and FEC
Motion filed by Robert Bauer, et al October 6, 2008
“BRIEF OF DEFENDANT DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE
AND DEFENDANT SENATOR BARACK OBAMA
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
STAYING DISCOVERY PENDING DECISION ON
DISPOSITIVE MOTION”
“In his Complaint, plaintiff Berg alleges that Senator Barack Obama, the
Democratic Party’s nominee for President of the United States, is not eligible to serve as President under Article II, section 1 of the Constitution because,
Mr. Berg alleges (falsely), Senator Obama is purportedly not a natural-born citizen. Complaint ¶3. Mr. Berg seeks a declaratory judgment that Senator Obama
is ineligible to run for President; an injunction barring Senator Obama from running for that office; and an injunction barring the DNC from nominating him.
On September 15, 2008, plaintiff Berg served on Senator Obama’s office a
request for production of seventeen different categories of documents, including copies of all of the Senator’s college and law school applications, requests
for financial aid, college and law school papers, and “a copy of your entire presidential file pertaining to being vetted.” Plaintiff also served 56 requests
for admission on Senator Obama. On that same date, plaintiff served on the DNC 27 requests for admission and requests for production of five categories of
documents, including all documents in the possession of the DNC
relating to Senator Obama.1
On September 24, 2008, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, on the grounds that, as a matter of law, plaintiff has no standing to challenge the
qualifications of a candidate for President of the U.S. and has no federal cause of action.”
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION’S OPPOSITION TO
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR AN IMMEDIATE INJUNCTION TO STAY
THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF NOVEMBER 4, 2008
October 21, 2008
“II. BECAUSE THE COMMISSION HAS NO JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE WHETHER CANDIDATES MEET THE CONSTITUTIONAL CRITERIA FOR PRESIDENTIAL ELIGIBILITY, IT SHOULD BE
DISMISSED FROM THIS CASE
The Commission is the independent agency of the United States government vested with exclusive jurisdiction to administer, interpret and enforce civilly the
FECA. See 2 U.S.C. §§ 437c(b)(1), 437d(a), 437d(e) and 437g. The Commission also exercises jurisdiction over the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act, 26
U.S.C. §§ 9001 et seq., and the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act, 26 U.S.C. §§ 9031 et seq.2 These statutes only confer on the Commission
jurisdiction over issues concerning the financing of federal campaigns: regulating the organization of campaign committees; the raising, spending, and
disclosing of campaign funds; and the receipt and use of public funding for qualifying candidates.
None of these statutes delegates to the FEC authority to determine the constitutional eligibility of federal candidates, and Berg does not allege otherwise.
Although the Commission determines whether certain presidential candidates are eligible for public funding, it has no power to determine who qualifies for
ballot access or who is eligible to serve as president. Thus, because the Commission has no authority to take action against Senator Obama as suggested by Berg, the Commission should be dismissed from this case with prejudice.”
The following are FEC statements of policy and law. They reveal at least a grey area and probably black and white in regard to the response that Philip J.
Berg received in 2008 when he challenged Obama’s eligibility.
General duties and procedures.
From the FEC website:
“Election Administration
The FEC’s Office of Election Administration (OEA) serves as a central exchange for information and research on issues related to the administration of
federal elections on the state and local level.”
“Filing a Complaint
Anyone who believes that a violation of the law has occurred may file a complaint with the FEC. The complaint should contain a statement of facts related to the alleged violation and any supporting evidence available.
The complaint must be signed and contain the complainant’s name and address. It must also be sworn to and notarized. A step-by-step description of the
enforcement process is available in the brochure Filing a Complaint.”
“Contested Elections
For information on how to challenge the results of a federal election, contact the Secretary of State in your state capital.”
Statutes
Since the FEC had provided an advisory opinion that Obama had the option to accept matching funds, it appears that Berg’s challenge to the FEC should not
have been dismissed.
TITLE 26 > Subtitle H > CHAPTER 95 > § 9011
§ 9011. JUDICIAL REVIEW
(a) Review of certification, determination, or other action by the Commission
Any certification, determination, or other action by the Commission made or taken pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall be subject to review by
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upon petition filed in such Court by any interested person. Any petition filed pursuant to
this section shall be filed within thirty days after the certification, determination, or other action by the Commission for which review is sought.
(b) Suits to implement chapter
(1) The Commission, the national committee of any political party, and individuals eligible to vote for President are authorized to institute such actions,
including actions for declaratory judgment or injunctive relief, as may be appropriate to implement or contrue [1] any provisions of this chapter.
(2) The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction of proceedings instituted pursuant to this subsection and shall exercise the same
without regard to whether a person asserting rights under provisions of this subsection shall have exhausted any administrative or other remedies that may be provided at law. Such proceedings shall be heard and determined by a court of three judges in accordance with the provisions of section 2284 of title 28,
United States Code, and any appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court.
[1] So in original. Probably should be “construe”.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_26_00009011—-000-.html
Citizen Wells FOIA request and response.
As reported on Citizen Wells September 30, 2008, I submitted a FOIA request to the FEC on September 13, 2008.
The FEC responses can be viewed here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/49423265/FEC-2008-FOIA-request-Philip-Berg-lawsuit
http://www.scribd.com/doc/49423694/FEC0002 through FEC0008
The Berg lawsuit was filed on August 21, 2008 and served on the FEC on August 27, 2008. The following email from David Kolker to Rebekah Harvey dated August 22, 2008 is certainly interesting. Rebekah Harvey was the assistant to Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub. Prior to being appointed to the FEC, Weintraub was on the staff of Perkins Coie LLP and a member of it’s Political Law Group. More on Ellen Weintraub later.
“Victory in Berg v. Obama”
You may find the following a bit curious as well:
The letter to the FEC dated August 18, 2008 (Scribd FEC0006).
The individual, redacted, is requesting an advisory opinion from the FEC on Obama’s eligibility to be president. An email was sent with the request. The email
provides information on why Obama is not eligible. It begins with
“It seems that Barack Obama is not qualified to be president, after all, for the following reason:”
It ends with
“Interesting! Now what? Who dropped the ball or are we all being duped? Who do you know whom you can forward this to who might be able to help
answer this question?”
From the FEC response to the inquiry (Scribd FEC0004):
“The Act authorizes the Commission to issue an advisory opinion in response to a complete written request from any person about a specific transaction or
activity that the requesting person plans to undertake or is presently undertaking.”
Philip J. Berg’s challenge in court to Obama’s eligibility appears to meet this requirement.
Had Berg challenged the earlier ruling by the FEC which kept open the option for Obama receiving matching funds, perhaps the outcome would have been
different. However, to be revealed in part 4, the Obama camp and the DNC did their best to quash the effectiveness of the FEC over several years.
Citizen WElls 
SC primary results
Candidate Votes %
Gingrich 341 37%
Romney 339 36%
Paul 106 11%
Santorum 86 9%
Perry 47 5%
Huntsman 5 1%
Bachmann 2 –
Cain 4 –
As they have been saying on Fox. Newt has the “fire in the belly” that no other has. That is what has been missing in this election and that is what it will take to get the rats out of the White House. Its what Reagan had and If Newt keeps that up then Americans will get behind him. That is what it means to be American. You FIGHT for what you believe in. Romney ain’t got it!
My brother told me Newt has been declared the winner in SC.
LD, I sent this email to Orly Taitz, lets see if she sends us the info for the hearing on Thursday Jan 26 2012, in Judge Malihi’s court.
We also need to find out if it will be televised.
******************************************
Email…
LD | January 21, 2012 at 6:35 pm |
Okay, I need your help everyone. I live in SE North Carolina, and plan to go to Atlanta for the trial. I would love to support Dr.Taitz, and hopefully watch history made. Where can I find details; time, place, etc pertaining to the trial. I plan pick up other supporters in South Carolina on Wednesday, and find a place to stay that night. Any suggestions would be wonderful. Thanks in advance.
Orly could you please post the info @ Citizen Wells
You have many supporters at citizen wells, thank you, Bob Strauss.
Percentages at this point are 41% and 27% for Gingrich and Romney, reespectively.
I agree, Jerome. Newt captures the anger of voters for this election, especially the anger at the media for giving us OB. Plus he debates well which we need against OB.
Santorum also debates very well, but he tends to attack his fellow Republicans too much and says vote for me, where Newt attacks the media and Obama. It is subtle, but noticeable and I think that is why Newt one this time.
I will also take note that Romney came in first or second so far in all the contests. That is important as well.
I pray we can have someone who can beat Obama. Newt best articulates the anger I feel, Santorum best speaks to bringing back manufacturing jobs, and Romney has the business background that could improve the economy, but I am getting very nervous about beating Obama.
Newt is a loser.
If he wins the (R) nom we might as well stock up on ammo, gold and food and prepare for a Obama second term.
Karl Rove looks rather sick tonight on Fox. This was not exactly what he had in mind.
Pat 1789 | January 21, 2012 at 8:57 pm |
Newt is a loser.
If he wins the (R) nom we might as well stock up on ammo, gold and food and prepare for a Obama second term.
**********************
Aren’t you jumping to conclusions too fast?
Newt hinting for Santorum for VP?….his crowd appeared to desire that combo….at least some of them did!!
observer | January 21, 2012 at 9:35 pm |
Newt hinting for Santorum for VP?….his crowd appeared to desire that combo….at least some of them did!!
************************************
Sounds good to me.
BREAKING NEWS…BREAKING NEWS !!!
ARTICLE II, SUPERPAC HAS JUST ANNOUNCED ON “GIVE UP LIBERTY” WEBSITE THAT THEY WILL BE PROVIDING “GAVEL TO GAVEL” LIVE VIDEO COVERAGE OF THE 3 BALLOT CHALLENGES AGAINST OBAMA ON THE 26TH OF JAN. IN ALANTA, GA. STARTING AT 9am. EST.
GET YOUR POPCORN READY AND …….LET THE GAMES BEGIN !
correction…..GIVE US LIBERTY
If Romney wins the nom. We might as well vote for obama, both the same!
he refused mathcing fundscause hes keeping a clean papertrail he hopes
Announcement also on ObamaReleaseYourRecords.com
Romney at least has a chance of beating Obama. I am happy for Newt tonight, but scared as well that he won’t win. He couldn’t even get on the ballot in Virginia. To those who say Romney can’t win, and who refuse to vote for him, I say you better be right. You better know what you are doing. Newt better know what he is doing to sacrifice our kids’ future and the future of our country.
Newt isnt perfect. Who is?. Look at what the dems elected in 08… A facade that reads a teleprompter well. My feeling is that if Newt keeps going with the speeches and debates, speaking to the hearts of true Americans, then he will win big time. We are at the same spot we were during Carters nightmare. Reagan came along and reminded us all of what it is to be an American. Newt could do the same. Romney will just be another McCain.
I hope so, Jerome. Newt is great when positive, but terrible when negative, and he is not perfect. Women are not happy with his baggage, and may not forgive him. Newt can be a nasty SO_. Maybe we need that. The ironic thing is Romney can be incredibly kind and honest, but conservatives are not drawn to that side of him. I want someone who can win against OB. I am still very conflicted on who that can be.
Tina | January 21, 2012 at 10:19 pm |
I hope so, Jerome. Newt is great when positive, but terrible when negative, and he is not perfect. Women are not happy with his baggage, and may not forgive him. Newt can be a nasty SO_. Maybe we need that. The ironic thing is Romney can be incredibly kind and honest, but conservatives are not drawn to that side of him. I want someone who can win against OB. I am still very conflicted on who that can be.
**********************************************
Tina, We need someone who can be mean, and nasty, if needed, not some mamby pamby millionaire, that tries to play nice with the damn criminals in the democrat, (communist) party.
Its funny when you think about it. We go on and on about electability of a candidate yet I wonder how many of our greatest presidents would have been elected in today’s environment? Washington owned slaves. Lincoln never went to college. Would they have made it today? We can’t be too critical.
We need an American right now. Someone who can lead us to be Americans once more. Obama hates this country and has no idea what it is to be an American. That will be his downfall.
@ Cabby – AZ | January 21, 2012 at 9:16 pm |
Yes
delegates
http://projects.wsj.com/campaign2012/delegates
If Newt is gonna be the nominee, the debates with Obama would be great. His speech tonight was barn burner. I like Newt. I’m just nervous.
@ Tina | January 21, 2012 at 11:54 pm |
I didnt watch it. I can’t stand NEWT.
That being said, I am committed to whomever the (R) nominates.
The big picture for me is getting rid of all the d-rats and rinos from congress, state and local office.
“WITH ALL DUE RESPECT to ORLY TAITZ”
http://jbjd.org/2012/01/21/with-due-respect-orly-taitz/
GORDO | January 22, 2012 at 12:12 am |
Uhgggg
I actually agree with the Law student again………….
Thanks Gordo
Watching Speaker Gingrich, with no security personnel apparent, pass through the crowd to the podium reminded me of RFK’s walk through the kitchen at the hotel in California. Newt put the Rino’s and Dems and media elites and NWOs on notice. Might he have a similar fate?
Bill G | January 22, 2012 at 1:03 am |
Bill, I hope not.
bob strauss | January 22, 2012 at 1:08 am |
Bill G | January 22, 2012 at 1:03 am |
Bill, I hope not.
************************
Could happen – I hope Newt is well aware of that danger. We are dealing with the worst of the worst in these days. He should ask for security the way that Herman Cain did.
Obama Ordered To Appear Before Atlanta Judge
by Keith Koffler on January 21, 2012, 11:39 am
President Obama has been ordered to appear before a judge in Atlanta in a case challenging whether he is qualified to be president of the United States, according to the Associated Press.
The judge set the hearing for this Thursday after denying on Friday a motion by Obama’s lawyer to quash a subpoena that requires Obama to personally show up.
Obama, however, will be nowhere near Atlanta on Thursday. According to the White House, he will be out West promoting the agenda he plans to lay out in Tuesday’s State of the Union address. Obama Thursday plans to make appearances in Las Vegas and Denver areas before traveling on to Detroit to spend the night.
Litigants in the case say he is not eligible to run in Georgia’s March Democratic primary because they claim he is not a “natural born citizen” as required by the Constitution, since his father was not a citizen. But they clearly hope a ruling against Obama will make the issue a national cause and raise questions about his eligibility to run in the general election.
Thank you bob strauss. I hope we hear back from Dr. Taitz. I am not finding any needed information on the web.
This is from Lucas Daniel Smith’s Blog
A question from Lucas Smith to attorney Mario Apuzzo: If Obama fails to appear for the administrative court hearing in Georgia, tentatively scheduled for January, 26 2012, what legal repercussions could he be confronted with?
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
January 21, 2012 at 4:57 pm
Lucas,
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to address this issue on your very informative blog. Here is a quick answer.
The subpoena issued to Obama comes from an administrative court rather than a law court. A court-issued subpoena has the authority of a court order whether it comes from a law court or an administrative one.
Obama just happens to be the President now and would have to take time out of his official schedule to honor the subpoena. Nevertheless, Obama is subpoened as a private individual, not as the President.
Does Obama have to honor the subpoena? The only way to get out of honoring a subpoena is to have it quashed on a motion to quash. Obama tried that and it has so far failed. He can attempt to file a motion for reconsideration. But until the court changes its mind, he must honor the subpoena and here is why.
“It is beyond dispute that there is in fact, a public obligation to provide evidence, see United States v. Bryan, 339 U. S. 323, 339 U. S. 331; Blackmer v. United States, 284 U. S. 421, 284 U. S. 438, and that this obligation persists no matter how financially burdensome it may be. Footnote 10″
“Footnote 10 [I]t may be a sacrifice of time and labor, and thus of ease, of profits, of livelihood. This contribution is not to be regarded as a gratuity, or a courtesy, or an ill-required favor. It is a duty not to be grudged or evaded. Whoever is impelled to evade or to resent it should retire from the society of organized and civilized communities, and become a hermit. He who will live by society must let society live by him, when it requires to. 8 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 2192, p. 72 (J. McNaughton rev.1961).”
Hurtado v. United States, 410 U.S. 578, 589 (1973). This is one case among the many on this issue.
Indeed, Obama, as a member of legally constitutued society, as a “public obligation” to provide evidence to a court, whether that court is a law court or an administrative one. His obligation is even greater given that the subpoena touches upon his right to eventually hold a public office should he win the election. Even Congress, which is not a law court, issues subpoenas which must be obeyed at the risk of suffering severe sanctions, including incarceration.
The only way that Obama could avoid the subpoena is to show that he has some privilege that protects him from giving the requested evidence. Again, Obama has been subpoened as a private person, a candidate for public office, not as the President of the United States. From the Georgia court’s ruling on Obama’s motion to quash, we can see that Obama failed to make such a showing that convinced the court that he in fact has such a privilege.
If Obama does not honor the subpoena, the court, applying Georgia law and precedents from federal law, can issue an order to show cause to him ordering him to show cause why he should not be held in contempt. If he still does not comply, then he would be held in contempt of court. The court in such a case will issue sanctions to him, which can include a monetary penalty, an adverse ruling against him in the case itself, or even incarceration. Since he is the currently putative sitting President, the court would probably just opt for an adverse ruling rather than jail. That would be the best option since it gets to the heart of the matter. That adverse ruling would be that Obama has not met his burden of proof to show that he is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Hence, the court could recommend to the Georgia Secretary of State that Obama’s not be allowed to be placed on the primary ballot. In the end, the Secretary of State will make the ultimate decision.
Additionally, the current sitting President of the United States not honoring a court-issued and properly served subpoena related to whether the President is constitutionally eligible for that very office could also be deemed a “high Crime[] or Misdemeanor[]” under Article II, Section 4, the article dealing with impeachment of the President. Congress could declare such conduct a high crime or misdemeanor and inititate and prosecute impeachment proceedings against Obama and they should.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
htt://puzo1.blogspot.com
http://www.wasobamaborninkenya.com/blog/barrack-obama-eligibility/a-question-from-lucas-smith-to-attorney-mario-apuzzo-if-obama-fails-to-appear-for-the-administrative-court-hearing-in-georgia-tentatively-scheduled-for-january-26-2012-what-legal-repercussions-co/
Yes,
Karl Rove was having an internal hemorrhage with Mitt losing to Newt. This was not a foreseeable part of Rove’s strategy. Rove does recognize the media’s accidental mistake made that edge Newt to this victory. Rest assure though, Rove will have assist the media not to make the same mistake in the future.
Mitt is Val’s and the Media’s hope for an easy victory. Newt will require a different strategy. But neither are capable of beating the Obama machine as they currently stand principle policy only. Mitt will recover, Rove and the media will assist Mitt and still most likely to become the front-man.
There is hope, but this is not it.
Hence, the court could recommend to the Georgia Secretary of State that Obama’s not be allowed to be placed on the primary ballot. In the end, the Secretary of State will make the ultimate decision.
******************************************************
Oh No! I don’t like reading that part.
Does anyone know who the Sec of State is in Georgia?
My hopes are fading fast.
Linda,
Great article!
We miss you.
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/fox-news-hires-soros-funded-activist read fox newa has been bought by george soros now fox has a george soros comentator working for fox. I no longer trust fox. Glenn beck was right
Mornin folks!
With all due respect to jbjd I think you are too assuredly mixing apples and oranges at this stage of things….unless you can read the mind of the judge and just how determined he is to really be convinced that this one particular man does not have to present the necessary discovery in order to be placed on the ballot….whether or not he presents it in person or via some other arrangement that he somehow settles with the court. Delaying things might not only upset the court but also delays any possible placement on the GA ballot. This judge has used certain wording that normal pride usually doesn’t wish to be played around with. In most cases it depends a lot on the particular judge….as seen from the past. I would be more upset by the media’s other reporting in error…..that past cases have been heard on their merits….that is, IF one is concerned about the entire legal atmosphere surrounding the history of the Truth of this matter.
LD | January 22, 2012 at 7:44 am |
=========================
Since these are the folks who are going to be there taping you might want to contact them for the details/directions, etc.:
http://www.art2superpac.com/contact.html
Article II Super PAC
PO BOX 940661
Simi Valley, CA 93094-0661
info@art2superpac.com
Or use the form below to contact us
observer | January 22, 2012 at 10:32 am |
Mornin folks!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I agree with your comments here and hold a similar opinion. For now, there are far too many legal directions this may head into.
Least its the way I view it, for now.
Kay, Fox has several liberal democrats as commentators. This is nothing new, Although generally it is a conservative leaning broadcast, they bring on people with opposing views to open up honest debate. Frankly, I see nothing wrong with listening to the “other side” and forming my own opinions. As much as it sickens me, yes, I will try to watch MSNBC, the MOST biased and progressive broadcasts. I find it helpful in arming myself in debating some of my more liberal associates. You need to understand both sides of an argument, before you can even think about winning. I also
note the almost “robotic” talking points even the more intelligent commentators spew. It doesn’t matter which channel you watch, at any given time, someone (on the progressive left) is saying almost the same words (ver batim) as another one.
We know they get their
talking points directly from the WH
Dora, et al.
From the Georgia statutes:
TITLE 21. ELECTIONS
CHAPTER 2. ELECTIONS AND PRIMARIES GENERALLY
ARTICLE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5 (2011)
§ 21-2-5. Qualifications of candidates for federal and state office; determination of qualifications
(a) Every candidate for federal and state office who is certified by the state executive committee of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.
(e) The elector filing the challenge or the candidate challenged shall have the right to appeal the decision of the Secretary of State by filing a petition in the Superior Court of Fulton County within ten days after the entry of the final decision by the Secretary of State. The filing of the petition shall not itself stay the decision of the Secretary of State; however, the reviewing court may order a stay upon appropriate terms for good cause shown. As soon as possible after service of the petition, the Secretary of State shall transmit the original or a certified copy of the entire record of the proceedings under review to the reviewing court. The review shall be conducted by the court without a jury and shall be confined to the record. The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the Secretary of State as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court may affirm the decision or remand the case for further proceedings. The court may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions of the Secretary of State are:
(1) In violation of the Constitution or laws of this state;
(2) In excess of the statutory authority of the Secretary of State;
(3) Made upon unlawful procedures;
(4) Affected by other error of law;
(5) Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or
(6) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by an abuse of discretion or a clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.
An aggrieved party may obtain a review of any final judgment of the superior court by the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, as provided by law.
Mario Appuzo…………………..
If the subpoena is directed at Barrack H.Obama, how much authority does it carry if there is substantial reason to believe that his name is NOT Barrack H .Obama, and is still Barry Soetoro. I stand on the fact that last year ALL of the public records in America were thoroughly searched by a clerk’s office. They were not able to find any evidence ANYWHERE that a formal Petition for NAME change had ever been filed by Barry Soetoro. Thie name change would have to have occurred at some point between Occidental,and Columbia. That is the time frame involved. Had he used the name Obama at Occidental then it is doubtful that he would have collected foreign student monetary assistance from the US Government. Please advise!
21-2-5 ……….”.SHALL MEET the Constitutional,and statuatory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”
Thank you CW for the clarification of Georgia law. END OF STORY, and I rest my case. Between what you have posted and what was posted by Mario Appuzo it would seem that Soetoro has very little wiggle room. Now I am wondering if there will be one postponement,after another, until after the 2012 election.
It would seem that even the question regarding Soetoro’s alleged SSN would be enough to justify further investigation into his past,and to FORCE Hawaii DOH to show ORIGINAL photostatic copy,and microfilm documentation of the LFBC AS allegedly issued by Kapiolani. As you know the date in question is NOT this year, 2011,2009, 2008 but 1961. At that time the BCs were PHOTOSTATIC copies of the original which was then placed on microfilm. They did not use computers in 1961. His BC(if one exists) should be exactly like those of the Nordyke twins he can’t get around that one. He might try,but FACT is FACT.
http://www.birthersummit.org/news/76-has-dean-haskins-lost-his-mind.html
oldsalt.
Perhaps we will get expedited scheduling & judicious rulings & with great luck get this in front of the SCOTUS.
Pray!
observer:
Thank you very much for the information. I will contact them and post back here, any significant information they may have.
OldSalt,
I believe you are correct. From my understanding, every State was searched and none held any name changes. I am also under the impression that Name Changes are a matter of public record.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/santorum-glitter-bombed-by-occupy-charleston-after-sc-speech
Why are these assaults being allowed ?
Where are the prosecutions?
citizenwells | January 22, 2012 at 12:11 pm |
oldsalt.
Perhaps we will get expedited scheduling & judicious rulings & with great luck get this in front of the SCOTUS.
Pray!
——————————————————————————————–
SCOTUS?
I doubt it, Obongo will just write Georgia off.
Jablonski will ammend his motion on Monday, the judge will rule for him. Whatever happens, Obama will not be there……
Pat 1789 | January 22, 2012 at 1:09 pm |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Pat,
That is what I believe will happen as well. In fact, the Judge let Jablonski know his mistakes. They are correctable. Obama will not be present.
Having said that, that doesn’t negate Obama’s responsibility to the State of GA requests. What I presume at this time is that Obama’s attorney or another appointee, will represent Obama on his behalf. The interesting, or rather curious thing on my part, is exactly how much of the request of demanded information for determination of eligibility – in order to place Obama on the GA Ballot – will actually be presented?
I am inclined to believe at this point it will only be the BC posted on the Obama website for acceptance. That of course will not be good enough and the fight will presume from that point forward.
oldsalt79 | January 22, 2012 at 11:17 am |
Mario Appuzo…………………..
If the subpoena is directed at Barrack H.Obama, how much authority does it carry if there is substantial reason to believe that his name is NOT Barrack H .Obama, and is still Barry Soetoro.
////////////////////////////////////
So, what if his name was never changed. Which name did he sign bills into law with? Was it a legal name and if now, are the laws valid??
Correction: now show be “not”.
observer | January 22, 2012 at 10:32 am |
Mornin folks!
With all due respect to jbjd I think you are too assuredly mixing apples and oranges at this stage of things….unless you can read the mind of the judge and just how determined he is to really be convinced that this one particular man does not have to present the necessary discovery in order to be placed on the ballot….
***********************************************************************************
I want the ballot challenge to work! Think about it; I am the same person who for more than 3 years has been advising people convinced Obama is Constitutionally ineligible for the job, to contest his name on state ballots. In his book, Jerome Corsi credited my work on pursuing the eligibility issue through state ballot laws (although I have not actually read that book). Orly is only pursuing redress where I led her, all those years ago. But, as also happened in the case of the military complaint, which was my idea, too and, which I brought to her; she is putting her own spin on a good idea and thereby ruining the idea through such faulty execution. I have read her pleadings. She will not prevail, absent a breach in sanity on the part of the presiding judge. I will explain why, in another posting on my blog.
Even pro-Obama sites like Fogbow agree, for once, Orly followed the law and brought a valid state complaint, namely, a ballot challenge, in a state forum. (Then, they mock the reasons she will fail here, too.)
Interesting blog…”the white hats report”…..Comment #23 on last posting….referring to a site named “www.devinecosmos.com” article on Financial Tyranny …..much food for thought……
Would love to read feedback on that?
William | January 22, 2012 at 1:24 pm |
The interesting, or rather curious thing on my part, is exactly how much of the request of demanded information for determination of eligibility – in order to place Obama on the GA Ballot – will actually be presented?
I am inclined to believe at this point it will only be the BC posted on the Obama website for acceptance. That of course will not be good enough and the fight will presume from that point forward.
———————————————————————————–
agreed.
I am more interested in the Minor V Happersett arguement brougt by a real attorney.
ron paul, three state candidate “primaries”, midwest, new england, and deep south.
zero delegate votes
time for the gong show gadfly to hang up
the cowboy boots and return to Texas, or declare
third party and thus sweep obama in for another four years
of thuggery and usurpery………unless….
i am more interested in the Minor V Happersett argument brought by a real attorney.
>>>>>>>
oldsalt79 | January 22, 2012 at 11:17 am |
Mario Appuzo…………………..
If the subpoena is directed at Barrack H.Obama, how much authority does it carry if there is substantial reason to believe that his name is NOT Barrack H .Obama, and is still Barry Soetoro.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
OldSalt,
I understand your valid question here. Yet I cannot help to wonder what options Obama has pertaining to such if false? In other words, will Obama claim in a court that he is NOT Obama, therefore it doesn’t apply to him? He’s stupid, but Val, his attorneys, Union thugs and their attorneys are not. They were able to bring down the Clinton machine and that was an unthinkable defeat.
I believe even Karl Rove had to fast for 2 weeks and spend sweat lodge cleansing time just to regain his arrogant composer as well.
Just my opinion though.
oldsalt79 | January 22, 2012 at 11:17 am |
Mario Appuzo…………………..
If the subpoena is directed at Barrack H.Obama, how much authority does it carry if there is substantial reason to believe that his name is NOT Barrack H .Obama, and is still Barry Soetoro.
====================================
But whoever he is he wants to be on the ballot as Barrack Obama. The question before the court is whether that claimed person is eligible to be on the ballot. If in the process of attempting to prove that using fraudulent discovery and the truth comes out….well, he better already have a room waiting with cousin Odingo!
Pat 1789 | January 22, 2012 at 1:33 pm |
“I am more interested in the Minor V Happersett arguement brougt by a real attorney.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There will be three (3) hearings during the same day. This argument will be presented.
Pat 1789 | January 22, 2012 at 1:09 pm |
SCOTUS?
I doubt it, Obongo will just write Georgia off.
Jablonski will ammend his motion on Monday, the judge will rule for him. Whatever happens, Obama will not be there……
===============================
Well, the judge has asked for the reasoning that convinces the court that a president may argue that he does not have to appear in any court for any reason at any time. Where is there a precedent of a man, because he currently sits as a president, is the only one who does not have to prove his eligibility out of all those who do otherwise have to do the same in order to run for the same office? If he doesn’t comply he would then leave himself open for a challenge to prove then that he is even currently eligible by the only evidence available to the court which would be that which is contrary to his fitness for his current office. If that is backed up, documented and attested to by experts then that would stand alone without any rebuttal outside of verbal arguments to why it shouldn’t be presented. I doubt if the court would accept simply a printed out version of the electronic version of the alleged bc. There could easily be made an argument that there is no longer a claim of privacy over what has been in the public domain now for some time and so at least that info can be ordered to be proven via the original and/or microfiche or whatever else is normally available, historically, for any other citizen. It will take some kind of orderly presentation of the HI history of recently changing the rules to benefit this one individual to help the court understand. That is where the patient skills of presentation by the atty would be absolutely necessary.
Not Shocking,
Ron Paul’s tiny amount of percentile votes. The tell-tale signs as I have stated for many months pertaining to Ron Paul will in fact produce the fruit I predicted. It doesn’t end there though, not so quickly at least. Yes, Ron Paul will continue last ditched efforts, futile as they stand – knowingly on his part ( surprise surprise), a continuance of fund raising which in the near end, will result in an farce public attempt for his followers of breaking off for a possible consideration of a 3rd party ticket. This will only be temporarily discussed in the media attention for the public. In reality, Ron Paul will withdraw (as usual) from a 3rd party declaration and the Karl Rove backed Strategy with the GOP will grant Ron Paul with a Top Speakers position at the Republican Convention and further support on a few of his proposed bills in the future.
Following how this Karl Rove strategy works so far? And yes, Ron is “On Board” and in agreement.
observer | January 22, 2012 at 2:19 pm |
Pat 1789 | January 22, 2012 at 1:09 pm |
SCOTUS?
I doubt it, Obongo will just write Georgia off.
Jablonski will ammend his motion on Monday, the judge will rule for him. Whatever happens, Obama will not be there……
===============================
Well, the judge has asked for the reasoning that convinces the court that a president may argue that he does not have to appear in any court for any reason at any time. …
That is where the patient skills of presentation by the atty would be absolutely necessary.
***********************************************************************************
No; the standard is not just that, as President he need not appear; but that, in his private capacity, which is the only legal capacity Plaintiffs raised; he need not appear. No one need appear in response to a subpoena to appear served by Plaintiffs under the specific conditions spelled out in GA Administrative Law. Obama(‘s attorney) merely failed to adequately address these reasons.
As for “skills of presentation,” well, I assure you, the complaint(s) filed by Plaintiff(s) are faulty on their face. And, as I said, absent a total mental breakdown not otherwise noticed and appropriately responded to by the parties; the ALJ will ultimately rule in favor of Defendant.
citizenwells | January 22, 2012 at 11:15 am | Dora, et al.
From the Georgia statutes:
==========================
Thanks CW for the info. These cases, if allowed to be heard in the various states where the ballot challenges are made, will certainly place the secretaries of state on notice….maybe for the first time. They have some hurdles to jump before they attempt to rubber stamp things.
Drudge finally has it …. and on a Sunday too! Guess he got a lot of notice (I know I sent him the local news video). Too bad it isn’t under the siren!
I am in moderation, again.
I think Christie’s personal fame is getting to his original stability in his thinking. He himself may be the one “embarrasing the party”. Boy, can this party really eat each other up:
http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/22/christie-on-gingrichs-past-newt-gingrich-has-embarrassed-the-party-video/
I mean….isn’t being the creator of the model for O’s Obamacare enough of an embarrassment…and that’s who Christie is giving his everything for.
Newt to give a speech on space. Even if he gets 1/3 of his ideas through, it will be more than the One did.
As I thought…my 3:48 comment just got stuck in moderation….another embedded youtube….but it’s REALLY good. Please help CW.
Since this comment got stuck in moderation due as usual I think to an embedded video maybe you can get it this way….it’s great:
“The Devil and Obama Go Down to Georgia”
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2012/01/gotta-see-obama-and-devil-go-down-to.html
I mean….isn’t being the creator of the model for O’s Obamacare enough of an embarrassment…and that’s who Christie is giving his everything for
——————————————————————————————————
Christie and every Republican that actually wants to win.
da verg | January 22, 2012 at 1:35 pm |
ron paul, three state candidate “primaries”, midwest, new england, and deep south.
zero delegate votes
time for the gong show gadfly to hang up
the cowboy boots and return to Texas, or declare
third party and thus sweep obama in for another four years
of thuggery and usurpery………unless….
———————————————————————————————
I submit that the average Ron Paul supporter is most likely a Democrat or a stay home get stoned instead voter. Let him run 3rd party and siphon D RAt votes. He won’t though.
It’s all about setting his son up for 2016, no matter who wins.
jbjd,
First and foremost, thank you for all your hard work and efforts. They do not go without notice. You have certainly combed and argued the upcoming 2012 election ballot challenges since the beginning. Any person that has followed such progress, challenges and hurdles to overcome, knows full well of your efforts and are deeply appreciated and respected.
Many American Citizens put themselves in harms way likewise and should also never be forgotten as well. Their names are rarely spoken of when placing the pieces of the puzzle together to expose the greatest corruption ever committed in the History of America. Those that filed FOIA’s, State FOIA’s, Sworn Federal Affidavits, Investigators, personal researchers, internet news entrepreneurs, have all contributed to this massive fraud. It is the totality, the sum of all individual efforts – that have contribution.
It is true, that some have sacrificed more than others. Depending on their involvement, of course. Those such as Mr. Chris Strunk, Capt. Pam Barrnet, Commander Charles Kerchner, have certainly taken the lead in a Court of Law for preservation of America against such corruption. Those that chose to produce the news have also sacrificed. Many (depending on involvement) have been threaten with the life; their children and families lives, yet we move forward, in bravery; unyielding, unwilling to give up freedom to this corrupt Socialist Progressive Movement now exposed in our face.
I do appreciate you jbjd and confident many others do as well. The sacrifice and efforts is not solely, least it be not truly recognized in its entirely.
Pat 1789 | January 22, 2012 at 4:27 pm |
I submit that the average Ron Paul supporter is most likely a Democrat or a stay home get stoned instead voter.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I highly disagree. In fact, with a proven history as a matter of fact and a record to verify, Mitt is Identical to Obama on record, and Newt was the major player with Clinton on convincing the Republican Party to pass NAFTA in congress.
Both Newt and Mitt are Highly Democrat Liberals supporters and a voting record that disproportionate what they are telling you on T.V.
A wee bit of research and history tells you this..
http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/01/22/is-obama-guilty-of-identity-fraud-rather-than-ineligibility/
snip…
Does Obama have to honor the subpoena? The only way to get out of honoring a subpoena is to have it quashed on a motion to quash. Obama tried that and it has so far failed. He can attempt to file a motion for reconsideration. But until the court changes its mind, he must honor the subpoena and here is why.
A Crazy Old Coot | January 22, 2012 at 4:45 pm | Im getting an error, saying page not found.
William | January 22, 2012 at 4:28 pm |
jbjd,
First and foremost, thank you for all your hard work and efforts. They do not go without notice. You have certainly combed and argued the upcoming 2012 election ballot challenges since the beginning. Any person that has followed such progress, challenges and hurdles to overcome, knows full well of your efforts and are deeply appreciated and respected.
Many American Citizens put themselves in harms way likewise and should also never be forgotten as well. …
*************************************************************************************
I am so glad you wrote this comment. Because it is precisely these sacrifices of others which had been omitted from Orly’s ‘pat on her back’ email which prompted my ire. And not just her failure to credit the source of this legal strategy.
Sorry to say, lives have been ruined because lawyers involved in efforts to establish whether Obama is Constitutionally eligible for the job have too often focused more on self-aggrandizement than on zealous advocacy in the interest of their clients.
Now sensing (prematurely) that ‘victory’ is nigh; Orly writes a self-congratulatory email excoriating all of her imagined enemies, by name. But where are the names of all of those well-meaning victims whose misguided faith in her and her work left them in the proverbial lurch?
Oh, and you are welcome. I know you have always supported my work.
Crazy Old Coot,
There will be a motion for reconsideration filed quickly in the first part of the week, and all the whistle and bells with citations included for reasons a Sitting President need not be present and can have representative otherwise present. Obama’s attorney got sloppy, but easily corrected.
The Judge will in fact grant it, and not force Obama to be physically present, but have representation on his behalf. Citations will be given. No Judge will force a Sitting President to appear in his courtroom, just not going to happen, never has happened. The Judge simply expressed his displeasure with the attorney of his lack of reasoning and cites, as that was simply disrespectful. But he did give him a way out, which he will take.
Of that, I have no doubt.
Santorum another Big Gov lib ?
From his book in his own words………….
http://www.redstate.com/jeff_emanuel/2012/01/11/rick-santorum-a-massively-expanded-welfare-state-is-the-genuine-conservatism-our-founders-envisioned/
William | January 22, 2012 at 5:43 pm |
The Judge will in fact grant it, and not force Obama to be physically present, but have representation on his behalf. Citations will be given. No Judge will force a Sitting President to appear in his courtroom, just not going to happen, never has happened. The Judge simply expressed his displeasure with the attorney of his lack of reasoning and cites, as that was simply disrespectful. But he did give him a way out, which he will take.
Of that, I have no doubt
*************************************
Isn’t this similar to when Clinton was called to testify in the Paula Jones matter? Clinton was deposed, and he lied about it.
The judge may grant a motion for reconsideration but without evidence convincing the court that this president is just too busy to appear it may be tough going. If the argument is for an Obama representative rather than the man appearing himself it doesn’t change too much re: answering the questions about eligibility WITH discovery for proof of claims. Just the stalling and fighting to keep from presenting ANYTHING as if some privileged character is outside the norm for the state’s rules ain’t gonna fly in the long run.
“Santorum and Watkins would require individuals to buy health insurance rather than forcing employers to pay for employee benefits. Both oppose abortion services and support limits on malpractice awards. Santorum says non-economic damages should not exceed $250,000, adjusted annually for inflation, and lawyers’ contingency fees should be capped at 25 percent.
The Republicans are split, however, on the issues of raising “sin” taxes to pay for expanded coverage and on allowing a national board to set spending limits.”
http://articles.mcall.com/1994-05-02/news/2979474_1_cooper-grandy-health-reform-employees-premiums/2
If Newt wins Florida, the GOP nomination and the Presidency, he can thank the liberal John King who asked the question about Newt’s ex-wife at the beginning of the last debate to discredit him. King may have just made Newt stronger. Did King awake a sleeping giant in the American conservative voter angry that the MSM protects Obama all the time? We will just have to see. Things are getting interesting.
Rick Santorum turns heat on Newt Gingrich in Florida
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71796.html#ixzz1kEdyCEJr
CORAL SPRINGS, Fla.— Rick Santorum kicked off his Florida campaign here Sunday by aiming directly at Newt Gingrich.
“It’s great to be glib, but it’s better to be principled,”
snip…..
“When Newt was speaker of the House, within three years conservatives in the House of Representatives tried to throw him out and in the fourth year they did. Why? Because he wasn’t governing as a conservative!” Santorum said. “He didn’t live up to all of the hype. If you look at what he tried to do and what he accomplished, it just didn’t match with what he said.”
Is Obama Guilty of Identity Fraud Rather than Ineligibility?
DO MISSING RECORDS, HAWAII’S STONEWALLING AND INCONSISTENCIES POINT TO A DIFFERENT LIFE STORY?
by Sharon Rondeau
with former comment link:
Recently Atty. Orly Taitz, one of three attorneys bringing ballot challenges on the 26th, has been informed in an email that the courtroom has been changed in order to provide “better multimedia equipment for your convenience.” The mainstream media has begun to cover the upcoming hearing challenging Obama’s eligibility, and a citizen video urges concerned citizens to attend.
We all must remember the George Soros, Secretary of State Project, and be aware of it’s consequences, as we go forward on these ballot challenges against Obama
If the Secretary Of State is the arbiter of .ballot eligibility, and said Secretary, is one of Soros’s plants, it needs to be considered.
Good evening, folks,
I’ve read off and on here a couple of times today but find it hard to get something of a different nature off of my mind.
Today is the 39th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. We were reminded of it again at church today. Since then over 53 million unborn children have been killed before they had a chance to live life, and all with the sanction of the Supreme Court, 7 to 2.
In light of that, what do we think a righteous, almighty God is considering right now? He is the author and giver of LIFE.
If we as a nation refuse to change our ways, we can expect no real difference in the direction our country is presently headed, because without His blessing, we are hopeless.
God had this to say to the prophet, Jeremiah:
Before I formed you in the womb I knew and approved of you as My chosen instrument, and before you were born I separated and set you apart, consecrating you, and I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”
Jer. 1:5.
Cabby …..I have thought of this today also…
I live in Charlotte NC and St Vincent has a display on their property that sends a powerful message to the public…
They have several small white crosses and a large banner that reads, “Every day 4,400 babies are murdered”.
I hope it will make some people stop and think before they become an “accomplice to murder”.
For the honor of being the most civilized nation in the world, America can find some very strange ways of showing it.
Even the most uneducated people living in the poorest nations in the world do not murder their babies.
I guess the only thing that can be said about that is, God will settle the score.
Cabby – AZ | January 22, 2012 at 8:11 pm |
======================
Amen! The most important point of this election, as we hang by a thread in the Mind of Justice, is to pray for a leader who will fight the good fight to end this killing of our most vulnerable.
Rminnc, thanks for your comments. Somehow it is just our nature to sweep this under the rug, so to speak. St. Vincent’s bringing it down to 4,000 per day makes the tragedy more easily grasped by people. Yes, it is up to God to settle this in His way.
Wow! Have to see….
Santorum event warm-up singer: Democrats slave masters, are like Nazis [VIDEO]
CORAL SPRINGS, Fl. — The most exciting part of former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum’s rally Sunday was the soul band that opened for him.
Mixing anti-Democratic Party and anti-Obama diatribes with soul classics, “Michael the black man” (as he introduced himself) and his band provided entertainment and smooth tunes both before and after Santorum spoke.
During his act, Michael Warns (“Michael the black man’s” real name, according to an associate) urged support for the Republican Party while comparing Democrats to slave masters .
WATCH:
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/22/santorum-event-warm-up-singer-democrats-slave-holders-nazis-video/#ixzz1kF30Wxf0
Roe v Wade is just another example of our poor values; the me first attitude we see so much in the far right and far left with both men and women. People want their jollies with no strings attached. We are the Viagra and porn nation, and people are proud of it. Very selfish and very sad.
Are you a “prepper”?
Since this came from Drudge maybe we ought to get our water tanks before they are no longer available!!
Subculture of Americans prepares for civilization’s collapse
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/21/us-usa-civilization-collapse-idUSTRE80K0LA20120121
Cabby – AZ | January 22, 2012 at 8:11 pm |
Good evening, folks,
I’ve read off and on here a couple of times today but find it hard to get something of a different nature off of my mind.
Today is the 39th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. We were reminded of it again at church today. Since then over 53 million unborn children have been killed before they had a chance to live life, and all with the sanction of the Supreme Court, 7 to 2.
=================================
President Barack Obama, today, release a statement celebrating the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision that allowed for 54 million abortions. The decision, handed down on January 22, 1973, overturned pro-life laws offering protection for unborn children in most states across the country, and made abortions legal and virtually unlimited.
The statement Obama released says:
As we mark the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman’s health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters. I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right. While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue- no matter what our views, we must stay united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant woman and mothers, reduce the need for abortion, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption. And as we remember this historic anniversary, we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.
#####
For most Americans, the day the Supreme Court handed down its decision was a day to mourn — a day to mourn the loss of tens of millions of unborn children — sons and daughters, brothers and sisters lost to a world that values choice over compassion. It was a day to mourn the damage abortion does to women — the medical problems, the mental health issues, the damaging of relationships with friends and family, and the destruction of relationships with God.
It was a day to mourn the culture of death abortion has brought to our nation and our world. A culture that believes death is a solution for those who are considered too old or too ill. A culture that believes human life is a commodity to be created and manipulated.
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/01/22/obama-celebrates-roe-vs-wade-decision-54-million-abortions/
Jonah, thanks for that link. O rejoices in the infamous decision, while many of us mourn. He is proud; we are ashamed. He brags; we cringe.
It figures, doesn’t it? That should be enough right there to tell us what kind of a person(?) he is. The look in his eyes – soulless, calloused, evil.
“For the health of the woman”…..Michelle Obama solicited funds for her husband’s run for state senator on the backs of partial birth abortions where a perfectly healthy pregnancy is deliberately turned into a breach; a sharp object is inserted into the healthy woman, threatening her own life, in order to insert it into the head of the baby who could be born alive otherwise so that a dead baby could then be delivered. You can’t get any more diabolical than that and any more hardened of heart. I think it was Mother Therese who purportedly stated that “the fruit of abortion is nuclear war”. It only “teaches violence and prevents the involvement and responsibility of the father in an already fatherless culture.” Nature itself is responding to so much sin – so foreign to its own natural law.
should have been “breech” birth in last comment.
Davos elites to seek reforms of ‘outdated’ capitalism
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.be33fda73987ff722e71ca3a18f1bfaf.351&show_article=1
Economic and political elites meeting this week at the Swiss resort of Davos will be asked to urgently find ways to reform a capitalist system that has been described as “outdated and crumbling.”
“We have a general morality gap, we are over-leveraged, we have neglected to invest in the future, we have undermined social coherence, and we are in danger of completely losing the confidence of future generations,” said Klaus Schwab, host and founder of the annual World Economic Forum.
“Solving problems in the context of outdated and crumbling models will only dig us deeper into the hole.
“We are in an era of profound change that urgently requires new ways of thinking instead of more business-as-usual,” the 73-year-old said, adding that “capitalism in its current form, has no place in the world around us.”
The criminalization of abortion in the U.S. in the 1800s coincided with a movement to increase women’s rights (spearheaded by the Seneca Falls Conference, 1848, http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/senecafalls.asp). At the same time, medical practitioners, including midwives, were now required to hold medical degrees (from medical schools which excluded women). Meanwhile, for the first time, the Catholic church began viewing abortion as more offensive than sexual intercourse. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12178868
The initial impetus for criminalizing abortions was not an altruistic belief in the sanctity of unborn life but a generalized (male) fear of the unbridled control of women over their bodies and their lives.
jbjd | January 22, 2012 at 11:08 pm |
“Meanwhile, for the first time, the Catholic church began viewing abortion as more offensive than sexual intercourse.”
===========================
Huh? Duh!
Sounds like some militant feminist propaganda.
No one was ever excommunicated for sexual intercourse!!!!
http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/catechismonabortion.htm
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish .(74)
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.(75)
“Bari M. Shabazz, fugitive from Hawaiian justice, had to “die” so Barack Obama could run”
“Israel Insider was among the first publications in the world to put together a coherent, if inconclusive, case that Obama might in fact be the illegitimate son of Malcolm X. The starting point was the astonishing physical resemblance, in facial and body structure, in gestures and mannerisms, and even in speaking style. The startling visual evidence is here.
The theory advanced was that Obama was known by “insiders” to be of royal lineage, the sole son of Malcolm X, who took on the Islamic name El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz. …”
http://israelinsider.net/profiles/blogs/bari-m-shabazz-fugitive-from-hawaiian-justice-had-to-die-so-barac
——–
“Re-post in honor of Bari Shabazz z’l: Is Barack Obama the Secret Son of Malcolm X?”
http://israelinsider.net/profiles/blogs/re-post-in-honor-of-bari-shabazz-z-l-is-barack-obama-the-secret-s
observer | January 22, 2012 at 10:56 pm |
“For the health of the woman”…..Michelle Obama solicited funds for her husband’s run for state senator on the backs of partial birth abortions…..
****************************
Yes, observer, and it was Obama who was against even sparing the life of a baby who survived an abortion. I believe that was while he was in the Illinois Senate.
Tonight Huckabee had on his program Carol Everett, who was once an owner of abortion clinics. I had the privilege to hear her speak a number of years ago, and what a life story she has. After receiving $25 per abortion (commission-like) and 35,000 abortions later, she saw the light. She ended up encouraging women NOT to abort and has since gone on to be a great spokesman for the pro-life cause. It was a case of real, heartfelt conversion for her.
jbjd | January 22, 2012 at 11:08 pm |
The initial impetus for criminalizing abortions was not an altruistic belief in the sanctity of unborn life but a generalized (male) fear of the unbridled control of women over their bodies and their lives.
*************************************
That statement “fear of unbridled control of women over their bodies and their lives” is missing the mark completely. When women today say that they want control over their bodies, they should first consider that the unborn infant which they carry, no matter how small (a beating heart, I believe, as early as three weeks) is a new, separate person. To abort this baby is to kill him(her). It is murder.
Furthermore, the act of controlling by the woman should come before a child is conceived. Plain and simple.
Like any sin, redemption is available through God’s mercy and grace.
Drudge is reporting the Georgia ballot challenge.
endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights, including LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
The Declaration of Independence reflects natural law. No one needs a lawyer to understand Natural Law. In fact, Lawyers have no business interpreting natural law.
The US Constitution and US Code reflect man’s law. For these you may want a lawyer. But natural law trumps man’s law in all cases. Every person from the moment of their conception in the US has been endowed by their Creator with the right to life. Each abortion is a revolutionary act overthrowing the Republic announced by the Declaration. Killing of innocent human life can never be tolerated; all those who undertake it, or support it, are guilty of attempting to overthrow our Republic. They should be held accountable. If not by us, they will be by God. And we the people will be held to account by God for our failure to terminate with prejudice all who support or undertake abortion.
Bill G | January 23, 2012 at 1:15 am |
endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights, including LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
The Declaration of Independence reflects natural law. No one needs a lawyer to understand Natural Law. In fact, Lawyers have no business interpreting natural law.
*************************
Excellent comments, Bill G! It cannot be stately any more plainly.
Furthermore, the act of controlling by the woman should come before a child is conceived. Plain and simple.
/////////////////
Amen, both the man and woman has the ability and responsibility to “just say no”. She can keep her legs crossed and he can keep his pants zipped up/on!!
DO NOT CENSOR THIS POSTING!!! THANKS!! THERE IS NOTHING IN THIS POST THAT WOULD JUSTIFY CENSORING IT!!
The issue is quite simple. To be President of the USA or to run for the Presidency of the USA, Obama must be a “natural born citizen” according to the Constitution of the USA. The term “natural born citizen” has been defined previously and it requires two conditions:
1) Obama must be born in the USA.
Obama’s long form birth certificate that Obama has provided through the White House web site HAS BEEN DECLARED BY MANY EXPERTS TO BE SIMPLY A FORGERY!!!
—Just a few links on the forged birth certificate that Obama released through the White House web site for those interested:
–“Obama Birth Certificate Faked In Adobe Illustrator – Official Proof 1 ( Layers )” at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s9StxsFllY
–“Obama Birth Certificate Scam? 2011-04-27 Obama.mp4” at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eOfYwYyS_c
–“Adobe book editor positive: Obama certificate is phony” at http://www.wnd.com/2011/06/316749/
–“Experts: Registrar stamps confirm Obama forgery” at http://www.wnd.com/2011/07/324153/
–See evidence that Obama forged the birth certificate that was posted on the White House servers on 27 April 2011 (!!) at http://www.scribd.com/collections/3166684
–See evidence that Obama is using a Social Security Number (SSN) 042-68-4425 that was not legally issued to him but to someone else born in 1890 (!!) at http://www.scribd.com/collections/3260742
–I stop giving more links because there are so many good articles on the Internet done by reliable experts proving, without the shadow of a doubt, that Obama’s birth certificate that he posted on the White House web site is a forgery!!!
—Just type the keywords Obama birth certificate forged in http://www.google.com and you will find many articles that thoroughly explain why the Obama long form birth certificate that he provided on the White House web site is simply a forgery!!!
—Do a search in http://www.youtube.com by typing the keywords Obama birth certificate fake and you will see videos demonstrating why the Obama birth certificate that he provided on the White House web site is a forgery!!!
—Therefore, the only way to check this long form birth certificate is to go to Hawaii to check it directly. In particular, it is indispensable to assess if even this original long form birth certificate in Hawaii is truly genuine that is if it is not also already (!!!) a forgery to cover up for the possible fact that Obama might never have been born in Hawaii!!!
2) Obama’s parents MUST BOTH be American citizens.
We know that Obama’s father was a Kenyan and that he NEVER was an American citizen!!!!!
Therefore, THIS SECOND CONDITION ALONE DISQUALIFIES OBAMA TO RUN FOR THE PRESIDENCY OF THE USA AND IT ALSO DISQUALIFIES OBAMA TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE USA, NO MATTER THE FACT THAT HE WON THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION!!!!!!
More, Obama is a former lawyer. Therefore, he knew perfectly well that he was not entitled to run for the Presidency of the USA but he nevertheless did it DISHONESTLY, FRAUDULENTLY, deceiving purposefully the entire American people.
Furthermore, Obama was confronted with the definition of what a “natural born citizen” is when he directly participated in the investigation of John McCain’s eligibility to run for the Presidency of the USA. Obama then signed Senate Resolution 511 from April 30, 2008 that reveals the indispensable requirement of having two US citizen parents in order to be a “natural born citizen” according to the Constitution of the USA and therefore to be eligible to run for the Presidency of the USA or to be President of the USA!!!!!
Therefore, once again, Obama knew very well that he FRAUDULENTLY decided to run for the Presidency of the USA despite the fact that he knew perfectly well that he was NOT a natural born citizen and therefore that he was not entitled, according to the Constitution of the USA, to be President of the USA.
CONCLUSION:
—Obama is NOT a natural born citizen and therefore he is not entitled to run for the Presidency of the USA nor is he entitled to be President of the USA, no matter the fact that he won the Presidential election!!!!
—Finally, Obama is a former lawyer and therefore OBAMA CONSCIOUSLY, INTENTIONALLY COMPLETELY DECEIVED THE ENTIRE AMERICAN PEOPLE BY RUNNING FOR THE PRESIDENCY OF THE USA WHEN HE KNEW PERFECTLY WELL THAT HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DO SO SIMPLY BECAUSE HE KNEW VERY WELL THAT HE WAS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, AS THE CONSTITUTION OF THE USA REQUIRES ONLY ON THE PRESIDENT OF THE USA!!!!
—THIS HUGE DECEPTION BY OBAMA IS MORE THAN A FRAUDULENT ACT, IT IS WORSE THAN ANYTHING IMAGINABLE BECAUSE:
1) IT RELATES TO THE HIGHEST POSITION IN THE LAND, THE PRESIDENCY OF THE USA, THAT OBAMA HAS FRAUDULENTLY OBTAINED;
2) IT RELATES TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE USA BEING TRAMPLED UPON FRAUDULENTLY AND ILLEGALLY BY OBAMA;
3) IT RELATES TO THE FACT THAT OBAMA INTENTIONALLY DECEIVED AND MISLED THE ENTIRE AMERICAN PEOPLE!!!
ANY PERSON GUILTY OF SUCH SERIOUS FRAUD SHOULD AT LEAST GET A JAIL SENTENCE, NO MATTER THAT OBAMA HAS FRAUDULENTLY HELD THE POSITION OF PRESIDENT OF THE USA FOR A PERIOD OF TIME!!!
DEFINITION OF A “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”:
If you really want to have an expert legal explanation on what a “natural born citizen” truly is according to the Constitution of the USA and why legally speaking it is this way, then I suggest that you read at least a few articles on Attorney Mario Apuzzo’s web site “Natural Born Citizen – A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers” at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
IN PARTICULAR, MAKE SURE YOU READ:
—“The Natural Born Citizen Clause of Our U.S. Constitution Requires that Both of the Child’s Parents Be U.S. Citizens At the Time of Birth” at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.html
YES YOU CAN!!! YOU, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, YOU CAN FIGHT FOR THE TRUTH!!!
CONCRETELY, WHAT CAN YOU DO IN YOUR STATE TO GET JUSTICE AND TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE USA?
1) Contact your governor, your senator, your elected representatives, the attorney general and any appropriate officials and ask them to put in place a legal process to ensure that Obama is on the ballot of your state ONLY IF OBAMA HAS PROVIDED ALL THE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE ASKED BY THE PLAINTIFFS IN THE GEORGIA CASE AND THAT OBAMA HAS REFUSED TO PROVIDE.
More, plan also to ask full discovery on Obama’s original long form birth certificate in Hawaii and on Obama’s fraudulent social security that he uses.
2) In case your state would not have appropriate laws to do what is indicated in point 1) just above, ask the appropriate officials in your state to create a law that will grant your state the same rights than the state of Georgia has to fully check a candidate BEFORE he is put on the ballot for any elections, in particular for the coming election for the position of President of the USA.
To conclude:
—IF THE STATE OF GEORGIA HAS A LAW TO FULLY CHECK CANDIDATES’ REQUIREMENTS BEFORE THEY ARE PUT ON THE BALLOT FOR VARIOUS ELECTIONS, SO CAN YOUR STATE TOO!!!
—YOUR ACTIONS LOCALLY IN YOUR STATE WILL ENSURE THAT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE USA IS FULLY RESPECTED AND THAT NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW!!!
—AS OBAMA THINKS HE IS ABOVE THE LAW BY NOT SHOWING UP IN COURT IN GEORGIA WHEN HE WAS REQUIRED TO DO SO, ONLY TO AVOID SHOWING THE DOCUMENTS THAT HE WAS ASKED TO PROVIDE THAT SURELY WOULD HAVE PROVED HIS LACK OF ELIGIBILITY TO BE ON THE BALLOT TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE USA (NOT TO MENTION THE HUGE DECEPTION AND LIES THAT OBAMA PERPETRATED AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE), YOU THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAS A MORAL AND LEGAL DUTY TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE USA IS RESPECTED FULLY AND APPLIED FULLY TO ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS, ESPECIALLY TO OBAMA WHO BELIEVES THAT HE IS ABOVE THE LAW AS HE HAS RECENTLY DEMONSTRATED IN GEORGIA!!!