Category Archives: Dr. Orly Taitz

Obama motion to dismiss Georgia ballot challenge denied, David Farrar et al vs Barack Obama, Judge Michael M. Malihi

Obama motion to dismiss Georgia ballot challenge denied, David Farrar et al vs Barack Obama, Judge Michael M. Malihi

“Why did Obama, prior to occupying the White House, employ Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, to assist him in avoiding the presentation of a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…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

The Obama motion to dismiss the Georgia ballot challenge has been denied.

First some background.

From Citizen Wells December 20, 2011.

“Obama has engaged private attorney Michael Jablonski to respond to the Pre Trial order filed by David Farrar. The order requests that Barack Obama’s name be removed from the Georgia State ballot because Obama is not a natural born citizen and therefore not qualified for the office of the president.”

“From David Farrar V Barack Obama.
“(4) The issues for determination by the Court are as follows:
A. Is the candidate’s proffered birth certificates, authentic state-issued documents that verify his actual, physical birth in Hawaii?
B. Is the candidate an Article II natural born citizen of the United States as established in US. Supreme Court case: Minor vs Happersett 1875 Page 88 U. S. 163
C. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-560 Making of False Statements Generally. Is the candidate’s Social Security number, authentic?”

“The GA Democratic Party may put anyone they want on the ballot. However, that right does not trump the US Constitution dictate that the president must be a natural born citizen. GA election law clearly provides the Secretary of State and electors the power to challenge the qualifications of candidates. Also, to my knowledge, no court in this country has ruled that Obama is a natural born citizen.

I was born and raised in NC, have some experience reading legal documents and we also have some good dictionaries in NC. I have read the motion from Mr. Jablonski as well as the 2008 and 2011 versions of Georgia election laws. I will leave it for the reader to evaluate the accuracy of the following statements by Michael Jablonski in the hope that good dictionaries and logical thought capabilities exist in other parts of the country.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/david-farrar-v-barack-obama-georgia-ballot-obama-not-natural-born-citizen-obama-attorney-michael-jablonski-motion-ga-election-laws/

From Orly Taitz January 3, 2012.

Order to deny Obama motion:

“ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS

On December 15, 2011, Defendant, President Barack Obama, moved for dismissal of Plaintiffs’ challenge to his qualifications for office. The Court has jurisdiction to hear this contested case pursuant to Chapter 13 of Title 50, the “Georgia Administrative Procedure Act.”

For the reasons indicated below, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.

I. Discussion
1.

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

2.

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

3.

The Georgia law governing presidential preference primaries mandates that “[o]n a date set by the Secretary of State . . . the state executive committee of each party which is to conduct a presidential preference primary shall submit to the Secretary of State a list of the names of the candidates of such party to appear on the presidential preference primary ballot.” O.C.G.A. § 21-
2-193. On October 6, 2011, Secretary Kemp issued a notice to the chairman of each political party to notify them that the deadline for submitting the list of candidate names for the 2012 presidential preference primary was November 15, 2011. On November 1, 2011, the Executive Committee of the Democratic Party submitted President Barack Obama’s name as the sole candidate for the Democratic Party. To be timely, complaints challenging a presidential
candidate’s qualifications in the presidential preference primary had to be filed no later than November 29, 2011. Plaintiffs, as electors eligible to vote for Defendant, timely filed challenges with the Secretary of State before the deadline of November 29, 2011.

4.

In the instant motion, Defendant contends that Georgia law does not give Plaintiffs authority to challenge a political party’s nominee for president in a presidential preference primary because Code Section 21-2-5 does not apply to the presidential preference primary.

5.

Statutory provisions must be read as they are written, and this Court finds that the cases cited by Defendant are not controlling. When the Court construes a constitutional or statutory provision, the “first step . . . is to examine the plain statutory language.” Morrison v. Claborn, 294 Ga. App. 508, 512 (2008). “Where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, judicial construction is not only unnecessary but forbidden. In the absence of words of limitation, words in a statute should be given their ordinary and everyday meaning.” Six Flags Over Ga. v. Kull, 276 Ga. 210, 211 (2003) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Because there is no other “natural and reasonable construction” of the statutory language, this Court is “not authorized either to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.”
Blum v. Schrader, 281 Ga. 238, 240 (2006) (quotation marks omitted).

6.

Code Section 21-2-5(a) states that “every candidate for federal and state office” must meet the qualifications for holding that particular office, and this Court has seen no case law limiting this provision, nor found any language that contains an exception for the office of president or stating that the provision does not apply to the presidential preference primary. O.C.G.A. 21-2-5(a) (emphasis added). Although the word “candidate” is not explicitly defined in the Code, Section 21-2-193 states that the political party for the presidential preference primary “shall submit to the Secretary of State a list of the names of the candidates of such party to appear on the presidential preference primary ballot.” O.C.G.A. 21-2-193 (emphasis added). Accordingly, this Court finds that Defendant is a candidate for federal office.

7.

Code Sections 21-2-190 to 21-2-200 set out the procedures of the presidential preference primary and also provide no exception to the Section 21-2-5 qualification requirement. This Court finds no basis under Georgia law why the qualification requirements in Section 21-2-5 would not apply to a candidate for the office of the president in the presidential preference primary.

8.

Accordingly, this Court finds that Defendant is a candidate for federal office who has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party, and therefore must, under Code Section 21-2-5, meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.

II. Decision

Based on the foregoing, the motion to dismiss is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this the 3 rd day of January, 2012.
MICHAEL M. MALIHI, Judge”

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Farrar-Motion-to-dismiss-by-Obama-is-denied.pdf

Thanks to commenter Pat 1789.

NH ballot challenge to Obama, Orly Taitz complaint, Obama eligibility questions, Four New Hampshire House members question birth certificate

NH ballot challenge to Obama, Orly Taitz complaint, Obama eligibility questions, Four New Hampshire House members question birth certificate

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Live Free or Die”…New Hampshire State Motto

From the Concord Monitor November 18, 2011.

“‘Birther’ challenges Obama”
“Don’t pencil in a victory for President Obama in New Hampshire’s
Democratic primary just yet. Today, the incumbent president must
withstand a legal challenge that again questions his eligibility to
seek the country’s highest office.

At 2 p.m. in Room 307 of the legislative office building, the state’s
Ballot Law Commission is set to hear a complaint filed by Orly Taitz,
a California lawyer who has continued to question the validity of
Obama’s birth certificate and Social Security number since his 2008
election.

Backing her complaint, Taitz said, are four Republican members of the
New Hampshire House: Harry Accornero of Laconia, Larry Rappaport of
Colebrook, and Lucien and Carol Vita of Middleton.

“There’s sufficient controversy that I want it investigated,”
Rappaport, a Ron Paul supporter, said yesterday. “Every time this is
brought up . . . we get a lot of flak, but we’ve never gotten an
answer.””

“”I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but even I could take that
apart and see that it was fraudulent,” Rappaport said of the long-form
certificate.

Lucien Vita said the birth certificate issue “should have been put to
bed years ago” and also believes the documents released by Obama were
forged.

“Don’t believe anything you read and only half of what you see,” he said.

Vita considers himself a constitutionalist and both he and his wife
support Ron Paul, he said.

“I have doubts because of the delay in the time it actually took to
come out with a long-form birth certificate,” Vita said. “I don’t want
to go through another four years of the same tripe.””

“Taitz’s complaint also questions the validity of Obama’s Social
Security number, and she said the exhibits presented to the Ballot Law
Commission show “undeniable, irrefutable evidence that Barack Obama is
using a Social Security number that was never assigned to him.”

Read more:

http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/293101/birther-challenges-obama?CSAuthResp=1321635127%3Akac5p0ac2a53k27d9iernpe2m5%3ACSUserId%7CCSGroupId%3Aapproved%3AC7BFB10B487EEBB060A53F45DE1EA54D&CSUserId=94&CSGroupId=1

Howard Coble, Congress, Military officers, Obama birth certificate fake, Treason , What more do you need to see?, Fox News complicit

Howard Coble, Congress, Military officers, Obama birth certificate fake, Treason , What more do you need to see?, Fox News complicit

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

“Reviewing FM 6-22 Army Leadership (especially most of chapter 2, para 4-73 thru 4-77) grounds me in my belief that I have a duty to submit this concern. I have agreed to live by the Army Values of LDRSHIP, and these values directly apply: Loyalty – Bear true faith and allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, the Army, your unit, and other Soldiers; Selfless Service – Put the welfare of the Nation, the Army, and subordinates before your own. Integrity – Do what’s right–legally and morally. I also have agreed to expect the same from my Leaders.”…LTC Terry Lakin

Just over a month ago I received the following response from Congressman Howard Coble:

“On April 27, 2011, President Obama presented a Certificate of Live Birth, which was issued by the State of Hawaii. Before seeing this document, many were growing deeply concerned about the possibility that President Obama was not a natural born citizen.

Since the release of the long-form birth certificate, we have received no other inquiries about the legitimacy of President Obama’s citizenship. To the best of our knowledge, President Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth was legitimate and is demonstrative proof that he was born in Hawaii. I know you disagree with this statement.

All this being said, your hard work and resilient determination to reveal fraudulent dealings among those who hold the public trust is critical to our nation’s future. Even when the facts have not shown brightly on our political party, we have always supported efforts to reveal and address them as quicky as possible because elected officials should be held to a higher standard.”

Since informing Mr. Coble and his staff earlier in the year of Obama’s eligibility deficiencies and Chicago corruption ties, much has happened. After the image was placed on WhiteHouse.gov, much analysis has been done and presented here and throughout the internet. On July 31, 2011, Mark Gillar interviewed the following people regarding the image released on WhiteHouse.gov
purported to be Obama’s birth certificate. They all stated that it is fake.

Jerome Corsi – The New York Times Best Selling Author who recently released Where’s The Birth Certificate: The Case That Barack Obama Is Not Eligible To Be President.

Retired Major General Paul Vallely – Fox News Contributor who recently revealed that former CIA agents have confirmed that Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery.

Susan Daniels – a P.I. from Ohio who claims that she can prove Obama’s has been using a fake social security number since 1986.

Orly Taitz – the California Attorney who is pursuing Barack Obama’s birth Certificate through legal channels will give us an update on her activities.

Karl Denninger – a computer documents’ expert who uncovered some of the more relevent issues with the electronically released long form birth certificate. Video

Mara Zebest – a recognized Adobe expert and author whose written report on the problems with Obama’s birth certificate is a must read!

Albert Einstein Renshaw Ph.D. – Introducing the 16 year old computer whiz kid who owns his own software firm and received 1.3 million hits on his video that ripped Obama’s long form to pieces.

The following is an overview of that interview.

I strongly urge you to listen to the entire interview!!

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/markgillar/2011/07

In the interview, Paul Vallely, a Major General, and Jerome Corsi, a PHD, and both with experience with Fox News, state that Fox is avoiding this story.

There is no chain of document for the image placed on WhiteHouse.gov, which is a forgery. A letter from Lorreta Fuddy, HI Director of Health, states that she is making an exception to policy (what policy) and the the document being sent is computer generated. When I saw “computer generated” I knew we had a problem. As Jerome Corsi states in the interview, if Obama really wanted to put the issue to rest, he would allow access to an original birth certificate for scrutiny.

The image placed on WhiteHouse.gov is not a copy of an original Hawaii birth certificate and we also have no certification that it was even the document allegedly sent from HI.

Members of Congress, military officers, you have been informed and failure to respond is treason.

Major General Carroll D. Childers on February 24, 2009.

“I agree to be a plaintiff in the legal action to be filed by Orly Taitz, Esq. in a PETITION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT THAT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IS NOT QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT of the U.S., nor TO BE  COMMANDER IN CHIEF of the U.S. ARMED FORCES, in that I am or was a sworn member of the U.S. military (subject to recall), and therefore when serving as an active member of the military, I would be unable to follow any orders given by a Constitutionally unqualified Commander In Chief, since by doing so I would be subject to charges of aiding and abetting fraud and committing acts of treason. “

Drake v Obama, Brief filed, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Citizen Wells open thread, August 22, 2010

Drake v Obama, Brief filed, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Just in from Wiley Drake, plaintiff in Drake v Obama.

“This is the brief we filed last Thursday (8/12) in the ninth circuit.”
“STATEMENT OF THE CASE

APPELLANTS, members of the American Independent Party, bring this
appeal from the District Court’s October 29, 2010, ruling granting the defendants’
Motion to Dismiss (ER 1). APPELLANTS seek a determination by the Court as to
whether Respondent Barack Obama (hereinafter referred to as “OBAMA”) met all
the constitutional requirements for eligibility for the office of the President of the
United States.”

“STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

A. The Parties

APPELLANTS are members of the American Independent Party. Drake was
the Vice-Presidential nominee for the American Independent Party in the 2008
Presidential Election on the California Ballot. Robinson was a pledged Presidential
Elector for the American Independent Party in the 2008 Presidential Election for
the California ballot and was at the time the Chairman of the American
Independent Party.

OBAMA is a former United States Senator from Illinois and currently sits as
President of the United States. Respondent Michelle Obama is the wife of Mr.
Obama. Respondent Joseph R. Biden currently sits as Vice-President of the United
States and as President of the United States Senate. Respondent Robert M. Gates is
the Secretary of Defense for the United States. Respondent Hillary R. Clinton is
the Secretary of State for the United States.”

Read more

Taitz v Obama, Update, January 28, 2010, US District Court, Washington DC, Summons issued, CASE #: 1:10-cv-00151-RCL

Just in from Charles Kerchner of another case, Kerchner v Obama & Congress.

U.S. District Court
District of Columbia (Washington, DC)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:10-cv-00151-RCL

TAITZ v. OBAMA
Assigned to: Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth
 Case: 1:09-mc-00346-RCL

Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question
Date Filed: 01/27/2010
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory Actions
Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

 
Plaintiff 
ORLY TAITZ represented byORLY TAITZ
29839 Santa Margarita Parkway
Suite 100
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
(949) 683 – 5411
Fax: (949) 766 – 7603
PRO SE
V.
Defendant
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
 
Date Filed#Docket Text
01/27/20101  COMPLAINT against BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA ( Filing fee $ 350, receipt number 4616027174) filed by ORLY TAITZ. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(rdj) (Entered: 01/28/2010)
01/27/2010  SUMMONS (3) Issued as to BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (rdj) (Entered: 01/28/2010)

 
1:10-cv-00151-RCL TAITZ v. OBAMA
Royce C. Lamberth, presiding
Date filed: 01/27/2010
Date of last filing: 01/27/2010
 
Case Summary
Office: Washington, DC     Filed: 01/27/2010
Jury Demand: None     Demand:
Nature of Suit: 890     Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question
Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant     Disposition:
County: 88888Terminated:
Origin: 1    Reopened:

Lead Case: None
Related Case: 1:09-mc-00346-RCLOther Court Case: None
Def Custody Status:
Flags: PROSE-NP, TYPE-F

 
Plaintiff: ORLY TAITZ
Defendant: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

Dr Orly Taitz, Update, January 11, 2010, Captain Pamela Barnett et al V Barack Hussein Obama lawsuit, Not been heard on the merits, No discovery has been granted, Quo Warranto

Just in a few minutes ago from Dr. Orly Taitz, attorney in Captain Pamela Barnett, et al V Barack Hussein Obama, Michelle L.R. Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State, Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense, Joseph R. Biden, Vice-President and    President of the Senate.

Dr. Orly Taitz, Attorney-at-Law
29839 Santa Margarita Parkway
Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688
Tel: (949) 683-5411; Fax (949) 766-3078 
California State Bar No.: 223433
E-Mail: dr_taitz@yahoo.com
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
 
Captain Pamela Barnett, et al.,                           §
                        Plaintiffs,                                     §
                                                                            §
              v.                                                           §        Civil Action:
                                                                            §
Barack Hussein Obama,                                     §        SACV09-00082-DOC-AN
Michelle L.R. Obama,                                        §         REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO
Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State,      §        MOTION TO TRANSFER;
Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense,             §        MOTION FOR LEAVE OF  
Joseph R. Biden, Vice-President and                  §        COURT TO FILE QUO
President of the Senate,                                      §        WARRANTO
Defendants.                                                         §
 
Here come the plaintiffs in this case (aside from Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson represented by Gary Kreep ) and concur with the brilliant suggestion by the Department of Justice and move the court to grant the Leave of Court to file Quo Warranto challenging constitutionality of position of Mr. Barack Hussein Obama as the president of the United States under Article II, section 1 of the Constitution of the United States for following reasons.
 
(1.) The case at hand has not been heard on the merits, no discovery has been granted and the court simply granted the defendants’ pretrial motion to dismiss for want of Jurisdiction, when the defendants argued that the proper jurisdiction is Washington DC. In their opposition the defendants do not deny making such an argument.
(2.) The defendants twist the truth in their opposition claiming that the court didn’t find the jurisdiction in the District of Columbia. On page 26 of the order 89 the court states: “[T]he writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because President  Obama holds office within that district. The quo warranto provision codified in the District of Columbia Code provides, “A Quo warranto may be issued from the United States District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States, civil and military”. D.C. Code §§16-35-1-3503. The court h! as denied the plaintiffs request to apply the District of Columbia quo warranto statute pursuant to California choice of law provisions. The court went even further by stating that “[W]hile the Court can apply the law of the other jurisdiction where appropriate, it is precluded from robbing the D.C. court of jurisdiction as to any quo warranto writ against President Obama because the D.C. Code grants exclusive jurisdiction to the District of Columbia. Plaintiff’s quo warranto demand is hereby dismissed for improper venue”.  The court dismissed plaintiffs quo warranto due to improper venue, not on the merits of the case. At this time the plaintiffs have 3 options:  A. App! ealing in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, as the DC statute quoted by the court itself does not state that the venue is exclusive and other district courts cannot apply this statute anywhere else in this country from Anchorage, Alaska to Tucson, Arizona, however an appeal might take a year and a half to get to trial, which means a year and a half of further usurpation of US presidency. B. The plaintiffs can file a new case in DC, however judging by stonewalling techniques of the Department of Justice, there will be another year of pretrial motions, which means another year of usurpation of US presidency. C. Motion for leave of court to file quo warranto to be granted by this court or to be transferred by this court directly to the Chief Judge of the US District of  Columbia Royce Lamberth who currently has under submission a related case and to include by reference all the pleadings in the current case of B! arnett et al v Obama et al. This will serve the interest of justice, it will clear the jurisdiction hurdle and will give both parties an opportunity to proceed with discovery and trial on the merits of the case. As this court very eloquently stated during the July 13 hearing, that the case should not be decided on technicality but on the merits. It is important for the country and the military.
 
     The plaintiffs have filed both with the Attorney General Eric Holder and the US Attorney Jeffrey A. Taylor and his successor Channing Phillips a request for Quo Warranto in March and April of 2009 respectively. Undersigned has already provided the Court with copies of the Certified Mail receipts, showing that those were received.  Hundreds of concerned citizens have called the Department of justice demanding a response to Quo Warranto submission. No response was received for ten months. Letters, e-mails, faxes went unanswered. Employees of the justice department were slamming phones in the face of the citizens calling and urging a response, even when those calls came from high ranking officers of US military. The undersigned does not know what was the reason for this t! otal dereliction of duties by Attorney General Holder and DC US attorneys Taylor and Phillips: was it A Laziness? B Lack of guts and spine? C Corruption? Regardless of the reason department of Justice cannot use their own inaction as justification in denying the plaintiffs ex-relators status in filing Quo Warranto. They cannot eat the cake and have it whole. This game of hide and seek by the Attorney General Holder and US attorneys played with the plaintiffs and their counselor is infantile at best and treasonous at worst, as National Security is on the line. Recent near tragedy of NorthWest 253, slaughter of CIA agents and tragedy at Fort Hood are only a few reminders of how dangerous it is to have a Big Question Mark with numerous stolen and fraudulent social security numbers sitting in the position of the President and Commander in Chief.       
 
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the undersigned counsel respectfully requests this Honorable Court to grant Leave of Court to file Quo Warranto as ex-relators in the name of the United States of America against Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States and to transfer this leave of court or transfer the request for leave of court with the rest of the file as an attachment to the US District court for the District of Columbia to be assigned to Honorable Judge Royce Lamberth, chief judge for the US District Court of the District of Columbia, who currently presides over a related case.
Writ of Quo Warranto
 
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
 
I.   What is Respondent Obama’s standard and burden of proof of his birthplace under Quo Warranto and ethical duties? – Considering Obama’s first cousin Raela Odinga, Prime Minister of Kenya, sealed alleged records of Obama’s birth in Mombasa; while the State of Hawaii holds Obama’s “original” sealed birth records, allows registration of births out of State, allows registration based on a statement of one relative only without any corroborating evidence and seals original birth records.
 
II. Does the State of Hawaii’s withholding Respondent’s Obama’s original birth records by privacy laws breach the U.S. Const. by obstructing constitutional rights duties of the People to vote, and State and Federal election officers to challenge, validate & evaluate qualifications of presidential candidates based on legally acceptable and not fraudulent records and the President Elect., per U.S. Const. art. II § 1, art. VI, & amend. XX § 3?
 
III.          Does the restrictive qualification for President of “natural born citizen” over “citizen” include allegiance to the U.S.A. from birth without any foreign allegiance, as required of the Commander in Chief in time of war to preserve the Republic, including birth within the jurisdiction of the U.S.A. to parents who both had U.S. citizenship at that birth, and having retained that undivided loyalty?
 
IV.          Does birth to or adoption by a non-citizen father or mother incur foreign allegiance sufficient to negate being a “natural born citizen” and disqualify a candidate from becoming President?
 
V.           Having attained one’s majority, do actions showing divided loyalty with continued allegiance to the foreign nationality of one’s minority evidence foreign allegiance sufficient to disqualify one from being a “natural born citizen” with undivided loyalty to the U.S.A., such as campaigning for a candidate in a foreign election, or traveling on a foreign passport?
 
VI.          Does a presidential candidate or President Elect by default fail to qualify under U.S. Const., art. II § 2 and amend. XX, § 3, if they neglect their burden to provide State or Federal election officers prima facie evidence of each of their identity, age, residence, and natural born citizenship, sufficient to meet respective State or Federal statutory standards?
 
VII.        Do candidates for office disqualify themselves if they seek office under a birth name differing from a name given by adoption, or vice versa, when they neglect to provide election officers prima facie evidence of legal changes to their name, or if they neglect to legally change their name?
 
VIII.       Does a President elect fail to qualify through breach of ethical disclosure duties, and obstruction of election officers’ constitutional duties to challenge, validate and evaluate qualifications for President, by withholding or sealing records evidencing identity, age, residency, or allegiance, or by claiming privacy and opposing in court efforts by Electors, election officers, or the People to obtain and evaluate such records?
 
IX.          Does misprision by Federal election officers cause a President Elect to fail to qualify, if they neglect or refuse to challenge, validate, or evaluate qualifications of Electors or a President Elect, being bound by oath to support the Constitution and laws, after citizens provided information challenging those qualifications via petitions for redress of grievance, or by law suits?
 
X.           To uphold its supremacy and inviolability, and to preserve the Republic, does the U.S. Constitution grant standing to Citizens to bring suit or quo warranto over negligence, obstruction, misprision, or breach of constitutional duties, and protect the People’s rights?
 
Here come the plaintiffs/ ex-relators in the name of the United States of America praying this Honorable Court issue Quo Warranto writ against Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States and Commander in Chief.
 
Ex Relators are seeking Quo Warranto under District of Columbia Codes §§16-3501-16-3503 which provides for the “Writ of Quo Warranto to be issued in the name of the United States of America  against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military”.  The ex-relators assert that respondent Obama  has indeed usurped the franchise of the President of the United States and the Commander in Chief of the United States Military forces due to his ineligibility and non-compliance with the provision of the Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United  States that provides that the President of the United States has to be a Natural Born Citizen for the following reasons:
 
The legal reference and legal definitions used by the framers of the Constitution was the legal treatise “The Law of Nations” by Emer De Vattel as quoted and referenced in the Article 1, Section 8. The Law of Nations defines “…Natural Born Citizens, are those in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the conditions of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.” Book 1, Chapter 19, §212. In his book Dreams From my Father   as well as on his web site Fight the Smears respondent Obama admitted to the fact that his father was never a US citizen, but rather a British citizen from a British colony of Kenya and based on British Nationality act respondent Obama was a British citizen at birth and a K! enyan citizen from age 2 on December 12, 1961 when Kenya became an independent nation. As such, for the reason of his allegiance to foreign nations from birth respondent Obama never qualified as a Natural Born citizen. 
 
In spite of some 100 legal actions filed and 12 Citizen Grand Jury presentments and indictments Respondent Obama due to his ineligibility  never consented to unseal any prima facie documents and vital records that would confirm his legitimacy for presidency.
 
          The state of Hawaii statute 338-5 allows one to get a birth certificate based on a statement of one relative only without any corroborative evidence from any hospital. Respondent Obama refused to unseal a birthing file (labor and delivery file) evidencing his birth from the Kapiolani Hospital where he recently decided, that he was born. Similarly, respondent Obama refused to consent to unseal his original birth certificate from the Health Department in the state of Hawaii. The original birth certificate is supposed to provide the name of th! e hospital, name of the attending physician and signatures of individuals in attendance during birth. As such there is no verifiable and legally acceptable evidence of his birth in the state of Hawaii.
Circa 1995 Respondent Obama has made an admission in his book Dreams from My Father that he has a copy of the original birth certificate, when describing a certain article about his father he write “…I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms…” In spite of the fact that respondent Obama has a copy of his original birth certificate, he released for public consumption only a COLB, an abbreviated certification of life birth which was issued in 2007 and does not provide any verifying information, such as name of the hospital and name of the attending physician and signatures, which infers that he knows that he is not eligible and actively trying to obfuscate the records in order to usurp US presidency. An affidavit from one of the most prominent forensic document experts, Sandra Ramsey Lines, previously submitted to this court, states t! hat authenticity of COLB and inference of the US birth cannot be ascertained based on COLB alone without examining the original birth certificate in Hawaii, that respondent Obama refuses to unseal and present in court and to the public at large.
 
As respondents schools records from Indonesia, previously submitted, show him the citizen of Indonesia under the name of Barry Soetoro, and there is no evidence of legal name change upon his repatriation from Indonesia, there is a high likelihood of the scenario whereby the respondent was sworn in as a president not only illegitimately due to his allegiance to three foreign nations, but also under a name that was not  his legal name at the time of inauguration and swearing in as the president. 
 
Affidavits from licensed private investigators Neil Sankey and Susan Daniels, previously submitted to this court, show that according to national databases respondent Obama has used as many as 39 different social security numbers, none of which were issued in Hawaii, which in itself is an evidence of foreign birth. Most egregious is the fact that the respondent has used for most of his life in Somerville Massachusetts, Chicago, Illinois and currently in the White House SSN XXX-XX-4425, which was issued in the state of Connecticut between 1976-1979 and assigned to ! an individual born in 1890, who would have been 120 years old, if he would be alive today. Respondent never resided in the state of Connecticut and he is clearly not 120 years old. There is such a high probability of criminal acts of identity theft and social security fraud committed by the respondent that the undersigned requests this Honorable court to use its inherent powers to order Sua Sponte an evidentiary hearing on this particular issue for possible criminal prosecution of identity theft and social security fraud, as the respondent has submitted himself to the jurisdiction of this Honorable court and can be brought to a separate evidentiary hearing to ascertain if fraud was perpetrated upon the court by assertion of false identity, even if the underlying case is not heard or closed for one reason or another.  The undersigned requests to bar the US attorney’s office from representing the respondent in such hearing based on US Code 44 Section 22 and due to obvious inherent conflict of interest.
 
Wherefore the plaintiffs ex-relators in the name of the United States of America are requesting this Honorable Court to issue a writ of Quo Warranto against a respondent Barack Hussein Obama and order an evidentiary hearing whether fraud upon the court was committed and whether criminal charges should be brought  against the respondent for fraud, identity theft and social security fraud.
 
 
s/ DR ORLY TAITZ ESQ
:__________________________________
. Orly Taitz, Esq. (California Bar 223433)
 for the Plaintiffs
29839 Santa Margarita Parkway ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688
Tel.:  949-683-5411; Fax: 949-766-7603
E-Mail: dr_taitz@yahoo.com
 
 
 
 
PROOF OF SERVICE
 
     I, the undersigned Orly Taitz,  hereby declare under penalty of perjury that on this, 01.06.2010, I provided electronic copies of the Plaintiffs’ above-and-foregoing Notice of Filing to all of the following non-party attorneys whose names were affixed to the “STATEMENT OF INTEREST” who have appeared in this case in accordance with the local rules of the Central District of California, to wit:
ROGER E. WEST roger.west4@usdoj.gov (designated as lead counsel for President Barack Hussein Obama on August 7, 2009)
 
DAVID A. DeJUTTE
FACSIMILE (213) 894-7819
 AND EXECUTED ON THIS 01.06.2010
 
/s/Orly Taitz
 
Dr. Orly Taitz Esq
29839 Santa Margarita PKWY
Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688

Orwellian lies, Obama camp brainwashing, Obama eligibility, Obama not natural born citizen, Mail Online, London, British Isles, 1984, George Orwell, Nazi Germany

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

 

This is a two part article. The first part deals with engineered and unintentinal brainwashing coming from the Orwellian Obama Camp. The second part is in response to an article produced by the London Mail Online, in the home of my ancestors. History does, indeed, repeat. I write this as a descendant of British citizens who left the tyranny of Europe, who as Americans saw through the BS of British tryanny. Now I am compelled, as my ancestors were, to sift through more BS coming from the British Isles. I quote their native son George Orwell in this endeavor.

Part 1: Obama Camp Orwellian mind control

George Orwell watched as the mind control schemes of Nazi Germany played out to insure the German people were compliant with their plans for world domination. Orwell used these techniques from Nazi Germany and other totalitarian regimes as a basis for “1984.” For example, from Joeseph Goebbels, the Nazi Propaganda Minister:

 “Not every item of news should be published: rather must
those who control news policies endeavor to make every item
of news serve a certain purpose.”

Next, from “1984.”

“The past, he reflected, had not merely been altered, it had
actually been destroyed. For how could you establish, even
the most obvious fact when there existed no record outside
your own memory?”

After watching the Obama camp early in 2008 control the Mainstream Media and attack people speaking out against Obama, including an orchestrated attack on this blog, it became apparent that we had entered the age of Big Brother written about by George Orwell. Many articles have been presented on this blog comparing the Obama camp and administration to the totalitarian regime of “1984.”

For the purpose of this article, I will concentrate on the eligibility issues surrounding Barack Obama. This one issue exemplifies how the Obama camp has expended enormous resources to shape public thought and masterfully divert attention away from the critical issue of Obama being a usurper, in direct conflict with the US Constitution.

One thing is crystal clear. The Obama camp has controlled the Mainstream Media from the beginning. There are many reason for this. It is a fact. This has been the principle means they have used to not cover important issues and to select the buzzwords and slogans to be used. Birther, fringe and other words have been selected to discredit and demean those speaking out against Obama. Also, another technique straight out of Nazi Germany and “1984″ was employed. In Nazi Germany, the focus of hate was the Jews. In “1984″ the “two minute hates” were directed at O’Brian, the supposed antagonist of Big Brother and the nation.

So we have the Obama camp continually broadcasting that anyone challenging Obama’s eligibility is a fringe birther, right wing extremist and as many of the so called elitists would portray as a sub human low intellect. That Orly Taitz is the leader of the birthers and that all court cases challenging Obama’s eligibility have been thrown out as having no merits. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Most people questioning Obama’s eligibility are normal, hard working Americans who follow the US Constitution as their legal compass. They are people like me who are well educated, well read and non racially motivated. They are current or retired military and some high ranking officers. There are a few in the MSM, such as Lou Dobbs who asked the common sense question of why doesn’t Obama simply provide a legitimate birth certificate.

Now for the questions that transcends all of the psycho babble and mind control. I have placed it as number 1 on the Internet Billboard because it is so simple and self evident.

“1. Barack Obama has employed a legion of private and government attorneys to prevent revealing his country of birth. Innocent and eligible persons seeking the office of president do not do that.”

The answer is obvious.

Part 2: What motivated the Mail Online to create or repeat lies?

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”…Joseph Goebbels

First of all, I want to thank the British press for covering aspects of Barack Obama untouched by the American MSM. I am certain it did not harm your readership.

Next, what was your motivation for covering an important story about Obama’s eligibility issues and including so much misinformation and lies? Perhaps you are proving my point with the quotes from Orwell and Goebbels serving as a spotlight.

  • Is this the result of pressure or remuneration from the Obama Camp ot those controlling the puppet strings?
  • Are you repeating the lie that has become the “truth”?
  • Or is this simply crass commercialism?
  • Or possibly all three above?

I will next respond to selected exerpts from your article, “Did Barack Obama lie about his birth to become President?”.

“To most Americans, of course, the very idea that anyone could cheat their way into the world’s most powerful post by rewriting their personal history sounds preposterous.

They dismiss the Birthers as a bunch of crackpot conspiracy theorists and closet racists who still cannot accept a black leader, even though Obama won the election by some 10 million votes.
Yet the number of people who believe this apparently outlandish theory is extraordinarily high, particularly in the southern states, where old racial divisions endure.

According to one recent opinion poll, an astonishing 53 per cent of southerners are either convinced their President really is a covert foreigner, or at least feel unsure about the matter. In more integrated parts of the country, the doubters remain a small minority.”

Citizen Wells response:

Life is full of ironies. I write this, a child of the British Isles, as I suppose you are. My English ancestors left the tyranny of Europe and settled in NC. They embraced their new found freedoms and easily saw through the BS being imposed on them by the British Government. My ancestor, John Wells, was a signer of the Tryon Resolves.

“The unprecedented, barbarous and bloody actions committed by British troops on our American brethren near Boston, on 19th April and 20th of May last, together with the hostile operations and treacherous designs now carrying on, by the tools of ministerial vengeance, for the subjugation of all British America, suggest to us the painful necessity of having recourse to arms in defense of our National freedom and constitutional rights, against all invasions; and at the same time do solemnly engage to take up arms and risk our lives and our fortunes in maintaining the freedom of our country whenever the wisdom and counsel of the Continental Congress or our Provincial Convention shall declare it necessary;”

Here is my point. We have some large cities in the south. However, passed from generation to generation, we have retained the inclination and ability to see throgh modern day BS and tyranny. Those of you in Great Britain have had 250 years to learn this. Is this clear? Except for a small percentage of the population, this is not about skin color. It is about Tyranny. Clear?

“After reading about the Birthers, he met the fringe group’s self-anointed leader, Orly Taitz, 47, a one-woman phenomenon who emigrated to America from the former Soviet Union (via Israel), speaks five languages, and is a qualified dentist with two practices, as well as being an attorney.”

Citizen Wells response:

Here we go again, “fringe group.” Orly Taitz is one of many attorneys involved in lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility and she is not the leader. This is a grassroots, US Consitutional issue.

 “Like every other such case, it was summarily dismissed on procedural grounds even before the evidence could be heard. However absurd such cases may be, Mr Sankey, who works for the group voluntarily and estimates having spent £40,000 of his own money following leads, is at pains to present himself as a level-headed former British bobby, motivated only by a determination to find the truth.”

Citizen Wells response:

Every case has not been dismissed.  “However absurd such cases may be,” leads one to believe that this article was influenced by the Obama camp.

“It is a sad irony, though, that so many Americans feel sufficiently dissatisfied by their first black President that they would rather put their trust in a British detective and his curious conspiracy theories.” 

Citizen Wells response:

The decline of the British Empire.

Times Online article:

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1231542/Barack-Obama-British-detective-Neil-Sankey-claims-lied-birth-President.html

 

I will leave you with the following quote which perhaps conveys the message best:

“When you pick up your morning or evening newspaper and think
you are reading the news of the world, what you are reading
is a propaganda which has been selected, revised, and doctored
by some power which has a financial interest in you.” …Upton Sinclair

Judge David O Carter, Orly Taitz, Captain Pamela Barnett V Barack Obama , Update, October 29, 2009, Dismissed, Judge Carter a coward?, Obama not natural born citizen, Citizen Wells challenge to Judge Carter

I recently called Bill O’Reilly of Fox a Coward for his remarks about Orly Taitz. I called O’Reilly a coward for the manner in which he made his statements, for his lack of knowledge about the eligibility issues and for not covering the eligibility issues surrounding Obama.

Ex Marine or no ex Marine, Judge David O. Carter, is there any reason I should not refer to you as a coward for taking the easy way out and with using flawed logic and understanding of the US Constitution to join the ranks of those giving the usurper Barack Obama a free ride.

Today, october 29, 2009, Judge David O. Carter dismissed the case brought against Obama by Captain Pamela Barnett, et al. The lawsuit alleges that Obama is not a natural born citizen.

There is a preponderance of evidence that Obama is not a natural born citizen, from his father being Kenyan and a British citizen, to absolutely no evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii.

Here is the crux of Judge Carter’s decision:
“Interpreting the Constitution is a serious and crucial task with which the federal courts of this nation have been entrusted under Article III. However, that very same Constitution puts limits on the reach of the federal courts. One of those limits is that the Constitution defines processes through which the President can be removed from office. The Constitution does not include a role for the Court in that process. Plaintiffs have encouraged the Court to ignore these mandates of the Constitution; to disregard the limits on its power put in place by the Constitution; and to effectively overthrow a sitting president who was popularly elected by We the People‚ sixty-nine million of the people. Plaintiffs have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution which set forth its jurisdiction. Respecting the constitutional role and jurisdiction of this Court is not unpatriotic. Quite the contrary, this Court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.”

Read ruling:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21808122/Judge-Carter-Ruling-on-MTD?autodown=txt
I posted the following on this blog earlier:
“There is at least one critical flaw in Judge Carter’s logic and ruling.

“One of those limits is that the Constitution defines processes through which the President can be
removed from office. The Constitution does not include a role for the Court in that process.”

The statement above is true.
However, only as it applies to the POTUS.
And, to be POTUS, one has to be eligible.
Winning the popular vote.
Winning the electoral college vote.
Getting the approval of Congress.
Being sworn in by a Supreme Court justice.
None of the above alone makes one POTUS.
First and foremost, one must be constitutionally eligible.
Therefore, Carter’s rational is incorrect.
Obama, as an illegal usurper, traitor and possible illegal alien
can be removed and arrested.”

Judge Carter is wrong. He could issue an order today for discovery to ascertain whether or not Obama is a usurper. Upon finding Obama ineligible, Judge Carter could issue an order for Obama’s arrest.

Judge Carter, are you a coward?

Is there some other excuse?

You might respond with “State election officials or party officials could have vetted Obama.”

They did not. That is why we have a system of checks and balances.

You might ask, “Who are you to question a judge?”

Answer:

A natural born citizen of the US.

An expert by training and many years of practice in logic.

I have prepared a motion, filed the motion, opposed an attorney and won.

Besides that, this is not rocket science.

Obama is not POTUS.

No tradition,

No ceremony,

No magic incantation,

Changes that.

Judge David O. Carter, you have the power and the constitutional obligation to ascertain if Obama is eligible.

If not eligible, you have the power and obligation to remove him.

Citizen Wells

Bill O’Reilly, Dr Orly Taitz lawsuit, O’Reilly uninformed, Fox, O’Reilly Factor, Obama not natural born citizen, Alan Keyes, Major Stefan Cook, YouTube video, So simple even O’Reilly can understand

Bill O’Reilly’s

cowardly treatment of Orly Taitz

and the American Public

Part II

Last Night on the O’Reilly factor on Fox, Bill O’Reilly and two fawning females belittled Dr. Orly Taitz and millions of Americans who support the US Constitution and want proof that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen. Commenter Jacqlyn Smith of this blog has presented a video that explains Obama’s eligibility issues in a manner that even Bill O’Reilly can understand.
From the Youtube video:
“Life and Liberty PAC presents the Proof Positive Series with Molotov Mitchell. In this fifth episode, Molotov takes a closer look at the people Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman call “kooks” and “cowards”, Dr. Alan Keyes and Maj. Stefan Cook.”
“Proof Positive: Just Some Guy”

Bill O’Reilly, Orly Taitz, Fox, Obama, Judge Land, Case Frivolous, Taitz fined $ 20,000, Lis Wiel, Kimberly Guilfoil, O’Reilly Factor, NO spin?, O’Reilly shooting messenger, O’Reilly coward, Obama not natural born citizen, Citizen Wells challenge

“Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall.”…Proverbs 16:18

 “There is an epidemic of shooting the messenger in this country.”…Citizen Wells

Bill O’Reilly, who has a sinecure, maligned Orly Taitz and anyone questioning the eligibility of Barack Obama last night, October 27, 2009, on his Fox TV show.

O’Reilly is well known for being a pompous ass.

Last night, Bill O’Reilly was a coward.

Neither O’Reilly or his female fawners, who agreed the case was frivolous and that Orly Taitz deserved what she got, have done sufficient research to make an intelligent, informed comment on the subject.
I criticize Bill O’Reilly for pontificating on a subject that he knows little about.

I also criticize O’Reilly for shooting the messenger.

Orly Taitz, Philip Berg, Leo Donofrio, Mario Apuzzo, concerned active and retired military, myself, commenters on this blog and millions of concerned Americans are not the guilty party in this matter. Barack Obama is guilty.

Barack Obama

  • His father was Kenyan and a British Citizen.
  • Obama has not provided a long form birth certificate.
  • Obama has spent hundreds of thousands of someone’s money to fight proving eligibility.
  • Obama has consistently lied to the American people.
  • Obama is entangled in Chicago and IL corruption and should be indicted.
  • Obama’s further control of federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald should alarm everyone.

So, Bill O’Reilly, quit shooting the messenger and do your damn job. After all, the Obama administration continues to shoot Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity.

 
O’Reilly, you coward, try picking on me. I am a natural born citizen of the US, close to your age, male, with a strong business background. I have thoroughly researched Obama’s background and eligibility issues and written about it. I am not receiving a large salary for doing this. I simply care about this country.

I hereby challenge Bill O’Reilly to a battle of facts.

I will, of course, be attacking an unarmed opponent.

Bill O’Reilly, please explain why concerned Americans should not boycott your show.

 

And now for the response from Captain Pamela Barnett, a lead plaintiff in one of Taitz’ cases:


“(Oct. 28, 2009) —  She was a captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to Military Intelligence; but now retired she’s fighting a war on two fronts.

Captain Pamela Barnett is lead plaintiff in a case that could lead to the removal and life-time imprisonment of Barack Hussein Obama on charges of high-crimes, election fraud, campaign fraud, and a laundry list of campaign financing violations.

But Captain Barnett is not shirking her duty to defend her fellow Plaintiffs in the case: no, she is rebutting the lies and falsehoods promoted by the widely followed, but often errant and politically correct, Bill O’Reilly of Fox News.”

“From Captain Pamela Barnett to Bill O’Reilly – October 28, 2009

I challenge you Mr. O’Reilly to interview me..

I am Captain Pamela Barnett U.S. Army Retired of Barnett v. Barack Obama.

I am sick and tired of you defaming our lawsuit and our attorney against the Resident in the Whitehouse Obama. 48 plaintiffs mostly military retired have brought this lawsuit to force the production of Obama’s vital records to determine if he is in fact a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN which is one of the requirements to be a legal POTUS and NOT an illegal USURPER. There is also a huge amount of information regarding fraud that Obama committed before being illegally sworn in as POTUS.

IF YOU CARE ABOUT THE TRUTH AT ALL.. YOU WILL CALL ME…

FROM WHAT I CAN SEE OF YOUR SHOW, THE TRUTH DOES NOT SEEM TO MATTER TO YOU OR THE REST OF THE SHILLS AT FOX. I KNOW THAT YOU ARE ONLY A COMMENTATOR, BUT AT LEAST GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT BEFORE HURTING OUR CASE AND PROPAGATING LIES TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

Sincerely,

CPT Pamela Barnett, U.S.Army Retired”

Read more:

http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/10/28/captain-pamela-barnett-issues-challenge-to-bill-oreilly/

Some of the initial comments on the Citizen Wells blog after O’Reilly’s remarks:
“How are these people like Lis, Bill, and Kimberly, on Fox, going to explain themselves to the public after Kerchner gets Obama thrown to the curb.
After hearing those idiots say Obama is legitimate I hope Obama is removed from office just so I can see the expressions on their faces, it will be priceless.”

bob strauss

“OWrongly just made me throw up a little in my mouth. How ignorant can he be? And that blond dimwit. It’s been repeatedly proved Obotomy was born in Hawaii? Looked into by Congress? WHAT???? And then they don’t even know what Natural Born even means? I don’t know why anyone watches that show.”

Paulajal

“O’Reilly sucks!”

zachjonesishome

“O’reilly sucks and double sucks!!
I stopped watching long time ago when he talked down to his audience and being an ex-teacher, as my daddy would say, ‘that don’t set right with me’.”

JJ

“O’Reilly has gotten way to big for his britches. That “nose up in the air” arrogance sickens me and reminds me of someone else we all know.”

Teedee

“Observer, Bill Oreally, Lis Wiel, and Kimberly Guilfoil, all agreed the case was frivolous, she brought the same case to the same court twice, and she got what she deserved. That is about what it boiled down to.”

bob strauss

“Yepppers,…. I have been losing my respect for o’reilly,……. this really nailed it shut. I have sent him emails telling him to find out the truth,…. but, it seems that he wants to remain ignorant on the facts of obamas birth. I will email him again and tell him he needs to change the name of his show. NO – SPIN…… what a joke.”

joyceaz

“Watched O’Reilly’s comments on Orly, I have been studying on this ever since. The comments were not fair or balanced. NOW Orly or one of her reps. should contact the No Spine Zone and have the opportunity to defend herself with the truth! The Big Leprachan is a know it all”

carmen

“joyceaz, Bill needs to change the name of his show to “The Spin Zone”.”

bob strauss

“After the 3 against 1 on O’Reilly I believe she should be on this week!”

carmen

“OK – O’Reilly was the show that started my turn from uninformed democrat to a strong conservative and for about the last year – I can hardly stand him. Now – he is dead to me. YKWIM

Thanks Venice and SueK for the welcome.”

DenisetheMenace

“Did anyone really expect anything different from O’Reilly?”

SueK

“Observer, Bill Oreally, Lis Wiel, and Kimberly Guilfoil, all agreed the case was frivolous, she brought the same case to the same court twice, and she got what she deserved. That is about what it boiled down to.

Thanks Bob. So it came down to an “O’Bloviate” segment only. Figures. He loves macho soundbites – but he’s definitely been looking old lately plus losing the hair more and more. They should give Beck his slot and put Lou Dobbs in Beck’s. None of them want to commit to the eligibility question though because they just don’t know Constitutional law or care and want to wait ’til the patriots get all bloodied up – then report it later and take the credit.”

Observer

“They have something on O’Reilly. There are too many reaasons why Obama’s COLB is suspect for him not to elaborate at all. They have something on him.”

Paxson

Additional comments from American citizens who are far more informed than O’Reilly:

“Obama law tab up to $1.7 million

‘Grassroots army’ contributions used to crush eligibility lawsuits?

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=114202
Danny

“He’s full of it because those records were sealed shortly after Barky went to visit the dying Gramma Dunham. Does he really want us to believe that the State of Hawaii gave HIM the birth certificate?

He thinks we’re stupid; he has another thing coming.

Ratings or blackmail…take your pick. I’ll bet you a donut that he won’t consent to having Orly on to rebut his garbage.

Smug bastid.”
SueK

“His eyes go cross eyed when he even has the balls to bring this up. He says that he vetted it, but won’t publicly go into how he vetted it. He said that the state of Hawaii gave him a copy of the birth certificate (not certification). He said that he could find out the name of the hospital that President Obama was born in “tomorrow” (if he so chose). He’s a frigging liar. You can see it all over his face and he is being “black mailed” or his hands are tied to elaborate. Any normal person looking at this issue can see that something is up. Camille Paglia, noted LIBERAL, even accepts this fact. They can only keep their thumb in the whole of the dam for so much longer. They think we are stupid, and in the long run (whether during Obama’s term, or afterwards) the truth will be known. All of their careers will be over at that point.”
Paxson

“I am suspect about O’really picking Orly for a segment. At the very least I thought it would have simply been a gratuitous move.

No doubt it was meant to discredit her and the “movement.”

This on the heels of Judge Carter’s recent new hire. I can’t help but question if it’s not part of a bigger plan being implemented incrementally.”
JustMe
“I think O’Reilly is a jerk and I don’t like to watch him. He obviously is uninformed of what a NBC is and he thinks he knows it all. They like to discredit those who are trying to find out the truth because he thinks he knows the truth and says BO was born in HI so that makes him NBC. I don’t like O’Reilly. He is a fake conservative. He does not care about the country or the constitution, but he discredits those who do. He is lousy. I also think that Lou Dobbs should switch places with him.”

speedy

“BOYCOTT O’REILLY and let people know”
carmen

“O YOUR A PINHEAD!!!NEVER WILL WATCH HIM AGAIN!!!!”
GBAmerica