Monday, January 31, 2011

BREAKING NEWS: Florida Judge Rules Against ObamaCare, Individual Mandate Unconstitutional


Email from "Whitehouse Insider" to reporter:

"Can’t respond much at this time. Too busy with all of the chaos coming at us these days. May be out of work soon! Crazy stuff. Simply urge you to lay off the birther angle at this time. Strongly urge. To proceed is at your own peril. Please take warning seriously. This is not a small town cop shop situation here. Let someone else try and make name on this one.
Don’t blame you as it was me who brought up subject last time. Since then heard repeated rumors/confirmations of attempted “purge” coming down the pike. WH/media going on the offensive bigtime on issue. Has already started as you probably know. Talking very specific, very confrontational, very scary stuff here. Don’t wish to drag you into that. Much bigger fish are circling this. They can survive what could be coming. Not sure about me. Let the big players handle this now. This thing will either break out big or disappear. Apologize for past doubt/ridicule. There is something there. 100% certain of it. God help us.
Respond more in 1-2 weeks. Have much better grasp of situation at that time. Too crazy right now. -Deleted- was as shocking a moment in career. WH and union thugs are kicking our ass and now this. Never seen anything like it. People who thought -deleted- were tough have no idea. This is whole other level. Too old for this. Too dumb for this. Or both.

The birthers have a plan to end Barack Obama's presidency

Yes, they have a plan—and it may not be crazy

— By David Corn

"Can Obama run and win without getting on all 50 state ballots? I don't think so."
The birthers have a plan to end Barack Obama's presidency—and in Arizona, they're making progress.

Last week, Arizona state Rep. Judy Burges, a Republican, introduced a bill that would bar presidential candidates who do not prove they were born in the United States from appearing on the ballot in the Grand Canyon state. And state Rep. Chad Campbell, the top Democrat in the GOP-controlled Arizona House of Representatives, tells Mother Jones that the bill is likely to pass. It was introduced with 25 co-sponsors in the House and 16 co-sponsors in the state Senate; the measure needs 31 votes in the House and 16 in the Senate for approval. "Will it matter?" asks Campbell. "We've started a tradition here of passing legislation that is political grandstanding or that sets up litigation."

But the birthers—those ardent Obama foes who believe the president was not born in Hawaii and, thus, is not constitutionally qualified serve as president—see this measure as more than symbolic. For them, it's part of a well-orchestrated campaign to deny Obama reelection.

It's not that Obama necessarily requires Arizona's 10 electoral votes to win reelection in 2012. In 2008, he lost there to John McCain, Arizona's senior senator (though in 2012, Obama could make a play for the state). More important, Burges' bill—which would establish a strict standard for proving natural-born citizenship (which the birthers presume Obama could not meet)—is a model for other states, and similar efforts are under way in Pennsylvania, Missouri, Montana, Georgia, and Texas. (Obama won Pennsylvania in 2008 and lost Missouri by less than 4,000 votes.) Arizona may be where this birther ball gets rolling.

"We've started a tradition here of passing legislation that is political grandstanding or that sets up litigation."Last year, Burges introduced a similar measure that stalled in committee. Her new one is much tougher. The original bill would have set up a system under which a presidential candidate would have to document his or her citizenship to be listed on the state ballot. Here's how it would work: The national political party would submit an affidavit from its presidential candidate in which the candidate states his citizenship, and this affidavit would have to be supported by "documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen." Arizona's secretary of the state would then review the affidavit and supporting documents, and if there were "reasonable cause to believe the candidate does not meet the citizenship" requirement, the secretary of state would be able to keep the candidate off the ballot.

This system left discretion to the secretary of state. And Burges' original bill did not specify what documents would be acceptable. Consequently, the certification of live birth that the Obama campaign produced in 2008 might well qualify as sufficient documentation under that measure.

Burges' new version raises the bar. It notes that the affidavit must be accompanied by "an original long form birth certificate that includes the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician and signatures of the witnesses in attendance." (The other documentation required would include a list "that identifies the candidate's places of residence in the United States for the preceding fourteen years.") And the law states that if the candidate fails to submit these records, the secretary of state "shall not" place his or her name on state ballot.

There's no wiggle room: Produce a long-form birth certificate, or no ballot-listing. That certification of live birth issued by the Hawaiian government would not count. (Two weeks ago, radio personality Mike Evans said he had been told by Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie that no original birth certificate could be found for Obama—a remark that lit up the birther community—but this past week, Evans said he had been misunderstood. Meanwhile, Hawaiian legislators have introduced a bill charging anyone requesting Obama's birth records—meaning that certification of live birth—$100, in order to cut down on birther requests.)

"Can Obama run and win without getting on all 50 state ballots? I don't think so."
Burges' bill, if passed, would have to be signed by Republican Gov. Jan Brewer to become law, and, if enacted, could well face a court challenge. It would establish a hard-and-fast criterion for all presidential candidates.

"Imagine if just one or two states adopt such a measure before 2012. Obama will be forced to comply with those state regulations or forgo any effort to get on the ballot for reelection."But what if a candidate does not have a long-form version of his or her birth certificate, and the state where he or she was born could not locate a copy—say, it was lost in a fire, or simply misfiled? Would he or she be out of the running? The law also demands the candidate produce an "original" long-form birth certificate. Does that mean a copy wouldn't suffice?

Birthers are ecstatic about the Arizona move. "It could be a game-changer," declares WorldNetDaily, a conservative site run by Joseph Farah, a leading birther. "Imagine if just one or two states adopt such a measure before 2012," Farah says. "Obama will be forced to comply with those state regulations or forgo any effort to get on the ballot for reelection. Can Obama run and win without getting on all 50 state ballots? I don't think so." In the past, Farah has put up billboards around the country asking, "Where's the birth certificate?"

Campbell complains that the Arizona measure is "not based on an factual evidence. I'm trying to figure out the thinking behind this bill. I can't. It's just another conspiracy." But the strategic intent is clear: maintaining the marginalized birther movement. Numerous lawsuits filed by the birthers have failed in the courts. Last month, Lt. Col. Terry Larkin, an Army doctor who refused to be deployed to Afghanistan because he questioned whether Obama was born in the United States, was dismissed from the Army and sentenced to six months in prison for refusing his orders. And last year, a Republican birther bill in the US House of Representatives fizzled.

Yet the birthers are charged up about this new battle plan: using GOP-dominated state legislatures to pressure Obama to produce a long-form birth certificate. A win on this front in Arizona will not in and of itself scuttle Obama's reelection (assuming no such document for Obama can be produced). But it will certainly encourage birthers in other states to follow suit—and to keep their hope, and conspiracy theory, alive.

Sunday, January 30, 2011

Obama Birth Certificate: Neil Abercrombie Plays Footsie Obama’s Birth Document

Obama Birth Certificate: Neil Abercrombie Plays Footsie Obama’s Birth Document
January 30, 2011
By Mondoreb
Neil Abercrombie: I just want to help

The Obama Birth Certificate political theater/sitcom: Act 4, in which Obama’s “friends” get things all screwed up.

Sure Fire Way to Dramatically Reduce the National Debt!

Fine everyone who voted for Obama $50,000

Saturday, January 29, 2011

Every state in the union needs this law, but one is enough to end Obama's destuction of America

10 states now developing eligibility-proof demands

1. An original long form birth certificate that includes the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician and signatures of the witnesses in attendance.

2. A sworn statement attesting that the candidate has not held dual or multiple citizenship and that the candidate's allegiance is solely to the United States of America.
3. A sworn statement or form that identifies the candidate's places of residence in the United States for the preceding fourteen years.
C. If both the candidate and the national political party committee for that candidate fail to submit and swear to the documents prescribed in this section, the secretary of state shall not place that presidential candidate's name on the ballot in this state.

Time for a humor break - Video - I forget why I posted this.


Welfare Fraud Video

Obama not president, Obama must resign or be arrested, No hawaii birth certificate, Obama not natural born citizen

Obama not president, Obama must resign or be arrested, No hawaii birth certificate, Obama not natural born citizen

“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

From the Post & Email.

“There is no “President Obama””

“If Obama is a usurper, will we ever see justice served and adequate punishment carried out?
The Obama “Presidency” is nonexistent. The media refers to Barack Obama as “President Obama.” I have said it many times in the past and will reiterate it now:

Barack Obama has never been the President of the United States of America. Under the U.S. Constitution, one has to be a “natural born Citizen,” which means born in the U.S., of parents, both of whom are American Citizens, in order to become President of the United States.

Given the facts and circumstances of Barack Obama’s birth, Obama had only one American citizen parent. Obama’s father, Barack Obama, Sr., was a British citizen. There is some talk that Obama may actually be the son of Malcolm X. Who really knows who Barack Obama is and if that is his real name? His entire past has been purposely obfuscated.

Obama just fired his “transparency Czar.” I suppose that he will be looking for an “Obfuscation czar.” After all, Obama paid his lawyers to help him “evade” the constitutional “natural born Citizen” requirement. Indeed, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas laughingly told the U.S. Congress that the Supreme Court was also “evading that issue.” John Paul Jones, American Revolutionary Naval Hero, once referred to England as a “country of illegitimate corruption.” Has the United States arrived at that same juncture?

Obama is a criminal, a radical Islamist supremacist. Two hundred and thirty four years after declaring independence from Britain, a British-born citizen rules the U.S. This is the second Brit to do so. The other was Chester A. Arthur. Arthur had his staff salute the British flag. Obama waved the Red Chinese flag over the South Lawn of the White House in 2009.

Obama has a very dark side. He is a quisling, a traitor to the United States of America. I am of the opinion that he should be arrested and tried and if convicted, executed by firing squad (See 18 USC, Part 1, Chapter 115, Sec. 2381).”

“The adage “O, what a tangled web we weave when we first practice to deceive” is appropos here. Obama, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and many others in the same cabal have failed to take said adage seriously. This writer is a co-charging party in an International Criminal Court investigation of the Kenyan Election violence. I have submitted numerous documents to the ICC regarding Obama’s activities.

Obama’s name will go down in infamy in the history books. The names “Benedict Arnold” and “Barack Obama” are synonymous. The terms “traitor” and “quisling” will have, as an addition, the term “obama.” “You are an ‘Obama’” will be heard to describe one who has betrayed his duty to America.”

Read more:

14th Amendment Battle Coming Soon

14th Amendment Battle Coming Soon Friday, 28 January 2011 13:01 J. D. Longstreet
14th. Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

Section 1.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

There is the problem -- section one of the 14th amendment. It HAS to be changed.

How many “legal” Americans understand that over 300,000 babies are born to illegal immigrants, every year, here in the states? (Actually, the figure is closer to 350,000 babies born each year in the US to illegal aliens.) The US continues to be the only nation that still allows so-called “Anchor Babies.”

Just so we are clear on exactly what an Anchor Baby is -- the term “Anchor Babies” is used to identify babies born in the US from illegal alien mothers.

Under the Immigration Act of 1965, Anchor Babies can, at the age of 21, bring in their family as permanent residents of the US.

In 1866 Senator Jacob Howard explained the original intent of the 14th Amendment to the constitution. He said: “Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

As every year passes more and more illegal aliens are taking advantage of American largesse by breaking and entering the United States illegally and having their babies on US soil effectively anchoring their family in the US through the instant citizenship of that baby. This can no longer be allowed.

It is past time for the United States to either enforce the 14th amendment, as it was originally intended, or amend the constitution to outlaw “Anchor Babies.”

The lines are already forming while the new Congress has barely warmed the cushions of their seats.

The US is, for all intents and purposes, BROKE! And yet we continue to allow illegal aliens to bleed us even drier. US Taxpayers are footing the bills for their birth, medical care, their education, (even college), and their food, darn near everything. Uncle Sam has become Uncle Sucker!

Some in Congress say we can correct this situation with another law. I don’t buy it and here’s why: A law will not stand the scrutiny of the US Supreme Court. (At least not the liberal court we have now.) So, the only way to get any kind of citizenship reform that actually works -- is to amend the US Constitution. You can believe if an amendment was passed by both houses of the Congress, and signed by the President, ratification by the states would come almost overnight.

The fly in the ointment, at the moment, is, of course, the President. Obama will never sign anything that might slow the flood of illegal aliens (or as some refer to them “Undocumented Democrats!”) into the US. There is no way he would ever sign an amendment to the constitution that would put a stop to looting of the US Treasury by anchor babies.

But the groundwork must be laid sooner rather than later. As we look toward the elections in 2012, with a eye toward a conservative take over of the Congress and the office of the President, we must be ready to seize the moment and get an amendment through and on to the states for ratification as early as possible in 2013 or 2014.

As evidence of the urgency some states are feeling there have been reports that a number of states are investigating the possibility of creating “STATE CITIZENSHIP.” To qualify for citizenship in those states a baby must be born with at least one parent a legal and permanent resident or citizen of the state.

We “legal” Americans have to take back our country. The flood of illegal immigrants and “Anchor Babies” must be stopped. We know how. The question now is: Do we have the will?

We know our divided government is wishy-washy on the issue. But little doubt exists that the majority of the American people have the will. We want it done and done quickly.

Friday, January 28, 2011

Congressman Calls Obama a Socialist, Refuses to Back Down

Congressman Calls Obama a Socialist, Refuses to Back Down

10 states now developing eligibility-proof demands
Thursday, January 27, 2011
By Bob Unruh

Arizona may have the most advanced plan, but 10 of the United States – controlling 107 Electoral College votes – are now considering some type of legislation that would plug the hole in federal election procedures that in 2008 allowed Barack Obama to be nominated, elected and inaugurated without providing proof of his qualifications under the U.S. Constitution.

And they aren't all the simple legislation such as that adopted in New Hampshire a year ago that requires an affidavit from a candidate stating that the qualifications – age, residency and being a "natural born citizen" – have been met.

In Georgia, for example, HB37 by Rep. Bobby Franklin not only demands original birth-certificate documentation, it provides a procedure for and declares that citizens have "standing" to challenge the documentation.

Order your copy of Jerome Corsi's upcoming blockbuster, "Where's the Birth Certificate? The Case That Barack Obama Is Not Eligible to Be President," autographed from the WND Superstore and be among the first get this historic book when it is released this spring.
Franklin told WND the least that leaders of the United States, on a state or federal level, can do is to follow the requirements of the law of the land.

His plan, he said, is needed because he saw "requirements in the Constitution that you don't have a code provision to ensure that it happens."

"If we as an entity of civil government don't follow the laws, then what makes us think that our citizens are going to obey anything we enact?" he said. "We need to lead by example."

WND reported just one day ago that Arizona, which had a plan to require documentation of eligibility from presidential candidates passed by the state House a year ago, had proposed a new plan.

According to officials with the National Conference of State Legislatures, 10 states already have some sort of eligibility-proof requirement plan.

There is Arizona's HB2544, Connecticut's SB391, Georgia's HB37, Indiana's SB114, Maine's LD34, Missouri's HB283, Montana's HB205, Nebraska's LB654, Oklahoma's SB91, SB384 and SB540, and Texas; HB295 and HB529.

Led by Texas with 34, the states control 107 Electoral College votes.

The NCLS said New Hampshire last year adopted HB1245, but it requires only a statement under penalty of perjury that a candidate meets the qualification requirements of the U.S. Constitution, which is something similar to what the political parties already state regarding their candidates.

Other plans were considered last year in Texas, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Missouri, Minnesota, Maine and Arizona, and Arizona's probably got the closest to law, falling a "pocket veto" short in the state Senate, despite widespread support.


This is the one that could change the game. A plan in Arizona to require presidential candidates to prove their eligibility to occupy the Oval Office is approaching critical mass, even though it has just been introduced.

The proposal from state Rep. Judy Burges was brought forth with 16 members of the state Senate as co-sponsors. It needs only 16 votes in the Senate to pass.

In the House, there are 25 co-sponsors, with the need for only 31 votes for passage, and Burges told WND that there were several chamber members who confirmed they support the plan and will vote for it, but simply didn't wish to be listed as co-sponsors.

The proposal is highly specific and directly addresses the questions that have been raised by Barack Obama's occupancy of the White House. It says:

Within ten days after submittal of the names of the candidates, the national political party committee shall submit an affidavit of the presidential candidate in which the presidential candidate states the candidate's citizenship and age and shall append to the affidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidate's age and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States.
"I think every American should consider it of prime importance to ensure that all candidates for the highest elected position in our nation meet all constitutional requirements," she told WND.

The Arizona bill also requires attachments, "which shall be sworn to under penalty of perjury," including "an original long form birth certificate that includes the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician and signatures of the witnesses in attendance."

It also requires testimony that the candidate "has not held dual or multiple citizenship and that the candidate's allegiance is solely to the United States of America."

"If both the candidate and the national political party committee for that candidate fail to submit and swear to the documents prescribed in this section, the secretary of state shall not place that presidential candidate's name on the ballot in this state," the plan explains.

The governor's office is occupied by Republican Jan Brewer, who has had no difficulty in bringing direct challenges to Washington, such as in 2010 when lawmakers adopted provisions allowing state law-enforcement officers to enforce federal immigration law. The move prompted an immediate court challenge by Washington.


In Connecticut, SB291 has been referred to the Judiciary Committee.

It would require "that candidates for president and vice-president provide their original birth certificates in order to be placed on the ballot."

That is needed to make sure the candidate "is a natural born United States citizen, prior to certifying that the candidate is qualified to appear on the ballot."


In Georgia, HB37 by Rep. Bobby Franklin not only demands original birth-certificate documentation, it provides a procedure for and declares that citizens have "standing" to challenge the documentation.

"Each political party shall provide for each candidate ... original documentation that he meets the qualifications of Article, 2 Section 1, Paragraph 1, and Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 5 of the United States Constitution to serve as president of the United States if elected to such office," it states.

"Any citizen of this state shall have the right to challenge the qualifications of any such candidate within two weeks following the publication of the names of such candidates," it says.


In Indiana it was Sen. Mike Delph who proposed SB114 to require candidates to provide a certified copy of their birth certificate and include an affirmation they meet the Constitution's requirements for the president.

It calls for the candidates "to certify that the candidate has the qualifications provided in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution" and accompany that certification with "a certified copy of the candidate's birth certificate, including any other documentation necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications."

In also provides "that the election division may not certify the name of a nominee for president or vice president of the United States unless the election division has received a nominee's certification and documentation."

On his blog, commentator Gary Welsh observed that state law already requires the elections division to deny ballot access to unqualified candidates:

"However, it makes no provision for requiring candidates to furnish any evidence with their declaration of candidacy to indicate whether they are eligible to hold the office. Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution requires a person to be a natural born citizen, at least 35 years of age and have resided within the United States for at least 14 years in order to be eligible to be president. Under Delph's legislation, no major party candidate will be eligible for the Indiana presidential primary unless they file a declaration of candidacy attesting that he or she meets the constitutional eligibility requirements and furnish the state election's division with a certified copy of the candidate's birth certificate and any other evidence the Commission may require to establish the candidate satisfies the constitutional eligibility requirements."

He cited the "unprecedented" 2008 election, where "the candidates nominated by both major parties for president had questions raised by citizens about their eligibility, which resulted in dozens of lawsuits being filed across the country. Sen. John McCain's birth in Panama where his father was serving his country in the Navy led to lawsuits being filed against his candidacy, while questions about the birthplace of Barack Obama resulted in even more lawsuits being filed challenging his eligibility.

"Obama furnished to what was purported to be a certified copy of his birth certificate [the online certification of live birth], although questions lingered about his natural born status because his father was not a U.S. citizen and persistent Internet rumors that he was actually born in Kenya and not Hawaii as he claimed."

But he said the issue was that neither candidate was "required to furnish any election authority with any document such as a birth certificate ... ."

He said, "After [Sen. John] McCain was nominated at the Republican National Convention, Republican officials filed with the elections division a certificate of nomination that attested both he and his vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, met the eligibility requirements set out in the U.S. Constitution. The certificate of nomination filed by Democratic Party officials for Obama and his running mate, Joe Biden, contained no similar attestation.

"Critics will no doubt poke fun at SB114 and label Delph and those who support it as 'birthers.' To them I say it is no more absurd than the documentary proof required under state law for persons seeking a driver's license, or requiring all registered voters to present a valid picture ID in order to cast a vote in person at an election. And it certainly is no more burdensome than evidence required of ordinary citizens in any number of transactions," he said.

On Welsh's blog, a forum participant wrote, "All I can say is he is the only president in my memory who has not only REFUSED to present medical records, tax records, birth records, college records, etc., but he has hired a battalion of lawyers who vigorously fight every effort to force him to. Why is he so secretive?"


Maine's LD34 calls for a requirement for candidates for public office to provide proof of citizenship.

It states, "A candidate for nomination by primary election shall show proof of United States citizenship in the form of a certified copy of the candidate's birth certificate and the candidate's driver's license or other government-issued identification to the Secretary of State."


The Missouri plan, HB283, by nearly two dozen sponsors, would require that certification for candidates "shall include proof of identity and proof of United States citizenship."


In Nebraska, with LB654, the certification for candidates would "include affidavits and supporting documentation."

That paperwork would need to document they meet the "eligibility requirements of Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States."

It requires an affidavit that says: "I was born a citizen of the United States of America and was subject exclusively to the jurisdiction of the United States of America, owing allegiance to no other country at the time of my birth."


Under Montana's plan by Rep. Bob Wagner, candidates would have to document their eligibility and also provide for protection for state taxpayers to prevent them from being billed for "unnecessary expense and litigation" involving the failure of 'federal election officials' to do their duty.

"There should be no question after the fact as to the qualifications [of a president]," Wagner told WND. "The state of Montana needs to have [legal] grounds to sue for damages for the cost of litigation."

Wagner's legislation cites the Constitution's requirement that the president hold "natural born citizenship" and the fact that the "military sons and daughters of the people of Montana and all civil servants to the people of Montana are required by oath to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States and Montana against enemies foreign and domestic."

But there are estimates of up to $2 million being spent on Obama's defense against eligibility lawsuits. There have been dozens of them and some have been running for more than two years. So Wagner goes a step beyond.

"Whereas, it would seem only right and just to positively certify eligibility for presidential and congressional office at the federal level; and whereas, it is apparent that the federal authority is negligent in the matter; therefore, the responsibility falls upon the state; and whereas, this act would safeguard the people of Montana from unnecessary expense and litigation and the possibility that federal election officials fail in their duty and would ensure that the State of Montana remains true to the Constitution," says his proposed legislation.


In Oklahoma, SB91 would require "proof of citizenship for certain candidates" and take the openness one step further, allowing the public access.

It demands an "original" birth certificate issued by a state, the federal government, or documentation of a birth of a U.S. citizen abroad ...

"Copies of these documents shall be made by the election board and kept available for public inspection pursuant to the Oklahoma Open Records Act.


In Pennsylvania, there was excitement over the GOP majority of both houses of the state legislature as well as the governor's office.

Assemblyman Daryl Metcalfe told WND he is working on a proposal that would demand documentation of constitutional eligibility.

He described it as a "problem" that there has been no established procedure for making sure that presidential candidates meet the Constitution's requirements for age, residency and being a "natural born citizen."

"We hope we would be able to pass this legislation and put it into law before the next session," he said.


A bill filed for the Texas Legislature by Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, that would require candidates' documentation.

Berman's legislation, House Bill 295, is brief and simple:

It would add to the state election code the provision: "The secretary of state may not certify the name of a candidate for president or vice-president unless the candidate has presented the candidate's original birth certificate indicating that the person is a natural-born United States citizen."

It includes an effective date of Sept. 1, 2011, in time for 2012 presidential campaigning.

State Rep. Leo Berman

Berman told WND he's seen neither evidence nor indication that Obama qualifies under the Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural-born citizen."

"If the federal government is not going to vet these people, like they vetted John McCain, we'll do it in our state," he said.

He noted the Senate's investigation into McCain because of the Republican senator's birth in Panama to military parents.

At the time the Constitution was written, many analysts agree, a "natural born citizen" was considered to be a citizen born of two citizen parents. If that indeed is correct, Obama never would have been qualified to be president, as he himself has confirmed his father was a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, making Obama a dual citizen with Kenyan and American parentage at his birth.

Other definitions have called for a "natural born citizen" to be born of citizen parents inside the nation.

There have been dozens of lawsuits and challenges over the fact that Obama's "natural born citizen" status never has been documented. The "certification of live birth" his campaign posted online is a document that Hawaii has made available to those not born in the state.

The controversy stems from the Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

The challenges to Obama's eligibility allege he does not qualify because he was not born in Hawaii in 1961 as he claims, or that he fails to qualify because he was a dual citizen, through his father, of the U.S. and the United Kingdom's Kenyan terroritory when he was born and the framers of the Constitution specifically excluded dual citizens from eligibility.

There are several cases still pending before the courts over Obama's eligibility. Those cases, however, almost all have been facing hurdles created by the courts' interpretation of "standing," meaning someone who is being or could be harmed by the situation. The courts have decided almost unanimously that an individual taxpayer faces no damages different from other taxpayers, therefore doesn't have standing. Judges even have ruled that other presidential candidates are in that position.

The result is that none of the court cases to date has reached the level of discovery, through which Obama's birth documentation could be brought into court.

Obama even continued to withhold the information during a court-martial of a military officer, Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, who challenged his deployment orders on the grounds Obama may not be a legitimate president. Lakin was convicted and sent to prison.

A year ago, polls indicated that roughly half of American voters were aware of a dispute over Obama's eligibility. Recent polls, however, by organizations including CNN, show that roughly six in 10 American voters hold serious doubts that Obama is eligible under the Constitution's demands.

Orly Taitz, the California lawyer who has worked on a number of the highest-profile legal challenges to Obama, was encouraging residents of other states to get to work.

"We need eligibility bills filed in each and every state of the union ... as it shows the regime that we are still the nation of law and the Constitution, that the Constitution matters and state representatives and senators are ready to fight for the rule of law. During the last election there were some 700 more Republican state assemblyman elected all over the country, as the nation is not willing to tolerate this assault on our rights and our Constitution any further," she said.

There also was, during the last Congress, Rep. Bill Posey's bill at the federal level.

Posey's H.R. 1503 stated:

"To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee's statement of organization a copy of the candidate's birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution."
The bill also provided:

"Congress finds that under … the Constitution of the United States, in order to be eligible to serve as President, an individual must be a natural born citizen of the United States who has attained the age of 35 years and has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years."
It had more than a dozen sponsors, and while it died at the end of the last Congress, there are hopes the GOP majority in the House this year will move such a plan forward.

There also is a petition, already signed by tens of thousands, to state lawmakers asking them to make sure the next president of the United States qualifies under the Constitution's eligibility requirements.

"What we need are hundreds of thousands of Americans endorsing this strategy on the petition – encouraging more action by state officials before the 2012 election. Imagine if just one or two states adopt such measures before 2012. Obama will be forced to comply with those state regulations or forgo any effort to get on the ballot for re-election. Can Obama run and win without getting on all 50 state ballots? I don't think so," said Joseph Farah, CEO of WND, who is behind the idea of the petition.

An earlier petition had been directed at all controlling legal authorities at the federal level to address the concerns expressed by Americans, and it attracted more than half a million names.

State Eligibility Law: Obama's Achilles' Heel in 2012?

State Eligibility Law: Obama's Achilles' Heel in 2012?
By Monte Kuligowski

In his recent AT piece, Paul Kengor looks at Obama's aggregate poll numbers and concludes that the president may cruise to reelection in 2012. And Kengor didn't even factor in the additional votes Obama may secure with our tax dollars via entitlements, subsidies, and his ever-increasing army of government workers. Neither did he factor in the effects of widespread voter registration fraud complements of ACORN-type front groups.

On the other hand, it does appear that much of Middle America has awakened to the consequences of electing Obama in 2008. The Tea Party movement is not going away; in fact, it is getting stronger. And based on the amount of fiscal damage the Democrats have already wrought, it doesn't appear that the economy will be lifting Obama at election time.

There is something else that might provide a little optimism: the eligibility laws of the states. Presently, at least ten states are working on election law eligibility requirements for candidates who wish to be placed on their respective 2012 ballots for the presidency.

Two objectives may be obtained via election law requirements. The first is to compel the United States Supreme Court to define one aspect of presidential eligibility. The second is to force Mr. Obama to release his hospital-generated birth certificate.

Getting a definition of "natural born Citizen"

The Constitution requires "natural born Citizen" status as a requisite for the U.S. presidency. But no one can say authoritatively what the phrase means. The Supreme Court has had no on-point litigation from which to provide a definition. Additionally, in 2008, neither Congress nor the states had any legislation in place defining the phrase.

The historic view of the phrase "natural born Citizen" -- going back to Emmerich de Vattel's "Law of Nations" -- requires a birth in the country and (in our context) U.S. citizen parents at the time of the candidate's birth. Another view is that only U.S. citizen parents are required in order to qualify. And, of course, some believe that the constitutional language is merely referring to a birth in the U.S., irrespective of parental citizenship.

Defending Obama's birthplace narrative and secrecy has become a pop-media standby. But the requirement of citizen parents for eligibility has traditionally been the preeminent question when considering whether one is a "natural born Citizen." Avoiding conflicting interests, influences, loyalties, or allegiances is the undisputed reason for the requirement. A son of a foreign national taking the reins of the U.S. presidency is presumably what the founders wished to prevent.

State legislators should define the phrase "natural born Citizen" in their election eligibility codes, requiring U.S. citizen parents at the time of the candidate's birth as a requisite to being placed on the presidential ballot. With such a law in place, you can rest assured that the issue would make its way to the Supreme Court -- on a fast track.

It's likely, but no one knows for sure whether the Court will agree that a presidential candidate must have been born to citizen parents to qualify as a "natural born Citizen." Either way, a ruling on the issue and a definition of the phrase are what the country needs.

Forcing Obama into transparency

The other objective that may be achieved via election law requirements would be the release of Obama's hospital-generated birth certificate.

Mr. Obama knows how much money he has spent defending lawsuits to avoid releasing his detailed birth certificate showing his hospital and physician of record. The dollar amount spent to avoid transparency must be staggering.

Recently, Hawaii governor and staunch supporter of Obama Neil Abercrombie announced that he would end the controversy by verifying the existence of Obama's birth certificate. The only problem was that Abercrombie discovered that a detailed birth certificate couldn't be found in the Hawaii vital records.

Regardless of whether the details of the president's birth can be documented, Mr. Obama has a problem. If a detailed birth certificate does exist, it reasonably may be inferred to contain candidacy-ending information. Who believes that Obama would stubbornly refuse to release his records if they contained harmless information?

Mr. Obama has been able to legally avoid releasing information because no eligibility law defining "natural born Citizen" and requiring specific proof was in effect at the time of his election. The states effectively waived their constitutional rights in 2008. But apparently, that mistake will not be repeated.

Additional thoughts for legislators

The key for state legislators drafting eligibility law for 2012 is specificity. Merely requiring that each candidate submit his/her "birth certificate," or that candidates "prove constitutional eligibility," as many drafts read, is not enough.

The document Mr. Obama posted online, his "Certification of Live Birth," has been referred to by some as a "birth certificate." It is therefore possible that Obama's incomplete certification could pass a state's eligibility requirements under generic wording. If the law merely calls for submission of a "birth certificate" to the state secretary, a court could rule that Obama's certification is sufficient. Legislators drafting eligibility law must be sure to require each candidate to produce a hospital-generated birth certificate showing the hospital and physician of record -- or at bare minimum, medical records showing the same. An Obama-type certification should be acceptable only to document non-hospital births.

After recommendation, one state lawmaker, Rep. Leo Berman of Texas, has already informed me that he will take my advice and add some extra language to his eligibility bill for the reasons stated above.

The new eligibility laws of the states could prove to be quite consequential. Therefore, the laws need to be drafted with precision and with focus, for time is of the essence.

If enough carefully written state eligibility law is passed in time, I believe either that Obama will be stopped or that we will find out what he's been hiding. As a bonus, we might also get a ruling on the definition of "natural born Citizen."

Monte Kuligowski is an attorney whose work has been published in several law journals.

Page Printed from:
Five Hawaii Democratic Legislators Introduce Bill to Let President Obama’s Birth Certificate be Sold for $100
January 27th, 2011
Five Democratic state representatives in Hawaii have introduced HB 1116. It waives the standard rule for privacy, concerning birth certificates, for individuals of “civic prominence.” The bill defines these such a person as “a person who is a candidate for, or elected to, a public office that requires the person to be a United States citizen, either natural born or naturalized, to hold the public office for which they are a candidate or to which they have been elected.” The fee for this birth certificate would be $100.

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

How to create a crisis and steal a nation. Part Three

This article is creating quite a stir and attracting international readers. Parts one and two have been very popular.  Now, read the conclusion.

It would be helpful if my readers here in the United States added comments and shared a link to the story with your contacts.

• How to create a crisis and steal a nation. Part III

Do you still have doubts about your suspicions that the financial crisis happened just in time to help Obama get elected? Do you still have doubts about your suspicions that there is something fishy about the financial crisis and the way Congress passed the trillion dollar "Reward Liberal Causes and Constituents Bill" without anyone reading it?

MSWord versions of all three parts of this article are available upon request.

Monday, January 24, 2011

Pravda Has Released How to create a crisis and steal a nation. Part II

How to create a crisis and steal a nation. Part II

By the time I entered UMKC in the fall as a graduate student, my cover was already firmly established. To put a cinch knot on my cover story, I also became the Chaplain of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. I still experience a gratifying chuckle over how perfectly, easily, and quickly I had infiltrated the radical community in KC.

MSWord versions of all three parts of this  article are available upon request.

Friday, January 21, 2011

Pravda Publishes The Spy Adventure Story That Explains How the Left Has Stolen America

Part One of a Three Part Series

How to Create a Crisis and Steal a Nation

By Aristotle the Hun, The Rev. Big Goon and Good Shepherd Sam

Note: It will quickly be obvious to the reader why details have been obscured, omitted or fictionalized in this narrative of events that began nearly forty years ago.

"Se non è vero, è ben trovato."

Thursday, January 20, 2011

Image Guaranteed to Cause Liberals to Respond With Irrational Hostility

Is there an Obama Birth Certificate or not is the Wrong Question

Record of President Obama's birth in 1961 is 'in the archives': Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie
Hawaii governor can't find Obama birth certificate


The real question is; What kind of birth record is on file in Hawaii?

Didn’t Gov. Lingle say that she had seen the birth certificate 2 years ago? If so how is it that Abercrombie is having to LOOK for it?
I don’t doubt that Hawaiian officials are  accurately reporting that the document they saw says that AKA Obama was indeed born in Hawaii.

“Laws of the Territory of Hawaii ACT 96 To Provide For The Issuance Of Certificates Of Hawaiian Birth was in effect from 1911 until 1972 and allowed someone who was born outside the Hawaiian Islands to be registered as though he were born in Hawaii. Under that law, someone simply would have presented herself to the Hawaiian authorities and declared that the child was born in Hawaii. The person could have sworn under oath and presented witnesses and other evidence. If the authorities accepted it, that was the end of it. All a person had to do was file a false statement and Hawaii took them at their word.
One could not just say "My kid was born in Des Moines but I want him to have a Hawaiian birth record". But if you lied no investigation was conducted to validate your claim and the Hawaiian birth record was issued no questions asked.
Knowledge of this practice was wide spread and there are probably thousands of people who obtained Hawaiian birth records between 1911 and 1972 through the process of affidavits and witnesses rather than hospitals and delivery doctors.
The only way to know where AKA OBAMA was actually born is to view AKA OBAMA's original birth certificate on file in Hawaii to see what kind of birth certificate it is, and to examine what corroborating evidence supports what it says about AKA OBAMA's alleged place of birth. If the birth was in a hospital, as AKA OBAMA has maintained, such evidence would be the name of the hospital and the name and signature of the doctor who delivered him.”

If the records of his birth are an affidavit filed by relatives with no hospital validating the affidavit the question of AKA Obama's eligibility remains open and he might not have been born in Hawaii.

Excerpt from:
Here is the information on Hawaiian law that makes it clear why we will never know the truth until we see the actual birth certificate.

The Left Looks at Media - First Amendment Folly

Monday, January 10, 2011

Liberal Ignorance alert! - Sense, Nonsense, and Symbols

Here is the background story.

Sarah Palin used the symbol on a map illustrating the focus of her campaign work. After the Arizona shooting leftists said she was encouraging nutjobs to assassinate candidates.  Why leftists would think that a potsmoking, acid rock fan, who burns USA flags and likes the "Communist Manifesto" would be inspired by Sarah Palin is beyond my ability to explain.

I have received emails that insist that this is a gun sight.  Evidently they have not done any research.  So I guess I will need to do it for them.

It is a surveying symbol.  It is called a "reticle".  The symbol was used by surveyors back when firearms were a flintlock muzzle loaded musket.  It could mean a couple things. For one, it's what you see through a transit when sighting a target. The graduated lines on the vertical cross hair are known as stadia, and are used to calculate distance. It could also be a target used for rectification of aerial photography by a known coordinate at the intersection of the cross hairs. But overall, it means that the intersection is of a known coordinate, or one you wish to obtain. The symbol is also common in optical instruments used for astronomy, and are popular in graphical user interfaces as a precision pointer. The reticle was invented by Robert Hooke, and dates to the 17th century.

According to USGS, (U.S. Geological Survey) when used on a map it has no specific meaning other than  a "Principle Point".
If you think this is the cross hairs of a gun sight you don't know much about firearms.

Now, do a little research with your little brain and find out what the symbol really means.

Now, we all know what this symbol used by the Democrats means, don't we?

Sunday, January 9, 2011


IS DAILY KOS INVOLVED IN ARIZONA MURDERS? “My CongressWOMAN voted against Nancy Pelosi! And is now DEAD to me!” — eerie Daily Kos hit piece on Gabrielle Giffords just two days before assassination attempt; repeated use of word “dead” in relation to Giffords just 48 hours before she and a dozen others were fired upon. UPDATE: Daily Kos scrubs “dead to me” thread but screengrabs document everything; UPDATE: school classmates and former friends describe shooter Jared Lee Loughner as committed Leftist.

Photos and screen grabs at link.

Saturday, January 8, 2011

Naw, his ears are too big. On the other hand?

Also, you can't imagine that Obama might have been groomed for a role very early on. Did I send you the email that Malcolm X is Obama's father, not Obama Sr. nor Frank Marshall Davis? That makes a big difference, since Malcolm X was himself very political.
Did I send you the email that Malcolm X did a pilgrimage to Mecca with the permission of Prince (now King) Faisal? That he had to convert to Sunni Muslim in order to do so?
I'll bet he also had to take an Arab wife. More than black, Obama has always struck me as Arab-looking.
The team that is investigating Obama is following the evidence, not making it up. It will be fascinating to read Dr. Ron Polland's upcoming book about Obama's document fraud, also his true origins/paternity. It is going to be far more interesting that anything else written on this topic. It is going to be a shocker.

Wednesday, January 5, 2011

Sunday, January 2, 2011

The Tea Party Agenda for 2011.

The Tea Party Agenda for 2011.

Posted by Judson Phillips on January 2, 2011

Two years ago, the Tea Party movement exploded onto the political scene. It was like nothing modern politics had seen.

From coast to coast, rallies were held. These were not small rallies but rallies with thousands and sometimes tens of thousands of people attending.

A funny thing happened as 2009 ended, the rallies faded away. 2009 was the year of the rally. 2010 became the year of the election. Tea Party groups from across the country threw themselves into the electoral process.

The results were amazing.

But now, 2011 has come and the question is now, what is the Tea Party to do in 2011?

In 2011, there are no Federal elections. Three states will elect governors, four will vote on their legislatures and three will hold judicial elections.

Across the country, Tea Party groups are going to need to do a couple of things. First, we need to take over our local Republican Parties. Many county Republican parties have reorganizational conventions in 2011. These conventions are events where the officers of the county party are elected. In most places, it is a simple vote. Those who show up get to vote. In other words, an organized Tea Party group can get in and take over the GOP.

At Tea Party Nation, we have encouraged Tea Party activists to get involved in the local GOP for one very good reason. This is a two party system, whether we like it or not. There are only two parties and the socialists have absolute control over the other party. By taking over local parties, we can help promote Tea Party candidates at the local level. Conservatism begins at home and it may be good that we sweep liberals out of Washington, but it is something of a pyrrhic victory if we win Washington, yet lose at the state and local level.

The other thing taking over the local party will mean is the creation of a Tea Party farm team. The conservative who is going to win a congressional race five years from now is the conservative we are going to elect to the state legislature this year. RINOs continue to get elected because RINOs in many areas still control the party apparatus.

The second thing that must be a Tea Party priority is stopping voter fraud. Liberal hero and man voted most likely to be an ACLU board member, Joseph Stalin, once said, “it’s not who votes that counts, it is who counts the votes.”

In this past election, the left made a concerted effort at voter fraud. This fraud effected elections. Now, in many areas, for a conservative to win, not only do they have to have a majority, they have to have a fraud proof majority.

At Tea Party Nation we have received a lot of information about what happened and will be making some of the news public in the next few weeks. What is very disturbing was a pattern of “test marketing” certain types of fraud. Certain types of voter fraud that we saw in limited amounts in 2010, we will see across the country in 2012.

The Tea Party movement must united across the country and work to eliminate voter fraud. In some states it will be easy. In socialist states like California or corrupt, I mean Democrat controlled states, like Illinois, it will be very tough. If we are going to win, we must. If we do not eliminate liberal voter fraud, our votes won’t matter because they will not be counted.

Stopping voter fraud is going to be a major project for Tea Party Nation this year.

In Texas, there is a group that is doing an outstanding job of fighting voter fraud. The group is called True the Vote. What they do can be taken and duplicated in almost any state or locality. On January 15th, they are going to have a conference in Houston, TX. They are going to talk about what they did and how you can work in your community to prevent voter fraud. The cost is $50. If want more information, visit their website,

Stopping voter fraud must be a top priority for us this year. The left knows it cannot win free and fair elections. They can only win by cheating. We must stop them now or Chicago style elections will become the norm for the United States. We must stop this fraud, while we still can.

Allen West: Liberal Progressive Agenda is ‘Antithesis of Who We Are as a Nation’

Allen West: Liberal Progressive Agenda is ‘Antithesis of Who We Are as a Nation’

Lt. Col. Allen West - and he did it all without a teleprompter!

Lt. Col. Allen West opened his campaign headquarters with a rousing speech on Saturday, April 17, 2010 in Deerfield Beach, FL. West is running for Congress in Florida District 22.

The Definition of a Birther and Definition of Natural Born

The Definition of a Birther
Leo Patrick Haffey

© January 1, 2011
"Be not afraid of greatness; some are born great, some achieve greatness, and others have greatness thrust upon them." William Shakespeare

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." Abraham Lincoln

The definition of a birther is: Birther--noun--a person who believes - against evidence - that Barack Obama was born outside of the United States.
By definition I am not a birther. I do not believe or disbelieve that Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was born outside of the United States. I readily admit that I do not know where BHO Jr. was born. However, both BHO Jr. and his closest family friends like Hawaii Governor Neil Abercrombie vociferously allege that BHO Jr. was born in Hawaii to Barack Hussein Obama Sr. and Stanley Ann Dunham.

If we take BHO Jr. at his word then there is no doubt that he is not a Natural Born Citizen of the United States as required by the Presidential Qualifications Clause of Article II Section 1 Paragraph 5 of the United States Constitution. The Constitution requires that to be the President of the United States, a person must be born in the United States of two parents who are citizens of the United States. By BHO Junior’s own admission his father was a British/Kenyan subject (citizen) at the time of his birth. Thus BHO Jr. is disqualified for the Presidency.

There is a clear, concise definition of the term "Natural Born Citizen" in Vattel's Law of Nations which was the principal legal reference book used by the Founding Fathers in writing the Constitution.

"The natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."
There have been innumerable United States Supreme Court Decisions that have referenced Vattel’s Law of Nations as a resource in interpreting the original intent of the Founding Fathers when writing the Constitution.

The following are a few of the cases that have reiterated Vattel’s definition of the meaning of the term, Natural Born Citizen.

In the Venus Case, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814), Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire §212 paragraph from the French edition of Vattel’s Law of Nations:

"Vattel who…is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives (natural born citizens) or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…"
Justice Story ruled in Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830), ‘If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings…"

In Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875), Chief Justice Morrison Waite delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, "The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

Justice Gray ruled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), "At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

A reading of the above referenced United States Supreme Court Cases coupled with a reading of Vattel’s clear and concise definition of a Natural Born Citizen in his monumental work, Law of Nations, leaves no doubt that Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is not constitutionally qualified to be the President of the United States of America.
Unfortunately for all Americans, the Supreme Court of the United States of America has yet to rule on the definition of a Natural Born Citizen as it pertains to the Presidency of the United States. It is not as some say that the Supreme Court has heretofore evaded or avoided the opportunity to achieve greatness and rule on this most profound constitutional issue of first impression. Rather it is that no Justices in the history of American jurisprudence have had this momentous fate thrust upon them. As always, I have an unvanquished trust that these "just" men and women will seize the fate before them and make an everlasting first and foremost impression on the future of the Greatest Nation in the History of Mankind.

© January 1, 2011 by Leo Patrick Haffey
Leo Patrick Haffey is a lawyer in Nashville, Tennessee who has worked in the music, motion picture and television industries as a producer. Mr. Haffey’s productions have been broadcast on most of the major television networks. Mr. Haffey has done extensive legal research on the Constitution, in particular the Constitutional qualifications for the Presidency of the United States of America.

United in Our Constitutional Cause,

Leo Patrick Haffey