Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Cartoon Says It All

Somehow, the fact that more poor people are on welfare, receiving more generous payments, does not seem to have made this country a nice place to live - not even for the poor on welfare, whose condition seems not noticeably better than when they were poor and off welfare. Something appears to have gone wrong; a liberal and compassionate social policy has bred all sorts of unanticipated and perverse consequences.
-Irving Kristol

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."........ Thomas Jefferson

A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw

"The problems we face today exist because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living."

Double click cartoon for full screen:



Decision in Georgia case expected soon, but ballot concerns going viral

Monday, January 30, 2012



Posted by: Dean C. Haskins
Posted: January 30, 2012
© 2012 The Birther Summit
Author's Request: If you are not going to read the conclusion of this article, please do not read any of it. Those whose critical thinking skills are limited, either genetically, or willfully, are required to read the conclusion at least three times before sending me your zombie hate mail.
Once again, in the days following the hearings that were conducted in Georgia on January 26, there has been a lot of spin and misinformation coming from our side; while much of it comes from simply being overzealous about the hearings, we must be vigilant to stay on the side of truth.
But, before I get into that, I want to explain some things about the issues that we faced with the live video streaming. I was brought into the live streaming process pretty late in the game, and while my background and experience are in studio audio, before this past week, I had never been involved in any live streaming video project. We did visit the courtroom on Wednesday to assess the layout, but the facility had no wireless internet available, and our wireless card that had been shipped to Atlanta had not yet arrived; so, we were not able to test the live streaming in the courtroom. Moreover, the Media was relegated to the rear of the courtroom, and there was no allowance for placing any microphones at the front.
Ultimately, we gained a mountain of experiential knowledge through this first attempt, and will use what we learned to perfect our future live video streaming projects.
The First Two Cases Heard
The courtroom was packed and hot, and there was a constant flurry of activity throughout the morning. Things were said, and half-explained, in the midst of the surrounding confusion, so I want to take a moment to clarify the essence of what happened, now that there's been some time to accurately recount the events of the day.
Just as we witnessed internet postings falsely proclaiming that many individuals had been “subpoenaed” or “ordered by a judge” to appear in Atlanta, as well as repeated claims of there being a “trial” (instead of what they were—administrative hearings), that same kind of self-serving, inaccurate headline-manufacturing has resulted in claims that a “judge has ordered that Obama will not appear on the Georgia ballot.” Folks, not only has that not happened, Judge Malihi will not be issuing any such “order.” He will only be issuing a recommendation to Secretary of State Kemp, who will ultimately decide.
Prior to the start of the hearings on Thursday, the judge called the three attorneys who were present into his chambers and said that he could award them a default order because the defendant did not show up, but the attorneys stated that they would prefer to present abbreviated versions of their arguments so that they would be on the record, in case there were any appeals.
Their having chosen to present evidence, therefore, precluded a default order, as such an order is awarded in the absence of any evidence being presented. The fact that evidence was presented means that Judge Malihi must make his recommendation based upon that evidence. It is the understanding of the first two attorneys to present their cases that, whichever way the judge decides will ultimately result in an appeal, and with their evidence being presented, they have prepared their cases to proceed to the highest court in the land, if necessary. The third case, as presented, didn't, and won't, go anywhere.
The cases presented by attorneys Irion and Hatfield had nothing to do with any claims regarding Obama's birthplace or his birth certificate. In fact, Van Irion's plaintiff stipulated to the birth certificate that had been posted online, which means that, for the purposes of his case, his plaintiff accepted its validity as part of the court record. He merely used what is claimed to be a valid birth certificate to establish the fact that Obama's father was a foreign national, and never a US citizen. Mark Hatfield's plaintiffs relied on parental divorce records to establish the same fact. Neither attorney was concerned with anything other than arguing that Barack Obama is not constitutionally eligible to be president because of his father's lack of US citizenship.
At this point in the proceedings, and in light of the basis of much of the third case, I believe an attorney who either understood the law, or who had an actual interest in succeeding with that case, would have at least voiced an objection to attorney Irion's stipulation of the birth certificate, even if, for no other reason, than to have the objection entered into the record. However, the third attorney made no such objection.
Having quickly presented their evidence, the judge called for a brief recess, at which time, Irion and Hatfield asked for the record to be closed in their cases. While speculation resulted that they requested the closing of their cases to prevent the defendant from providing evidence, I do not believe that was their purpose, as was evidenced in their open, and calculated, exit from the courtroom before the beginning of the third hearing, and not returning. They wanted it understood that they would have nothing to do with the third case, and closed the record on their cases to keep the third case from diluting theirs.
Now, before proceeding with my report, let me say that, before Thursday, I had never personally met Orly Taitz. After she entered the courtroom, she approached the Media area, where I was standing with our live streaming equipment, and she asked, “Are you Dean Haskins?” I extended my hand and said, “Yes, how are you doing, Orly?” Without reciprocating the handshake, she stated, “I think it is about time for an apology,” to which I replied, “You can apologize to me anytime you want.” Through clenched teeth, Orly quietly seethed, “You're a piece of sh*t. You shouldn't even be here.” Classy.
It is not really necessary to go into a detailed analysis of Orly's presentation of her case, as there was little proffered that could be viewed as proper construction of a legal argument, or even a coherent presentation of evidence, but there are some points I believe need to be made.
As I have stated, Orly has grossly misrepresented the facts in her part of these cases, and, as I had previously remarked, any of the subpoenas she simply mailed to people who reside outside the state of Georgia weren't worth the paper on which the blank subpoena forms were downloaded and printed. Judge Malihi neither issued them, nor personally signed them. But, that's not what Orly stated to her faithful followers. Before the day of the hearings, jbjd came to the same conclusion. In fact, as many times as it has been pointed out that these were “administrative hearings” and not “trials,” Orly is still claiming her hearing was a trial. I have also recently read that Orly was “the principal attorney,” and that she “was the one responsible for these cases being heard.” That is an outright lie, as she injected herself into these cases very late in the process, and at the probable dismay of the other plaintiffs. It was the work of Swensson, Powell, Irion, Hatfield, and Weldon, which had been ongoing for more than two years, that brought these hearings to fruition.
As to my previous explanation that Orly's subpoena to Loretta Fuddy, which included a demand for certain documents of identification pertaining to Barack Obama, was completely unenforceable since Hawaii law prohibits the release of those documents to someone without a direct and tangible interest, and that a Georgia ALJ has no jurisdiction over Hawaii (something first-year law students would readily understand), Judge Malihi denied her request for that reason (although, as of this writing, Orly has chosen not to post that denial). Additionally, it appears that Orly may have knowingly gone outside the bounds of the law in a statement she made trying to coerce a Hawaiian court to provide certain documents to her.
On January 19, 2012, Orly filed an Ex Parte Amended Motion for Reconsideration under 60B in Honolulu, which was denied by Judge Nishamura. On page 5 of that motion is the following language: “I, Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ, declare under penalty of perjury, that I was given commission and subpoena (attached) to conduct deposition and examination of records of witness Loretta Fuddy, Director of Health.” Interestingly, what she stated “under penalty of perjury” never happened. It was a lie. Not only did she never go before Judge Malihi to obtain a commission prior to January 26, on January 27 Judge Malihi denied her request for such commission due to lack of jurisdiction (precisely as predicted). I would be surprised if this little tidbit doesn't get included in whatever Deputy AG Nagamine files with Judge Nishamura concerning Taitz.
If there were any questions regarding whether or not Orly is truly interested in proving anything in a courtroom about Barack Obama, those questions were finally put to rest last Thursday. Putting aside the abysmal legal performance we have all come to expect (which was certainly replayed on Thursday), and seeing the constant shameless appeals for donations (since her expenses to conduct her HEARING were so great), why would Orly have spent the money to hire apersonal professional videographer to capture her every move in the courtroom? If Orly's case wasn't all about Orly (rather than proving anything about Barack Obama), what possible motivation could she have had for such an extravagance? And, I'm not quite sure how she plans to use the footage of her transitioning from a closing argument, to taking the stand and testifying, and then back to a closing argument (at Judge Malihi's insistence), but it would probably be very useful in a “How-Not-To” video somewhere.
And, to what did she “testify”? While “testifying” about Barack Obama's Illinois Bar Application, Judge Malihi asked Orly what “personal knowledge” she had about the document (this is a common “legal” question), and Orly's response was that she had downloaded the image from the internet herself. Really? Did an attorney actually say that to a judge? I don't know if I could have been more embarrassed.
But, far and above the horrendous incompetence, unmerited self-promotion, and inexplicably inaccurate self-image, is Orly's proclivity still to throw people under the bus in an effort to provide cover for her ineptitude. While most everything about Orly's public persona is deplorable, this must be her most depraved character flaw.
In a ridiculous posting in which Orly spoke dishonestly about Sheriff Joe, she included abhorrent and wholly undeserved comments about Mara Zebest and Tom Harrigan (although, she didn't even get Mara's name correct). In essence, she stated that, if Zebest and Harrigan wouldn't agree to be a part of her absurd circus, then they are “totally worthless,” and “their opinion is of no value.” But, the fact that there was even a posting about Sheriff Joe in the first place should indicate to any sane individual that Orly is singularly the most damaging element of the entire eligibility movement (more on that in a minute).
It is clear that Orly does not want Sheriff Joe to garner any possible limelight for the efforts that he and his Cold Case Posse have expended, and her fake subpoena to him was an attempt to have that evidence presented as part of HER hearing (for then, she could somehow claim the evidence as her own). It needs to be understood that this is truly reprehensible behavior. To the one and only law enforcement official in the country who has stepped up to the plate and is conducting a thoroughly professional investigation, he deserves our utmost gratitude; but, after Sheriff Joe rightfully and commendably ignored Orly's downloaded unenforceable “subpoena,” Orly tried to elevate herself by diminishing him. That is censurable conduct, folks!
How can I assert that this was Orly's attempt to steal Sheriff Joe's evidence, and claim it as her own? From her website:
“Arpaio’s unwillingness to testify tells me that:
a. he does not have any new evidence aside from what I provided him.”
I have spoken several times with the Posse's lead investigator, and that statement couldn't be further from the truth. For those Orlyites out there, that is what is technically called a “lie.”
Also, Orly has been repeatedly vocal against proactive groups in our movement, such as Article2SuperPAC,ObamaReleaseYourRecordsObama State Ballot Challenge, and GiveUsLiberty1776, but those entities deserve our full gratitude and support, as they are truly working for the benefit of our cause, and are not daily sabotaging it.  Short of libel, I couldn't care less what Orly, or anyone else, says about me, but I will not stand idly by while she calls into question the characters and motivations of these good people.
I also commend jbjd.org as trustworthy commentary that cuts through the deceptive hype many in our movement have blindly accepted at face value.
Before sending me any hate emails like the ones I've already received, there are now ground rules involved. You must include this statement: “I, (state your name), declare under penalty of perjury, that I have read this conclusion at least three times.” Additionally, such hate mail must be constrained to refuting what I have stated. Personal attacks devoid of such refutation will demonstrate a lack of critical thinking skills on the part of the sender, and relegate such hate mail to the insignificant and unworthy of consideration.
Folks, I'm angry; not in a personal way, but fundamentally in regards to our cause. I have poured my time and energy into this issue as a quest for truth . . . nothing more, nothing less. When I see us publicly lauding disgraceful behavior, and honoring deception, then I fear we have lost our way in what we are doing. Such blanket approval of that is indicative of abject hatred overruling thoughtful objectivity. If we are willing to disregard truth and decency in our quest toward a goal, then we should re-examine our motivation for that goal.
On any given day, I can scroll through the headlines on Orly's website, and it literally turns my stomach. The contents are typically morally and ethically questionable; thus, I have a hard time believing that those who openly and totally support such, are not also lacking in morals and ethics—and I, personally, do not want to believe that! But, the tension that such an inconsistency produces in my conscience is the reason I believe I must speak up. I refuse to sear my conscience through my silence.
I am aware that most of those who are actually working in this movement do not disagree with me; however, there is a remnant who have not yet figured it out for themselves. To those who would accuse me of being “divisive,” or “hurting our cause,” if being truthful is divisive to a cause, then there's either something wrong with the cause, or the people within the cause. I cannot, in good conscience, tolerate aberrant behavior simply as a way to further the cause—and what some have not yet learned is that, as long as we do accept it, our cause will continue to be severely handicapped.
We have gained a toehold in Georgia (Orly had absolutely nothing to do with that, regardless of what she claims), and we owe a debt of gratitude to the plaintiffs and attorneys in the first two cases that were heard. However, if we continue to allow ourselves to be equated with the preposterous antics of the third case, we are doomed. The Media will always gravitate to that which makes it easiest to ridicule and vilify us—and, we saw that again this past week.
For those who are still unconvinced, take a few days and actually investigate the facts—and ignore every single word Orly says about Orly, or against anyone else. Obama himself could not have set into action a more brilliant ploy to keep him safe in the White House. If one forces himself to research and study the facts, apart from the repeatedly baseless claims, he will necessarily come to the same conclusion, for the facts themselves do not lie.
I am aware of so much more that I cannot divulge, as it would not be fair to those who have shared those things with me. If they want to come forward with such information, that will be up to them—I will not betray their confidence.
In the end, the hate emails I have received have been from those who are not aware of the truth (from a lack of real research, and reliance on the constant deception), cannot understand the truth, or who know the truth, but choose to ignore it. The last group are the ones I most fear regarding our cause, as they will ultimately be the “divisive” ones, and will be the ones who keep us relegated to the circus sideshow.
Again, if I must be hated for speaking the truth, then so be it. But, if you're going to send me a message to let me know just how much you hate me, it had better be because you can refute what I've said, and not because you just don't like it. I am completely open to being proved wrong where the facts are concerned—and, if you want to share your hatred with me, I hope you DO try to refute the facts, because then you will at least have to face them.
Peace, if possible, but the truth at any rate. - Martin Luther
If you would like more information about the Birther Summit, please visit our website often at www.birthersummit.org or contact Dean Haskins at dean@birthersummit.org.

Sunday, January 29, 2012

Voting for Faith, Reason, and Heart - I therefore state my intention to vote in the Florida Primary for Rick Santorum

Voting for Faith, Reason, and Heart

I have a favorite film about sports. It is entitled “Miracle.” It is about the miraculous 1980 US Olympic Hockey Team. This young team of college lads clawed its way to the Gold Medal round, defeating the Swedes, the East Germans, the Czechs, the Finns, and most dramatically, the Soviet Union. Even knowing the outcome of the movie, I sit on the edge of my seat and cheer out loud [maybe you wouldn’t, but I do] for the unabashedly patriotic themes about competition, faith, and family. Kurt Russell is fantastic in the Role of Coach Herb Brooks [who sadly passed away just before the movie screened].
This ‘got me to thinkin’. The great uplifting Olympic victory, against all odds, happened when we needed a big lift. It happened during the disastrous Presidency that was Jimmy Carter. The Iranians had destroyed our Embassy and had taken hostages. The Soviet Union had invaded Afghanistan in a take-over bid.

So, I have done a bit of reading, thinking, apologizing [in the argumentative sense] lately about Conservatism and I have a few thoughts about Newt Gingrich, Romney, Paul and Santorum. The first thought is that Party Nominations are to be earned, not bestowed. Santorum, Paul, Romney and Gingrich should contest this every step of the way. I am prepared to support the nominee even if I must hold my nose when voting, but for the sake of the American People, let this play out.

Lincoln asked and answered rhetorically, “What is Conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?” I think that this does not say, as Liberals would maintain, that Conservatives have no new ideas. It, instead, praises hanging onto that which works, and implies that we must build on lessons learned. Too many ideas unconnected and without a platform are a strategy that results in political death ... look to the decayed Federalist and impotent Whig Parties for historical proof. Is Conservatism now wallowing and foundering on a political sandbar? Does it help that Romney and Gingrich are doing their [unintentional] best to give Obama a free pass as they indulge their egos with personal potshots?

Newt Gingrich has this tendency to use historical example, but without a roadmap. He thereby later is often caricatured as a snake oil salesman or the Mad Hatter. He fails to explain his out-loud thinking in proper context. As an example: If I were to speak about Sherman and Grant, I would say that they were great generals and they certainly took Napoleon’s Mass War concepts to new levels, but they’ll have few fans here in the South.  I would be certain to explain their greatness within historical context, and also contrast it with the greatness of Generals Lee and Jackson, and their war-fighting theories and practice. Statements require support.

I understand a context of greatness as regards FDR. I think I know what Gingrich was getting at when he praised FDR as a politician. I personally think FDR was a collectivist skunk, politically. But, it is also hard not to like a spunky, ebullient, wheelchair-bound President who, when asked where Doolittle’s planes launched from, said, “Shangri-La.” FDR also allowed his Admirals and Generals great leeway in waging war against the evils of Japanese Feudalist Imperialism and German National Socialism.

Still, one must then also criticize FDR’s his failure to act against the Nazi Death Camps, or his failure to recognize, as late as the Yalta Conference, that Josef Stalin was totally evil, and not “Uncle Joe.” [Yalta’s outcomes essentially handed over Eastern Europe to almost 50 years of Soviet domination and Cold War conflict.] Gingrich may be just a bit too much like FDR in Liberal spirit and method, if not philosophy and leader consistency. Gingrich: Populist, yes, but a true conservative?... You judge.

I understand the importance, in a greater sense, of Newt suggesting a Moon Colony, but it is a knock-off of a Kennedy vision past with no funding possibilities, zero, leastwise at taxpayer expense. It becomes perhaps a worthy goal, once Obama-care is repealed and the debt is paid down. Also required: Americans must be re-trained in self-reliance, less materialism, and loving thy neighbor [especially the ones in the womb or the nursing home]. To be balanced, Romney has not exactly been full of vision for saving America. Americans are not the Olympics or Bain Capital acquisitions, and I certainly would not brag about my time as the Massachusetts Governor if I were he.

As for true fire in the belly, I would say look to Rick Santorum, or even to 76-year-old Ron Paul. You must respect their passion and genuine love of country and family first. They display it unpretentiously. I do not like to see family used as props, nor do I like to see vainglorious posturing by those who want to be President ... just so they can be President. Gingrich and Romney both strike me in this fashion. Romney seems to disappear when you take away his resume; you must look hard to find anything beyond business there.

Gingrich seems to disappear if you look deeper into his resume and behaviors; then you must search for where he went. Mind you, I do not discount the possibilities of earnest repentance and redemption, nor do I discount the possibility of political growth, evolution, and change of mind on key moral and political issues by either Romney or Gingrich, but I simply do not discern “genuine” in either man. I know I am on sound ground here because my wife agrees ... and she is always right!

I see a continuation of the GOP primary battle overall as a good process. This may all come down to a brokered convention with many ballots. We could even see a surprise ... like a Draft Palin movement. However it turns out, it will be an opportunity to roar out of that convention with a full head of steam and a solid platform. Look out, Obama!

Conscience is a nagging thing. If Rick Perry’s name is still on the Florida ballot Tuesday, I would be sorely tempted to vote for him despite Perry’s withdrawal from the race; this would be unproductive. I therefore state my intention to vote in the Florida Primary for Rick Santorum. He may not be a lovely giant like Ronald Reagan, or the consummate politician, but, Rick Santorum has, in my estimation, many good solid qualities, among them; he speaks from Reason and Faith [ratio et fides], and has the Heart of a Lincoln.

Most importantly, I am setting aside my desires and wants here and I am trusting in God. If God is with us, after all,  who can be against us. I believe in miracles.
William R. Mann 
Most recent columns
William R. Mann, is a retired Lt. Colonel, US Army. He is a now a political observer, analyst, activist and writer for Conservative causes. He was educated at West Point [Bachelor of Science, 1971 ]and the Naval Postgraduate School [Masters, National Security Affairs, 1982].  He currently resides with his wife in Pensacola, Florida.  William can be reached at:letters@canadafreepress.com

Georgia Ballot Challenge: Obama Walks On By

Georgia Ballot Challenge: Obama Walks On By

By Cindy Simpson and Alan P. Halbert
Two AT writers attended yesterday's hearing in Georgia over President Obama's eligibility for the presidential ballot. Cindy Simpson writes:
President Obama has a habit of turning his back and walking away from those with whom he disagrees, as recently discovered by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer.  Professor John Lott, in an interview with Teri O'Brien, recalled similar experiences with Obama while at the University of Chicago.
Ms. O'Brien commented to Professor Lott:  "Gods don't debate.  They just issue decrees."
And apparently they also tend to place themselves above the law.
On January 26, I was in Atlanta to observe the hearings on the challenges to Obama's eligibility to appear on Georgia's 2012 ballot.  In two previous American Thinker blog posts, "The Birthers Went Down to Georgia" and "Georgia on Obama's Mind," I described the content and history of the cases.
The courtroom was crowded to maximum capacity; however, the table for the defense was notably vacant.  The defendant, Obama himself, was also not in attendance, even though the judge last week refused to quash the subpoena requesting his presence. Judge Michael Malihi, in his denial, stated:
...Defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend.  Defendant's motion suggests that no President should be compelled to attend a Court hearing.  This may be correct.  But Defendant has failed to enlighten the Court with any legal authority...evidencing why his attendance is "unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony... [is] irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary..."
Obama's attorney, Michael Jablonski, had warned of his absence in a defiant and last-minute move on the afternoon of January 25, via a letter he sent to Georgia's Secretary of State Brian Kemp.  He requested that Kemp "bring an end to this baseless, costly and unproductive hearing by withdrawing the original hearing request as improvidently issued."  Jablonski's letter concluded: "We await your taking the requested action, and as we do so, we will, of course, suspend further participation in these proceedings, including the hearing scheduled for January 26."
A few hours later, the blogosphere lit up with the news that Secretary Kemp had responded with a letter stating that the hearings would continue on the 26th as scheduled, and concluded with the warning:  "...if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril."

And the hearings did proceed, although approximately 20 minutes late, after Judge Malihi requested a pre-hearing conference with all of the attorneys in his chambers.
Van Irion of the Liberty Legal Foundation presented his case first, followed by J. Mark Hatfield and Orly Taitz.  Irion's argument focused on the definition of "natural born" citizen in the holding of Minor v Happersett and the principle of "statutory construction" in the interpretation of the 14th amendment.  Hatfield added the fact that the Interpretations of the Immigration and Naturalization Service recognize the delineation between "natural born" and "native-born" citizenship. 
Orly Taitz also ably presented her evidence regarding the legitimacy of Obama's birth certificate and questions surrounding his Social Security number, even though she was rushed by the judge on several occasions, shortening her planned two-hour presentation by half.
After only two hours for three hearings that most spectators had expected to take several, Judge Malihi asked the attorneys to file briefs by February 5 and dismissed the courtroom. No date has been set for his decision.
Rumors began flying around the blogosphere almost immediately -- primarily one that the judge had informed the attorneys, in the pre-hearing conference, that he intended to enter a default judgment against Obama. If true, that would essentially mean that yet another action against Obama's eligibility has resulted in no decision on the merits.  
Under Georgia law, the Secretary of State had properly deferred the ballot challenges to the OSAH for the court's opinion, and the determination of whether or not Obama's name will appear on the Georgia ballot ultimately rests with the Secretary.
Regardless of the outcome in Georgia, it appears that Obama has openly shown his disregard for the laws of that state.  According to Irion, Obama has also "decided that he is above the Courts, the law, and the Constitution. He has just indicated...that he is not subject to their authority.  This is the true story from today, yet almost no one will report it."
Obama has deliberately turned his back, and walked on by.
And most of the media has followed along right behind him.
Alan P. Halbert also attended the hearing and writes:

Obama Declares he is Above Georgia's Election Laws
Several back-to-back hearings were held on Thursday the 26th of January 2012 on the status of whether President Obama is Constitutionally eligible under Article II Sec 1 requirements as a "Natural Born Citizen" and appear on the Georgia primary presidential ballot.  This came about by several Citizens filing challenges to Obama being placed on primary ballot with the Georgia Secretary of State Mr. Brian P. Kemp in accordance with Georgia election law.  Obama had been given an Order to appear along with the production of documents by the presiding Administrative Law Judge assigned to hear the matter, the Honorable Michael Malihi.  Obama and his Attorney chose not to comply with the Court's Order, provide the documents, present a defense or attend the hearing.  Obama's attorney Mr. Jablonski chose instead to send a letter to Mr. Kemp requesting that the hearing be dismissed, as they claimed the Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter and that they would not attend if it was held as scheduled.   Mr. Kemp responded with his regrets that they decided to forgo the Hearing and warned them "they did so at their own peril" if they failed to offer evidence disputing the allegation of the Citizens complaints.
The election of a President is done through the compilation and aggregation of the individual State Election returns which have the responsibility under the Constitution to conduct Elections.  It most assuredly is a Citizen's Right to inquire into the Constitutional qualification of any Candidate to hold any elected office in Georgia whether it is a State or Federal Office which includes the office of President.  This is also the case with the other forty nine States as well which have similar Statutes.
The evidence that was presented was varied and ran the gamut of the factual legal arguments to evidence of a personal nature attributed personally to Obama.  Mr. Van Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation presented the facts of Minor V. Happersett and portrayed it front and center as to the definition of a "Natural Born Citizen" and as definitive from a unanimous ruling by SCOTUS in 1875 --  the legal heart of the matter.  An Amicus Brief was filed in the case by Leo Donofrio Esq. and would be considered an authoritative discussion of the natural born citizen issue and its common law lineage. Each attorney (three in all) in due course presented their cases then rested as the next one presented the case; it appeared well coordinated among all attorneys.
Most all of the testimony was given by expert witnesses, except for the foundation testimony of the citizens that brought the actions; document experts on the authenticity of Obama's Birth Certificate, the Social Security number he uses (used on tax returns) and his and his mother's passport records.  A private investigator testified that his Social Security Number (SSN) was originally issued to a deceased individual born in 1890, and was issued from Connecticut a State he is never been known to inhabit.
Orly Taitz, the last attorney to present her case, has been the subject of considerable criticism of her character by various persons during her four year ordeal stretching back to 2008 when she started down this road with Obama.  She drew considerable ire and vitriol from Mr. Jablonski, in his letter to Mr. Kemp requesting the dismissal of the hearing.   Her case was developed with credible skill however lacked the polish of an experienced litigator.  Though appeared solid in evidentiary value and her presentation of the facts were damning.  It was probably for the personal nature of her inquiry of Obama and his credentials which drew such criticism from others along the way and Obama's attorney in particular. 
She presented through direct testimony the opinions of several document experts that declared the Birth Certificate presented by Obama last April as having the hallmarks of an assembled or false document, as it was layered similar to what would be produced with modern computer software, and not a simple copy of an official record from 1961.  He also discussed anomalies of certain character spacing which would not have been present or possible with the typewriters of the 1960's.  This layering issue was further verified by another expert witness for document scanning technology and his conclusion was that his long form birth certificate appeared to be falsified as well by certain abnormal patterns appearing in his Birth Certificate. 
The compilation of this information was then verified by another expert witness, a retired Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) investigator.  He testified that the anomalies seen on Obama's records, Social Security Number and birth certificate which had different Registrars for similar certificates that were issued within days of one another was difficult to explain.  The out of Sequence birth certificate issuance numbers which were lower than Obama's, though issued several days after his birth, was difficult to explain as these numbers are issued sequentially.  There were issues with the official embossed seal that were not accurate for similar records issued during this time period in Hawaii, his birthplace.  He testified that these anomalies rose to the level that would require further investigation, possible arrest and prosecution for documents that had the cumulative defects that Obama's exhibited in similar investigation of false documents.
However, what I find most baffling was the decision of Obama and his Attorney choosing to be absent from the proceedings.  However, Judge Malihi conducted the hearing in a manner of decorum and was an honest presentation of the facts.  Though was hard to guard against the bias of the parties without Obama and his Council being present.
Many people who are unfamiliar with the Legal System do not know that the hearing or trial level is known as the "trier of the facts".  Only matters of Law can be appealed, not the facts that are developed, presented or testified to in any hearing or trial.  Only when there is overwhelming evidence of malfeasance, gross perjury or the denial of the admissibility of probative evidence is a new trial or hearing ordered when a mistake of law has been found on appeal.  As a practical matter appellate courts rarely order such remedy, when ordered it is believed that the defendant did not have his constitutional right to face his accusers at the trier of the facts level!
Since Obama and his attorney chose not to be present a defense and dispute the evidence that was presented, this can be taken as an admission that all of the evidence admitted were indeed facts and may not be disputed at a later time on appeal!   The irony of this course is that Obama is declaring that the court has no Jurisdiction in this matter and will appeal as a matter of law though these damning facts may very well stand!  It also gives the impression that he considers himself above the law -- Georgia's.  We have a plethora of data points on the sequestering of all of Obama's records and bona fides which he has spent millions of dollars to keep out the public's hands for the last four years.  After this hearing we may eventually know why.
Below is a summary list of the physical evidence introduced in yesterday's hearing in GA.                  
P2. Affidavit of Senior Deportation Officer with the Department of Homeland Security John Sampson, showing that Obama is using Connecticut SSN 042-68-4425                                              
p3. Affidavit of Adobe Illustrator expert Felicito Papa, showing Obama's alleged true and correct copy of his birth certificate to be a computer generated forgery                                                                      
P4. Affidavit of witness Linda Jordan, attesting to the fact, that SSN 042-68-4425, used by Obama, does not pass E-Verify                                                                                                                              
p6. Selective service certificate showing Obama using SSN 042-68-4425 and official printout from Social Security Number Verification Services, showing that 042-68-4425 was never issued to Barack Obama, attached e-mail from Colonel Gregory Hollister                                                  
p7. Affidavit of Adobe Illustrator expert Felicito Papa, showing that Obama is using CT SSN 042-68-4425 on his 2009 tax returns                                                                                                                            
p9. Hawaiian birth certificate 61-00637 of Susan Nordyke, born a few hours after Obama in Kapiolani Hospital, looks completely different from alleged copy of birth certificate of Obama
p10. Passport records of Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, mother of Barack Obama, showing Obama listed in her passport under the name Barack Obama Soebarkah, attached affidavit by Chris Strunk, recipient of Obama's passport records under FOIA                                                                   
p11. Barack Obama's Indonesian school registration card #203, date accepted January 1, 1968, released by the Associated Press in Indonesia, showing him using last name Soetoro and listing citizenship -Indonesia....
Amicus Brief. Mr. Leo Donofrio, Esq. 

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2012/01/georgia_ballot_challenge_obama_walks_on_by.html

Saturday, January 28, 2012

Here's your change! - In just three years Obama accomplished all this - Wow, what a guy!

Here's your change!

January 2009
% chg
Avg. Retail price/gallon gas in U.S.

Crude oil, European Brent (barrel)

Crude oil, West TX Inter. (barrel)

Corn, No.2 yellow, Central IL

Soybeans, No. 1 yellow, IL

Sugar, cane, raw, world, lb. Fob

Unemployment rate, non-farm, overall

Unemployment rate, blacks

Number of unemployed

Number of fed. Employees

Real median household income

Number of food stamp recipients

Number of unemployment benefit recipients

Number of long-term unemployed

Poverty rate, individuals

People in poverty in U.S.

U.S. Rank in Economic Freedom World Rankings

Present Situation Index

Failed banks

U.S. Dollar versus Japanese yen exchange rate

U.S. Money supply, M1, in billions

U.S. Money supply, M2, in billions

National debt, in trillions

Just take this last item: In the last two years we have accumulated national debt at a rate more than 27 times as fast as during the rest of our entire nation's history.
(1) U.S. Energy Information Administration; (2) Wall Street Journal; (3) Bureau of Labor Statistics; (4) Census Bureau; (5) USDA; (6) U.S. Dept. Of Labor;
(7) FHFA; (8) Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller; (9) RealtyTrac; (10) Heritage Foundation and WSJ; (11) The Conference Board; (12) FDIC;
(13) Federal Reserve; (14) U.S. Treasury