Carefully vetted news, articles and essays! Media won't report the facts - We must! - Please share! NOT WHITE HOUSE APPROVED!
Monday, April 30, 2012
New Obama slogan has long ties to Marxism, socialism - By Victor Morton
The Obama campaign apparently didn't look backwards into history when selecting its new campaign slogan, "Forward" — a word with a long and rich association with European Marxism.
Many Communist and radical publications and entities throughout the 19th and 20th centuries had the name "Forward!" or its foreign cognates. Wikipedia has an entire section called "Forward (generic name of socialist publications)."
"The name Forward carries a special meaning in socialist political terminology. It has been frequently used as a name for socialist, communist and other left-wing newspapers and publications," the online encyclopedia explains.
The slogan "Forward!" reflected the conviction of European Marxists and radicals that their movements reflected the march of history, which would move forward past capitalism and into socialism and communism.
The Obama campaign released its new campaign slogan Monday in a 7-minute video. The title card has simply the word "Forward" with the "O" having the familiar Obama logo from 2008. It will be played at rallies this weekend that mark the Obama re-election campaign's official beginning.
There have been at least two radical-left publications named "Vorwaerts" (the German word for "Forward"). One was the daily newspaper of the Social Democratic Party of Germany whose writers included Friedrich Engels and Leon Trotsky. It still publishes as the organ of Germany's SDP, though that party has changed considerably since World War II. Another was the 1844 biweekly reader of the Communist League. Karl Marx, Engels and Mikhail Bakunin are among the names associated with that publication.
East Germany named its Army soccer club ASK Vorwaerts Berlin (later FC Vorwaerts Frankfort).
Vladimir Lenin founded the publication "Vpered" (the Russian word for "forward") in 1905. Soviet propaganda film-maker Dziga Vertov made a documentary whose title is sometimes translated as "Forward, Soviet" (though also and more literally as "Stride, Soviet").
Conservative critics of the Obama administration have noted numerous ties to radicalism and socialists throughout Mr. Obama's history, from his first political campaign being launched from the living room of two former Weather Underground members, to appointing as green jobs czar Van Jones, a self-described communist.
Child in Hawaii Had Hawaii Birth Certificate Created Year After His Birth
CBS News: Child in Hawaii Had Hawaii
Birth Certificate Created Year After His Birth
Birth Certificate Created Year After His Birth
Video and Excerpts via CBS News
(CBS News) A year ago, a Philadelphia man clicked on a website for missing children, and found a picture of himself. That discovery sent Steve Carter on a search to unlock the secrets of his past.
Carter always knew he was adopted, but when got older, he started to wonder who his biological parents were. That curiosity and a simple web search took him on a journey that would change his life and even now, there are parts of his story that remain a mystery.
While he's always been happy with his adoptive parents, something never felt quite right. Carter knew he was adopted from a Hawaiian orphanage when he was 4. But his birth certificate was created almost a year after his birth and he was labeled half-native Hawaiian. ...
... Carter called Honolulu Police and the department set up a DNA test. Nearly a year later, it was proven. Marx Panama Barnes is Steve Carter. ...
... Carter has to try to consolidate all of the people he was over the past 34 years. He two birthdays, three birth certificates and 10 names in all.
VIDEO BELOW & CONTINUED HERE: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57419742/pa-man-solves-missing-child-case-his-own
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Beach Bargain Apartment Available
Beach Bargain Available
We are excited to offer our beautiful, spacious 2/2
apartment for annual rental, as of May 10th.
Description and photos
below. Lots of perks!
Thanks for helping us
spread the word; contact us if interested.
Bunny and Sam Sewell 239/591-4565
BEACH
BARGAIN
Tourists pay $2,000 a week to stay in this furnished apartment close to the beach. You can rent it for less than $2,000 a MONTH!
Less than one half mile to Vanderbilt beach, as the crow flies, and less than a mile to the beach as people walk. Entire second floor of a private home. Private entrance. Large master bedroom (14x28) windows on three sides, two large closets. Private bath off master bedroom. Second bedroom has large walk in closet and adjoining full bath. Washer/dryer. Over 1300 square feet of air conditioned living with a ten by thirty foot balcony, carpeted loft entry area, Includes all utilities, plus local phone, cable TV with HBO, and wireless internet for $1950 a month. Shopping, restaurants, movies, fitness center and resorts all close by. A fun place to live. Great neighbors, we live downstairs! Furnished or unfurnished.
Tourists pay $2,000 a week to stay in this furnished apartment close to the beach. You can rent it for less than $2,000 a MONTH!
Less than one half mile to Vanderbilt beach, as the crow flies, and less than a mile to the beach as people walk. Entire second floor of a private home. Private entrance. Large master bedroom (14x28) windows on three sides, two large closets. Private bath off master bedroom. Second bedroom has large walk in closet and adjoining full bath. Washer/dryer. Over 1300 square feet of air conditioned living with a ten by thirty foot balcony, carpeted loft entry area, Includes all utilities, plus local phone, cable TV with HBO, and wireless internet for $1950 a month. Shopping, restaurants, movies, fitness center and resorts all close by. A fun place to live. Great neighbors, we live downstairs! Furnished or unfurnished.
First and last month's rent and
security deposit of $500 if we don't know you. If we do know you, just move in
by paying the first month's rent. One year rental agreement. You can't find a
better deal than this!
Naples, FL 34108 Apartments and Houses for Rent, Rental Pricing Statistics
- 2 bedroom Median Rental Price: $2,500 (That average does not include utilities, phone, cable TV, HBO or wireless internet)
10’ x 30’ Balcony
Gorgeous view of the
neighborhood
14’ x 28’ Bedroom with 2 large closets and attached private
bath Central living room opens onto
kitchen and balcony, office/bedroom and full bath Naples, FL 34108 Apartments and Houses for Rent, Rental Pricing Statistics
- 2 bedroom Median Rental Price: $2,500 (That average does not include utilities, phone, cable TV, HBO or wireless internet)
Vanderbilt Dr at 102nd Ave (google map) (yahoo map)
Thanks for helping us
spread the word; contact us if interested.
Bunny and Sam Sewell 239/591-4565
Essential Reading - Golden Apple; Silver Frame By Jim O'Neill
Jim O'Neill is a fellow MENSAN a fellow Navy Veteran, and a former SEAL. He is a patriot warrior and deserves to be respected and paid attention to when he writes and speaks.
http://constitutionalwrites.com/2012/04/24/golden-apple-silver-frame/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=golden-apple-silver-frame
Golden Apple; Silver Frame
“The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.”
Alexander Hamilton (circa 1755-1804)
“…when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government….”
From the preamble to “The Declaration of Independence”
Alexander Hamilton (circa 1755-1804)
“…when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government….”
From the preamble to “The Declaration of Independence”
Obama's eligibility is not a joke!
CLICK ON VIDEO FOR FULLO SCREEN
Barack Obama opened last night’s White House Correspondents Dinner – an annual chuckle-fest with D.C. reporters and pop culture celebrities – with a pair of jokes and a wink about his supposed Hawaii birthplace.
“My fellow Americans, we gather during a historic anniversary,” Obama said. “Last year at this time, in fact on this very weekend, we finally delivered justice to one of the world’s most notorious individuals.”
Video screens in the room then flashed a photo of Trump.
Join thousands of Americans in signing the petition urging Congress to take the issue seriously with an investigation of its own!
Obama then explained he was advised to “reintroduce himself” to America.
“My name is Barack Obama. My mother was born in Kansas. My father was born in Kenya. And I was born, of course,” the sitting president said with a mischievous, knowing wink, “in Hawaii.”
The White House continues to point to the released document as proof of Obama’s birth in Hawaii, despite dozens of lawsuits and an investigation by Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio suggesting Obama’s eligibility is no laughing matter.
Several of the lawsuits contend that even if Obama was born in Hawaii, his birth to a British national father and admitted dual-citizenship status mean he cannot fulfill the “natural born citizen” requirement to be president spelled out in Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.
And as WND reported, an investigation by Arpaio concluded probable cause to believe the document submitted by the White House as a copy of Obama’s birth certificate is, in fact, a forgery.
Saturday, April 28, 2012
We Have Proof Foreign-Born Children Listed As Born In Hawaii
Click on video for full screen
Please get this straight:Hawaiian officials have not validated AKA OBAMA’s place of birth. What they have said is that they “have the original document” on file. They haven’t offered a clue as to what information is in that document nor have they said what kind of birth certificate is on file; a conventional birth certificate issued by a hospital with a doctor’s signature or the kind of birth certificate issued by Hawaii on the basis of an affidavit? The Hawaiian officials are not part of a cover-up. They can not legally validate what is on that document without a court order or permission from “our” Chicago con-man. Recently a Hawaiian government official stepped over the legal line and overtly stated that AKA Obama’s “vital records” showed that he was born in Hawaii. It is entirely possible for the “vital records” of Hawaii to show than a person was born in Hawaii when in fact that person could have been born elsewhere.
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.
One high profile example of the Hawaiian birth certificate policy was the president of the first Chinese republic. Sun Yat-sen was born on 12 November 1866 to a peasant family in the village of Cuiheng, China, but by 1904 he had a Hawaiian birth certificate and was officially a citizen of the United States. The wording on Sun Yat-sen’s Hawaiian birth certificate reveals that at age 18 he “made application for a Certificate of Birth. And that it appears from his affidavit and the evidence submitted by witnesses that he was born in the Hawaiian Islands.” Appears? It also appears that AKA Obama was born in Hawaii. Does the AKA Obama birth certificate on file with the State of Hawaii have language similar to the birth certificate of SunYat-sen?
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.
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.http://www.westernjournalism.com/?page_id=2697
The records of hospitals in Hawaii have been searched and there is no record of Stanley Ann Obama ever having given birth to a child. In a November 2004 interview with the Rainbow Newsletter, Maya Soetoro told reporters her half-brother Sen. Barack Obama was born on Aug. 4, 1961, at Queens Medical Center in Honolulu. After it was concluded that Obama and his mother were never there in February 2008, Maya told reporters for the Honolulu Star-Bulletin that Obama was at the Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children. Obama and Mom were never there either. AKA Obama has said he was born at Kapiolani Medical Center yet no hospital official has suggested that their facility should be designated as the birth place of a President. Odd!
Which is most likely?
AKA Obama is hiding a conventional birth certificate issued by a hospital and signed by a doctor?
AKA Obama is hiding a birth certificate attested to by witnesses with no hospital or doctor mentioned?
FROM:
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/04/aka-obama-fans-all-together-now-say-omg.html
Please get this straight:Hawaiian officials have not validated AKA OBAMA’s place of birth. What they have said is that they “have the original document” on file. They haven’t offered a clue as to what information is in that document nor have they said what kind of birth certificate is on file; a conventional birth certificate issued by a hospital with a doctor’s signature or the kind of birth certificate issued by Hawaii on the basis of an affidavit? The Hawaiian officials are not part of a cover-up. They can not legally validate what is on that document without a court order or permission from “our” Chicago con-man. Recently a Hawaiian government official stepped over the legal line and overtly stated that AKA Obama’s “vital records” showed that he was born in Hawaii. It is entirely possible for the “vital records” of Hawaii to show than a person was born in Hawaii when in fact that person could have been born elsewhere.
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.
One high profile example of the Hawaiian birth certificate policy was the president of the first Chinese republic. Sun Yat-sen was born on 12 November 1866 to a peasant family in the village of Cuiheng, China, but by 1904 he had a Hawaiian birth certificate and was officially a citizen of the United States. The wording on Sun Yat-sen’s Hawaiian birth certificate reveals that at age 18 he “made application for a Certificate of Birth. And that it appears from his affidavit and the evidence submitted by witnesses that he was born in the Hawaiian Islands.” Appears? It also appears that AKA Obama was born in Hawaii. Does the AKA Obama birth certificate on file with the State of Hawaii have language similar to the birth certificate of SunYat-sen?
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.
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.http://www.westernjournalism.com/?page_id=2697
The records of hospitals in Hawaii have been searched and there is no record of Stanley Ann Obama ever having given birth to a child. In a November 2004 interview with the Rainbow Newsletter, Maya Soetoro told reporters her half-brother Sen. Barack Obama was born on Aug. 4, 1961, at Queens Medical Center in Honolulu. After it was concluded that Obama and his mother were never there in February 2008, Maya told reporters for the Honolulu Star-Bulletin that Obama was at the Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children. Obama and Mom were never there either. AKA Obama has said he was born at Kapiolani Medical Center yet no hospital official has suggested that their facility should be designated as the birth place of a President. Odd!
Which is most likely?
AKA Obama is hiding a conventional birth certificate issued by a hospital and signed by a doctor?
AKA Obama is hiding a birth certificate attested to by witnesses with no hospital or doctor mentioned?
FROM:
Obama “I have nothing to hide but I’m hiding it.”
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/04/aka-obama-fans-all-together-now-say-omg.html
Friday, April 27, 2012
Forensic document examiner looks at Obama's birth certificate
Obama is keeping the best available evidence secret. Let's just add suppression of evidence to the
other charges of election fraud, campaign finance violations and filing
fraudulent documents in all 50 states.
No matter what you might think there is no escaping that AKA
Obama is not practicing the virtue of full disclosure.
The entire reason there is a professional field known as forensic
document examination is that a great deal can be told from examination of
the original document itself. Much, much less can be told by looking at a
photocopy of a document and very little, if anything at all, can be told from
looking at a digital image that purports to be an image of an original document.
Too much opportunity for adulteration, no opportunity to examine the paper, the
ink, any impressions made on the paper, etc. These online arguments discussing
images (especially photographic images) are like people studying animals by
examining imitation scat.
Forensic document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines,
a Former Federal Examiner with a long history of expert
testimony in state and federal courts, has testified in an affidavit that
states, in part:
“I can state with certainty that the COLB presented on the
internet by the various groups, which include the “Daily Kos,” the Obama
Campaign, “Factcheck.org” and others cannot be relied upon as genuine. Software
such as Adobe Photoshop can produce complete images or alter images that appear
to be genuine; therefore, any image offered on the internet cannot be relied
upon as being a copy of the authentic document.” Sandra Ramsey Lines summary is also posted at
U. S. Law Blog.
Excerpted from:
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Resolving the Obama Birth Certificate Controversy
Resolving the Obama Birth Certificate Controversy
By Arnold Cusmariu
Accredited experts in a scientific field can be
counted upon to conduct a thorough, impartial review of evidence using standard
methods and settle an issue with the appropriate level of certainty. Doubting
the honesty and integrity of such experts, and ultimately of science itself, is
not a rational option.
Thus, the Warren Commission and three subsequent U.S. government investigations concluded that President Kennedy died as a result of shots fired by Lee Harvey Oswald. While Oswald's motives remain unclear because he died before he could be questioned, it is clear that no one else fired on the presidential motorcade that fateful day in Dallas.
Neil Armstrong did indeed utter the famous words "one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind" on the lunar surface. Detailed explanations why the moon landing was a real event and not the elaborate hoax claimed by conspiracy theorists can be found on the website of the Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), a Department of Energy facility.
A National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) investigation determined that it was the impacts of (terrorist) jet aircraft at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires that brought down the Twin Towers -- not controlled demolitions allegedly set off at the direction of President Bush or the Mossad, or any such absurd notion.
On April 27, 2011, an image of what was claimed to be President Obama's birth certificate was posted on the White House website. The claim has been widely challenged, including by analyses published in American Thinker.
Here we are a year later, and the controversy has not gone away.
What is the position of organizations similar to ANL and NIST that have accredited scientific expertise in the field of forensic document examination and could speak authoritatively on the subject of President Obama's birth certificate?
My first attempt to get an answer to this question was to approach an organization whose membership included handwriting analysis experts. Accordingly, I sent an e-mail to the American Association of Handwriting Analysts (AAHA) along with a link to a recent American Thinker article arguing that the electronic facsimile on the White House website was a fraud, and asking if the AAHA had a position on the matter.
A few days later came this response:
As one might expect, journal articles tend to be highly technical. Here's a sample:
Dr. Linton H. Mohammed himself replied a couple of days later:
The ABFDE response, however, was very helpful indeed.
The GOP can now enter the fray with much less concern that the media would slap a "birther" label on Mitt Romney, pointing to the availability of a path to resolution the media would surely accept: the impartiality and authority of science.
Thus, the Warren Commission and three subsequent U.S. government investigations concluded that President Kennedy died as a result of shots fired by Lee Harvey Oswald. While Oswald's motives remain unclear because he died before he could be questioned, it is clear that no one else fired on the presidential motorcade that fateful day in Dallas.
Neil Armstrong did indeed utter the famous words "one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind" on the lunar surface. Detailed explanations why the moon landing was a real event and not the elaborate hoax claimed by conspiracy theorists can be found on the website of the Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), a Department of Energy facility.
A National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) investigation determined that it was the impacts of (terrorist) jet aircraft at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires that brought down the Twin Towers -- not controlled demolitions allegedly set off at the direction of President Bush or the Mossad, or any such absurd notion.
On April 27, 2011, an image of what was claimed to be President Obama's birth certificate was posted on the White House website. The claim has been widely challenged, including by analyses published in American Thinker.
Here we are a year later, and the controversy has not gone away.
What is the position of organizations similar to ANL and NIST that have accredited scientific expertise in the field of forensic document examination and could speak authoritatively on the subject of President Obama's birth certificate?
My first attempt to get an answer to this question was to approach an organization whose membership included handwriting analysis experts. Accordingly, I sent an e-mail to the American Association of Handwriting Analysts (AAHA) along with a link to a recent American Thinker article arguing that the electronic facsimile on the White House website was a fraud, and asking if the AAHA had a position on the matter.
A few days later came this response:
Dr. Cusmariu,Fair enough; I had evidently knocked on the wrong door. Ms. Kauffman-Goetz's observation that graphology and document examination were different disciplines led me to what seemed to be the right door: the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners (ASQDE). I found the following description on its website:
In answer to your question, AAHA does not take a position on this issue.
Graphology and Document Examination are separate and very different areas of expertise. Although some AAHA members are certified in both fields, the vast majority of our members specialize in personality-related analysis.
Regardless of the expertise applied, AAHA (and its members) deal exclusively with handwriting.
Kathleen Kauffman-Goetz
Region III Vice-President
The American Society of Questioned Document Examiners (ASQDE), formally established on September 2, 1942, is the oldest and most prestigious organization of questioned document examiners in the United States. The first president and primary organizer of the ASQDE was Albert S. Osborn. Mr. Osborn is considered by many to be the father of the scientific examination of questioned documents in the United States. His Questioned Documents, first edition 1910, and The Problem of Proof, first edition 1922, were widely acclaimed by the legal profession, and public and private agencies concerned with promoting justice in matters involving questions about documents.Further browsing of the ASQDE website determined that the society's current president is Linton H. Mohammed, Ph.D., in office since 2010, and that the society has been publishing a peer-reviewed journal twice a year and since 1998.
As one might expect, journal articles tend to be highly technical. Here's a sample:
- "Discrimination of Ballpoint Pen Inks by High Performance Capillary Electrophoresis and High Performance Liquid Chromatography"
- "Reconstituting Gradation Using Multiple Photocopier Splits"
- "Awareness of the Potential of the EDD Serving as a Source for Transfer of DNA"
- "Is Atomic Force Microscope a Suitable Tool for Studying Crossing Lines?"
- "Quantitative Hyperspectral Imaging Technique for Measuring Material Degradation Effects and Analyzing TLC Plate Traces"
- "Obama" and "Hawaii" turned up nothing.
- "Birth certificate" picked up only "The Israel Police's Experience with Official Documents from the Soviet Union."
- "Typewriter" picked up only "Using the ESDA to Visualize Typewriter Indented Markings," "Cause of Typewriter Printwheel Damage Observed in the Questioned Document," and "An Update of the Typestyle Classification Program (TYPE) into a Windows® Based Format (WinType)" -- none of which addressed the issue of President Obama's birth certificate.
- "Font" picked up only "Retail Price Marking Devices: Breakaway Slits and Type Fonts," which also did not address the issue of President Obama's birth certificate.
Dr. Linton H. Mohammed himself replied a couple of days later:
Dear Dr. Cusmariu:What I thought would be the right door turned out not to be after all. I sent a follow-up e-mail to Dr. Mohammed asking him to suggest other professional organizations that might be in a position to answer my question. He obligingly provided links to the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS) and the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners (ABFDE). E-mails to them drew the following responses:
Thank you for your inquiry to the ASQDE.
The American Society of Questioned Document Examiners (ASQDE) is a professional membership organization whose goals are to sponsor scientific research, establish standards and exchange experience among public and private practitioners in the field of forensic document examination. The ASQDE does not provide analysis, render findings, or state opinions regarding evidence on individual cases. The ASQDE, as an organization, would not have any position on the authenticity of the Obama birth certificate.
Respectfully,
Linton A. Mohammed, PhD, D-ABFDE
President, ASQDE
Dr. Cusmariu;Though it also boiled down to "wrong door," this e-mail provided interesting information about the document examiner certification process.
The Questioned Document Section of the American Academy of Forensic Science, as a group, does not take any position on issues such as this [the Obama birth certificate]. Matters of authentication require an appropriate forensic examination utilizing proper equipment, methodology and exemplars. The conclusions of such an examination are the responsibility of the individual forensic document examiner.
We do take a general position that any examination in regard to the authenticity of any document should be conducted in a manner as set forth above and conducted by a forensic document examiner who has successfully completed a two-year, full-time mentorship training program as prescribed by published standards in the profession. We also recognize the benefit of certification by the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners.
Thomas W. Vastrick
Section Chairman
Questioned Document Section
American Academy of Forensic Sciences
The ABFDE response, however, was very helpful indeed.
Dr. Cusmariu,So, President Obama, who is confident that the evidence is on his side, can end the birth certificate controversy once and for all by turning over a notarized copy of the certificate to ABFDE forensic document examiners for analysis.
The ABFDE has no official position on the validity of the internet Birth Certificate that is allegedly President Obama's. We have not been requested to conduct a forensic document examination of the original or notarized copies, and provided with genuine standards for comparison.
For a response to the digital "examination" conducted on the internet, you may wish to contact a forensic digital evidence examiner. ABFDE does not certify that discipline.
Regards,
Kirsten Singer
President, ABFDE
The GOP can now enter the fray with much less concern that the media would slap a "birther" label on Mitt Romney, pointing to the availability of a path to resolution the media would surely accept: the impartiality and authority of science.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2012/04/resolving_the_obama_birth_certificate_controversy.html
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
VIDEO - Florida Ballot Challenge Press Conference
DOUBLE CLICK VIDEO FOR FULL SCREEN
Fl Ballot Challenge
Press Conference Preliminary Report, April 21, 2012
Supporting Information:
The first press
conference in the state for the Florida Ballot Challenge was held in Naples,
Florida on Saturday, April 21st 2012.
We showed up the
rented hall at 12:15 for a 1 PM press conference. Despite the fact that
it was a rainy day, people were already lined up as the custodian opened the
doors. People quickly pitched in to set up the room. The hall
quickly filled up and we started on time. Sam Sewell opened the meeting
with the Pledge of Allegiance and introductory comments, including a
humorous story that got belly laughs and applause.
Mike Voeltz gave
us a report on his case to keep Obama off the ballot, which was filed in
February 2012 against Obama and the Secretary of State, and then later amended
by iconic public interest attorney Larry Klayman. Mike was very
professional and made a powerful presentation. A local attorney in attendance
who has been advising Sam was unaware that Mike is not an attorney and made
arrangements to collaborate with Mike after the press conference.
The crowd
enthusiastically received Jerry Collette’s report on his legal case filed
against Obama and Florida Democratic Party officials in Pasco County. They
especially applauded when he pointed out that the eligibility requirements, by
implication, give every citizen the Constitutional right to not be governed by
anyone who does not meet the Constitutional requirements of the office.
Jerry then
announced that the Do It
Yourself Ballot Challenge Kit was now available so that citizens could
file their own cases in every county in Florida. It was made clear that
legal fees to file a case ran about $600 per case. To cover the whole
state, with a suit in each judicial district, we need $13,000. Until
funds are raised for willing, potential plaintiffs who may not be able to fund
their own cases, it was suggested that they team up with other co-plaintiffs to
share the expenses. Two people from Collier and Polk Counties have
already committed to becoming plaintiffs. We need contributions to cover those
cases, at this point.
Larry Klayman’s
encouraging participation by phone was very well received. Larry
emphasized that Florida is the “premier” location for ballot challenges, and is
central for the 2012 election. If Obama can be prevented from being on
the ballot in Florida he cannot win the national election. Larry also
emphasized that money to fund the Florida Ballot Challenge is absolutely
necessary for success. We need $10,000 within the next 10 days to move forward
with this case, which could be pivotal to the entire nation.
Sam summarized
the facts and history of the Obama fraud. Then we opened the meeting to
questions to the floor. The highly interested and well informed attendees asked
significantly relevant questions for more than an hour.
The press
conference broke up at 2:30 PM and a dozen of the principal participants
adjourned to Sam and Bunny Sewell’s home for debriefing and a strategy session
that lasted until 5 PM.
It should be
emphasized that no media outlets were in attendance, despite repeated news
releases being sent to all media outlets in SW Florida.
Donate to
Florida Ballot Challenges!
or send a check to:
Constitutional Action Fund
10202 Vanderbilt Drive
Naples, FL 34108
Are you interested in being a plaintiff? We have developed
a "Do It Yourself Ballot Challenge Kit" that is useable in
many states and is available at:
RUBIO - As head of the CA Republican Party
Tom:
As
head of the CA Republican Party, please don't even think about nominating
Rubio, who is ineligible, for VP. Warn Romney and colleagues about this
disastrous error. Before you tell me I don't know what I'm talking about
and that he was born in the USA, read this: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html.
It outlines 400 years of history and law about natural born Citizenship, as it
applies to the Presidency and why it is important to the security of the USA.
Actually, you probably won't tell me anything, as you have yet to
acknowledge anything I've ever written you, but please pay attention to
this.
As
much as people despise Obama and might even vote for Romney to get Obama out,
Romney is a very unpoplular guy. He is a weak candidate and can't connect with
the public, although he was briefly Governor of a very Progressive state. If he
picks an ineligible running mate, he'll be even less popular. As it is,
Romney is in nearly in a dead heat with the worst President in U.S. history.
Add in an ineligible VP candidate and we will lose Conservative voters,
as we gain some clueless Latino voters. Most Latinos won't vote
Republican under ANY circumstances, anyway. We'll need to do more than throw
them that bone to bring them into the party. I saw some good stuff at that
forum you had at the Fall '11 Convention in LA.
You
may not be aware of it, but there's no love lost between Cubans and Mexicans.
At least, that's what my Cuban contacts in NJ and FL say.
The
party is asking for trouble if they attempt to perpetuate this. It's bad
enough that we have a faux "President" with a forged birth
certificate, and non-citizen father, but we don't need ineligible candidates in
both parties, unless this is some backhanded attempt to help legitimize the
Marxist usurper in the White House. We should consider having all
Presidential/Vice Presidential candidates show documentation of natural born
Citizenship, to avoid a recurrence of what we've endured the last four years.
Regards,
George
Miller
UPDATE:
UPDATE:
Hey,
I just called Rubio's office and spoke to Steve...D. C. office.
If there was any question at all...there is no longer.
After telling him that we...many patriots from all
Parities...really liked Rubio and believed his rhetoric about fiscal
responsbility and so on. That right now adherence to the Constitution is
job one....and that he seems to be veering off that road.
Granting Amnesty of any kind is a train wreck...we have spent far
too much on illegal alien invaders and on legal immigrants and that any form of
amnesty is the antithesis of fiscal responsbility and against the wishes of the
majority of Americans; particularly those who foot the bill. He said he'd
pass that opinion on.
Now, here is where it gets interesting:
He only said he would pass my comments along on the amnesty.
When I then proceeded to address the fact that the only way Rubio can begin to
recover the trust and credibility we had thus far invested in him was to face
America unequivocally and explain that he would not be running for V.P. because
he is not legally eligible; this guy became a total ASS.
He let the cat out of the bag, just as Cornyn's guy Josh did when
I addressed him with this problem.
Steve started sighing loudly and even snickering like a damn
teenager. He proceeded to launch into an elevated argument about case law
supporting the fact that Rubio IS a Natural Born Citizen. He carried on
about Kim Wong Ark and anyone being born to TWO Chinese parents on American
soil was a U. S. citizen and then quickly added that the case law stated that
made him 'Natural Born'.
Now, this is good in one respect; his statements blow Obama out of
the water...but have you read an official statement about Obama from him or his
office on this? And I said Rubio should be publicly helping us expose the
criminal in the White House while being forthright about his own lack of
Natural Born status.
I challenged him with the FACT that if it wasn't a problem; then
why had both sides of the political fence worked so hard for several years and
through eight attempts to change the law prior to the illegal installation of
Obama?
He kept arguing over me and I told him he was rude and
unprofessional considering he is paid through our tax dollars. He was
offended because, as an intern, he is not paid. I said "Well, you're
certainly working your way up to self appointed royal status, aren't you?
And he was stumped...because it's true. I also pointed out that with his
attitude and misinformation; he is a bad front man for Rubio. He kept on
with the indignant "EXCUSE ME?..." crap.
I told him we would fight Rubio as hard as we have fought Obama
'Y' Company on this legal issue.
Is it not the Vatel case that the original case law was
decided? And what the hell are these asswipes arguing about precendent
for when they know 'original intent' and definition?
I'm not the lawyer here; but sounds like Rubio's office needs to
be pounded by those who are 'in the know'. Any questions about the GOP
involvement in this ongoing and growing fraud?
Monday, April 23, 2012
Sheriff Joe releasing more on Obama, attacks begin
Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio finds himself under increasing attack as he prepares to release new findings in his investigation of President Obama’s eligibility for the state’s 2012 election ballot.
“I have no intention of resigning,” said Arpaio, who is running for his sixth term as sheriff of Maricopa County. “They forget I have a four-decades long career in federal law enforcement that includes having been a special agent for the FBI and having worked for the Drug Enforcement Agency in the United States, as well as in Argentina, Turkey and Mexico.”
WND previously reported the intensity of attacks on Arpaio at both a state and national level.
Already, Arpaio has announced that his volunteer law enforcement investigation has found probable cause that Obama’s long-form birth certificate and his Selective Service registration form are forgeries. Arpaio and his team made the announcement at a March 1 press conference.
A second press conference is expected in the next few weeks to announce more findings Arpaio suggests will be explosive.
Last week, Arizona Republic columnist Laurie Roberts wrote a piece in which she reminded Arpaio of his pledge 20 years ago when he first ran as a candidate for Maricopa County sheriff to serve only one term and turn the office into an appointed post. Arpaio has said that his campaign pledge was a mistake, because if he reported to a political official, he would have been fired 20 years ago and not had the liberty to “do what I felt was right for the people that I serve.”
WND has previously reported that political operative Randy Parraz, a self-described “organizer,” has been running a determined campaign to oust Arpaio from office.
Parraz, together with a small group of activists operating under Parraz’s “newly formed organization, Citizens for a Better Arizona, have unsuccessfully tried to disrupt meetings of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors to demand the oversight group vote to request Arpaio’s resignation.
Arpaio, an elected sheriff, cannot be removed from office by a vote of the county board.
But the ineffectiveness of Parraz’s own political actions against Arpaio has not stopped him from expressing frustration that the Obama administration is taking so long to press Arpaio in federal court.
“We’re not sitting back waiting on the federal government on this,” Parraz recently told TPM. “They move at a pace that’s not conductive to the situation.”
Meanwhile, establishment media have portrayed Arpaio as politically isolated and likely to face federal criminal and civil charges by the Justice Department in Federal District Court.
At the same time, media have downplayed Democratic Party scandals such as Fast and Furious, resignations from the Arizona U.S. Attorney’s office and the possibility the U.S. Supreme Court could uphold the constitutionality of the Arizona legislature’s bill to ensure its citizens are protected from civil and criminal offenses caused by illegal immigrants the federal government is unwilling to police.
A massive corruption scandal in Maricopa County
As WND reported, new impetus was given to the anti-Arpaio campaign by the recent disbarment of Maricopa County attorney Andrew Thomas in a complicated corruption case.
Establishment media have largely ignored, however, the fact that Thomas and Assistant Prosecutor Lisa Aubuchon were disbarred for filing criminal charges against Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Gary Donahoe and two members of the Board of Supervisors, which oversees Arpaio’s office, Mary Rose Wilcox and Don Stapley. Both are determined Arpaio foes.
The corruption charges against Wilcox and Stapley were never adjudicated after a Pima County judge dismissed the case due to prosecutorial misconduct.
Still, the evidence of government corruption in Maricopa County abounds.
WND reported that as many as 11 Maricopa County employees have been terminated in recent months for allegedly accepting bribes in a court tower construction scandal – one of the Thomas investigations that was terminated by the counter-attack on Thomas that resulted in the disbarment decision.
Still, media have not noted that a grand jury brought more than 100 charges against Stapley for a wide variety of alleged criminal activity, including failing to file financial disclosures to accepting expensive gifts such as three-week Hawaiian vacations and ski trips for him and his family.
Now, Arpaio’s opponents in Arizona are pressing for a federal criminal grand jury to press charges against him for his involvement with Thomas in trying to root out corruption in Maricopa County.
Even if no criminal trial results, Arpaio’s opponents hope to have him under federal criminal indictment at the same time the U.S. Department of Justice presses a civil case against him in the federal courts, alleging he has systematically implemented a policy of violating the federal civil rights of Hispanics.
Fast and Furious
In July 2011, Dennis Burke, a prominent Democratic Party operative in Arizona, resigned as U.S. Attorney, just as the House Oversight Committee and an internal Justice Department internal investigation began focusing on the role Arizona played in Fast and Furious.
Before taking the job of U.S. Attorney in Arizona, Burke had served as chief of staff to Janet Napolitano when she was the governor of Arizona. He then was a senior advisor to Napolitano when she moved to Washington to become Homeland Security Secretary in 2009 under the in-coming Obama administration.
When Burke resigned, Politico reported any aspirations he might have to follow Napolitano’s footsteps as a tough-on-crime Democrat by becoming Arizona attorney general and then running for governor were dashed.
At the time he resigned, Burke was considered a possible Democratic Party candidate for the seat being vacated by Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., or as a candidate for governor in 2014.
The next resignation was by Patrick J. Cunningham, the head of the Criminal Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Arizona, who had announced he would take the Fifth Amendment rather than testify before Congress regarding the Department of Justice’s scandalous gun-running operation “Fast and Furious.”
In Arizona, Cunningham was widely regarded as Burke’s “No. 1 Guy,” as noted by reporter David Codrea of the Gun Rights Examiner.
Consistently, Arizona’s two Republican senators, Kyl and John McCain, have refused to come to Arpaio’s defense.
In March, WND reported Kyle and McCain had given their approval to the Obama administration nomination as U.S. attorney in Arizona of John Leonardo, a former Arizona judge with a history of judicial rulings adverse to Arpaio.
Leonardo, who retired last month as Pima County Superior Court judge, threw out an indictment in 2010 against Maricopa County Supervisor Wilcox, a Democrat and an outspoken critic of Arpaio.
In that case, State of Arizona v. Mary Rose Wilcox, Leonardo asserted that Arpaio had “misused the power of his office to target members of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors for criminal investigations.”
Radical outside agitator plots against Arpaio
Parraz, born in California in 1967, has an elite education, having received his B.A. degree from the University of California Berkeley, a Masters from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard and a Juris Doctorate from the University of California Berkeley.
In 1994, while yet a graduate student at the Kennedy School, Parraz was recruited to work as a community organizer in Dallas, Texas, by the Industrial Areas Foundation, or IAF, a Saul Alinsky-oriented organization based in Chicago.
According to the National Latino Congress website, it was in Dallas, working for the IAF, that “Parraz learned the fundamentals of the Saul Alinsky model of church-based community organizing.”
In 2002, the national AFL-CIO transplanted Parraz into Arizona to serve as the union’s Arizona state director, a position he held until 2004.
Parraz left the AFL-CIO to accept a two-year fellowship with Echoing Green, a global organization promoting “social entrepreneurs.”
During this two-year fellowship, Parraz and his associate, Scott Sherman, pursued their idea of establishing a “Transformative Action Institute” by presenting their model for progressive social change to what the National Latino Congress estimated was more than 1,000 students. They offered classes at UC Berkeley, Yale, Princeton, New York University, UCLA, UC Irvine, and California State University Fullerton.
In 2007, Parraz returned to Arizona to work as a “residential organizer” for the Laborer’s International union of North America, better known as LiUNA, where by 2009, he received total compensation in excess of $125,000 a year, according to the organization’s official records.
After the Arizona legislature passed SB 1070, widely regarded as the toughest state law passed at that time to oppose illegal immigration, Parraz founded the East Valley Patriots for American Values, the EVPAV, to focus on the recall of Arizona State Senate President Russell Pearce, a long-time Republican state senator and the legislator considered the architect of SB 1070.
Parraz evolved the EVPAV into the Citizens for a Better Arizona, a 501(c)4 organization that dedicated its efforts to the Pearce recall, despite the tax-favored status of the organization requiring it to pursue a “nonpartisan” purpose.
In a recall election held Nov. 4, 2011, in which Democrats were allowed to vote, Pearce lost to his only remaining opponent – Republican challenger Jerry Lewis, a political moderate but, like Pearce, a Mormon.
This week Arizona is prepared to go before the U.S. Supreme Court to defend the constitutionality of SB 1070.
The Parraz-engineered defeat of Pearce has been portrayed in establishment media as evidence that Arpaio is being isolated as his “world crumbles” and “his closest allies have fallen.”
Meanwhile, media have downplayed evidence that a third gun traceable to Fast and Furious may have been used in the murder of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, while avoiding any suggestion the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Phoenix may have played a role in suppressing news of the newly discovered weapon.
Read the preliminary findings of Sheriff Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse investigation after six months investigating Obama’s constitutional eligibility to serve as president in “A Question of Eligibility,” co-authored by Jerome Corsi and Mike Zullo.
“I have no intention of resigning,” said Arpaio, who is running for his sixth term as sheriff of Maricopa County. “They forget I have a four-decades long career in federal law enforcement that includes having been a special agent for the FBI and having worked for the Drug Enforcement Agency in the United States, as well as in Argentina, Turkey and Mexico.”
Already, Arpaio has announced that his volunteer law enforcement investigation has found probable cause that Obama’s long-form birth certificate and his Selective Service registration form are forgeries. Arpaio and his team made the announcement at a March 1 press conference.
A second press conference is expected in the next few weeks to announce more findings Arpaio suggests will be explosive.
Last week, Arizona Republic columnist Laurie Roberts wrote a piece in which she reminded Arpaio of his pledge 20 years ago when he first ran as a candidate for Maricopa County sheriff to serve only one term and turn the office into an appointed post. Arpaio has said that his campaign pledge was a mistake, because if he reported to a political official, he would have been fired 20 years ago and not had the liberty to “do what I felt was right for the people that I serve.”
WND has previously reported that political operative Randy Parraz, a self-described “organizer,” has been running a determined campaign to oust Arpaio from office.
Parraz, together with a small group of activists operating under Parraz’s “newly formed organization, Citizens for a Better Arizona, have unsuccessfully tried to disrupt meetings of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors to demand the oversight group vote to request Arpaio’s resignation.
Arpaio, an elected sheriff, cannot be removed from office by a vote of the county board.
But the ineffectiveness of Parraz’s own political actions against Arpaio has not stopped him from expressing frustration that the Obama administration is taking so long to press Arpaio in federal court.
“We’re not sitting back waiting on the federal government on this,” Parraz recently told TPM. “They move at a pace that’s not conductive to the situation.”
Meanwhile, establishment media have portrayed Arpaio as politically isolated and likely to face federal criminal and civil charges by the Justice Department in Federal District Court.
At the same time, media have downplayed Democratic Party scandals such as Fast and Furious, resignations from the Arizona U.S. Attorney’s office and the possibility the U.S. Supreme Court could uphold the constitutionality of the Arizona legislature’s bill to ensure its citizens are protected from civil and criminal offenses caused by illegal immigrants the federal government is unwilling to police.
A massive corruption scandal in Maricopa County
As WND reported, new impetus was given to the anti-Arpaio campaign by the recent disbarment of Maricopa County attorney Andrew Thomas in a complicated corruption case.
Establishment media have largely ignored, however, the fact that Thomas and Assistant Prosecutor Lisa Aubuchon were disbarred for filing criminal charges against Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Gary Donahoe and two members of the Board of Supervisors, which oversees Arpaio’s office, Mary Rose Wilcox and Don Stapley. Both are determined Arpaio foes.
The corruption charges against Wilcox and Stapley were never adjudicated after a Pima County judge dismissed the case due to prosecutorial misconduct.
Still, the evidence of government corruption in Maricopa County abounds.
WND reported that as many as 11 Maricopa County employees have been terminated in recent months for allegedly accepting bribes in a court tower construction scandal – one of the Thomas investigations that was terminated by the counter-attack on Thomas that resulted in the disbarment decision.
Still, media have not noted that a grand jury brought more than 100 charges against Stapley for a wide variety of alleged criminal activity, including failing to file financial disclosures to accepting expensive gifts such as three-week Hawaiian vacations and ski trips for him and his family.
Now, Arpaio’s opponents in Arizona are pressing for a federal criminal grand jury to press charges against him for his involvement with Thomas in trying to root out corruption in Maricopa County.
Even if no criminal trial results, Arpaio’s opponents hope to have him under federal criminal indictment at the same time the U.S. Department of Justice presses a civil case against him in the federal courts, alleging he has systematically implemented a policy of violating the federal civil rights of Hispanics.
Fast and Furious
In July 2011, Dennis Burke, a prominent Democratic Party operative in Arizona, resigned as U.S. Attorney, just as the House Oversight Committee and an internal Justice Department internal investigation began focusing on the role Arizona played in Fast and Furious.
Before taking the job of U.S. Attorney in Arizona, Burke had served as chief of staff to Janet Napolitano when she was the governor of Arizona. He then was a senior advisor to Napolitano when she moved to Washington to become Homeland Security Secretary in 2009 under the in-coming Obama administration.
When Burke resigned, Politico reported any aspirations he might have to follow Napolitano’s footsteps as a tough-on-crime Democrat by becoming Arizona attorney general and then running for governor were dashed.
At the time he resigned, Burke was considered a possible Democratic Party candidate for the seat being vacated by Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., or as a candidate for governor in 2014.
The next resignation was by Patrick J. Cunningham, the head of the Criminal Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Arizona, who had announced he would take the Fifth Amendment rather than testify before Congress regarding the Department of Justice’s scandalous gun-running operation “Fast and Furious.”
In Arizona, Cunningham was widely regarded as Burke’s “No. 1 Guy,” as noted by reporter David Codrea of the Gun Rights Examiner.
Consistently, Arizona’s two Republican senators, Kyl and John McCain, have refused to come to Arpaio’s defense.
In March, WND reported Kyle and McCain had given their approval to the Obama administration nomination as U.S. attorney in Arizona of John Leonardo, a former Arizona judge with a history of judicial rulings adverse to Arpaio.
Leonardo, who retired last month as Pima County Superior Court judge, threw out an indictment in 2010 against Maricopa County Supervisor Wilcox, a Democrat and an outspoken critic of Arpaio.
In that case, State of Arizona v. Mary Rose Wilcox, Leonardo asserted that Arpaio had “misused the power of his office to target members of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors for criminal investigations.”
Radical outside agitator plots against Arpaio
Parraz, born in California in 1967, has an elite education, having received his B.A. degree from the University of California Berkeley, a Masters from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard and a Juris Doctorate from the University of California Berkeley.
In 1994, while yet a graduate student at the Kennedy School, Parraz was recruited to work as a community organizer in Dallas, Texas, by the Industrial Areas Foundation, or IAF, a Saul Alinsky-oriented organization based in Chicago.
According to the National Latino Congress website, it was in Dallas, working for the IAF, that “Parraz learned the fundamentals of the Saul Alinsky model of church-based community organizing.”
In 2002, the national AFL-CIO transplanted Parraz into Arizona to serve as the union’s Arizona state director, a position he held until 2004.
Parraz left the AFL-CIO to accept a two-year fellowship with Echoing Green, a global organization promoting “social entrepreneurs.”
During this two-year fellowship, Parraz and his associate, Scott Sherman, pursued their idea of establishing a “Transformative Action Institute” by presenting their model for progressive social change to what the National Latino Congress estimated was more than 1,000 students. They offered classes at UC Berkeley, Yale, Princeton, New York University, UCLA, UC Irvine, and California State University Fullerton.
In 2007, Parraz returned to Arizona to work as a “residential organizer” for the Laborer’s International union of North America, better known as LiUNA, where by 2009, he received total compensation in excess of $125,000 a year, according to the organization’s official records.
After the Arizona legislature passed SB 1070, widely regarded as the toughest state law passed at that time to oppose illegal immigration, Parraz founded the East Valley Patriots for American Values, the EVPAV, to focus on the recall of Arizona State Senate President Russell Pearce, a long-time Republican state senator and the legislator considered the architect of SB 1070.
Parraz evolved the EVPAV into the Citizens for a Better Arizona, a 501(c)4 organization that dedicated its efforts to the Pearce recall, despite the tax-favored status of the organization requiring it to pursue a “nonpartisan” purpose.
In a recall election held Nov. 4, 2011, in which Democrats were allowed to vote, Pearce lost to his only remaining opponent – Republican challenger Jerry Lewis, a political moderate but, like Pearce, a Mormon.
This week Arizona is prepared to go before the U.S. Supreme Court to defend the constitutionality of SB 1070.
The Parraz-engineered defeat of Pearce has been portrayed in establishment media as evidence that Arpaio is being isolated as his “world crumbles” and “his closest allies have fallen.”
Meanwhile, media have downplayed evidence that a third gun traceable to Fast and Furious may have been used in the murder of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, while avoiding any suggestion the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Phoenix may have played a role in suppressing news of the newly discovered weapon.
Read the preliminary findings of Sheriff Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse investigation after six months investigating Obama’s constitutional eligibility to serve as president in “A Question of Eligibility,” co-authored by Jerome Corsi and Mike Zullo.
How Marco Rubio Could Destroy the Apple Cart
How Marco Rubio Could Destroy the Apple Cart
By A.R. Nash · Monday, April 2, 2012The collusion of silence that only "a bomb" can end
When Joseph Farah, founder of World Net Daily, appeared recently on the Sean Hannity program, the possibility of Marco Rubio being chosen for Vice-President was raised. Farah responded that he isn't eligible to be President or Vice-President because he is not a natural born citizen. His common-sense, plain-&-simple observation hit a brick wall. That wall may be one erected by Hannity's boss, Rupurt Murdock, who has a whole corral of people who will never discuss the issue of presidential eligibility. Or it may have been a wall of ignorance. (-it could possibly be both.)But can everyone born in America be President? Only in the delusional dream of the erroneous "common knowledge" misconception that makes independent thought and inquiry unnecessary. It's replaced instead by "group-think" which has a notorious history of being wrong, as it is again regarding one illegitimate President named Barack Obama.
In America today, few people have been awakened to the issue of who is and is not eligible to be the President, -myself included until a year ago when I received an email from my sister with a link to an article at WND. What I read was a surprise to me, and altered the course of the next year significantly. I don't remember even having any thought about the subject until then. And it's clear that the rest of the nation is as clueless as I was because the only national stage that's serving to wake them up has been the internet, not Congress nor the courts, -not the mains-stream media or the legal profession. But they need to be awakened badly.
Marco Rubio could do it, and he may be the only person that could (aside from a better informed Donald Trump or Ron Paul) because the media seems to be either astonishingly ignorant or in a collusion of silence.
What could he do and how could he do it? He could force the nation to take note of the fact that our current President is not constitutionally qualified to serve as President or Vice-President. He could do that upon being chosen as or offered the spot of Vice-President. He could hold a press conference and announce to the nation that he would love to serve, be honored to serve, but cannot serve because he is constitutionally unqualified to serve. Then he could explain that he was born to foreign parents and not American parents and therefore was not born as a natural American citizen as required by the Constitution. *
Those words would be like dynamite in the nation's conversation. Everyone would finally wake the heck up because it would be all over every form of talk media, especially if he made the announcement at the Republican Convention. That explosion of consciousness would blow-up the candidacy of Barack Obama because his aura of legitimacy would be thrown into question in everyone's mind as they'd come to realize that someone born to foreigners, or a foreign father, cannot possibly be a natural, native, United States citizen.
Currently, the conventional wisdom is that anyone who is "native-born" is a citizen and therefore eligible to be President. That's one misunderstanding, but it has a companion among some at the opposite side of the political spectrum who believe that both a native birth and citizen parents are required. But the Constitution makes no reference to one's place of birth, -only that one be a "natural born citizen". So the Goldilocks middle was simply Americans who were born to Americans, (no one born to foreigners was eligible).
But to be technically correct, it should be stated as: U.S. citizens who were born to U.S. citizens because it was a government that was being formed, -not a country. Americans became United States citizens instead of British subjects via the ratification of the Articles of Confederation which created the United States of America. Before then there was no such thing as a citizen of the United States, so there also was no such thing as a natural born citizen of the United States either. They were either natural born American subjects of a particular colony of Great Britain or naturalized subjects of a colony. But by the Articles of Confederation, all became citizens of the United States even though by generations of habitual useage, that generation continued to use the word "subject" interchangeably with "citizen".
Historically, a natural born citizen meant any child born to an American father married to the child's mother. American children were automatically born with the same citizenship as their father, inheriting his via patrilineal descent. They lived under his roof and belonged to him until they lived on their own, or in the case of daughters, belonged to their husband.
If an American male married a foreign female, then her foreign nationality was supplimented with American citizenship via a policy known as automatic naturalization based on "derivative citizenship". Her citizenship was derived from his since he was the head of the household. The U.S. government once followed that ancient tradition. By it the foreign wife was granted her husband's nationality. It was known as "naturalization by marriage". So she adopted her husband's name, family, and nationality all on the same day. Truly a new beginning. That way, it was impossible for an American man to have a wife who was not an American also. *
Currently most Americans, regardless of position or profession, -including the legal profession, are under the misconception that anyone who is "native-born" can be President, but that is erroneous for 3 significant reasons.
Reason #1. Being "native-born" does not make one a native if one is not born to native parents. "Native-born" persons who are born to foreign fathers are not natural American natives since natural natives are only born to fathers who are already natives (even if they were nativized by being naturalized). Immigrant parents cannot produce natural natives. Instead their children are naturalized native-born citizens, -they're naturalized automatically at birth by the 14th Amendment which was ratified 81 years after the Constitution's presidential eligibility clause was written.
"Native-born" naturalized citizens must be born in America in order to be naturalized at birth and obtain U.S. citizenship because they are not the product of natives of America, but of natives of another country. It's their birth and life in America that gives them a connection to America that's stronger than the connection to their parents' native country. But natural natives can be born anywhere because they are born with the unalienable right to inherit their native parents' membership in their nation even if their birth happens to occur, by happenstance outside the nation's borders.**
Reason #2. Being "native-born" does not convey citizenship upon everyone born to foreigners in America because not all foreigners are legal immigrants and thus members of American society whose children are granted citizenship by the authority of the 14th Amendment. Some are foreign Diplomats, foreign military personnel, foreign tourists, and foreign students (Obama Sr.) who are designated by the INS as "non-immigrant aliens" Their U.S.-born children are also under the authority and protection of their parents' foreign government. And they're protected politically by international treaty.
The INS has the legal authority to treat such children as U.S. citizens, but it does not have the constitutional authority to do so since its policy is in violation of the meaning of the 14th Amendment. The result is the "anchor baby" phenomenon and conundrum for which the amendment is not responsible. "Open borders" liberals in the executive branch are responsible and no one has the political courage to contest their bastardized perversion of the constitutional amendment aimed solely at freed slaves and the children of America's legal immigrants.
Reason #3. Being a non-descript citizen of the United States is fine for any and every other office of the federal government except that of the President, but the Commander-in-Chief must be a natural born citizen. Just as all "native-born" persons are not citizens, so also, all native-born citizens are not natural born citizens.
Those who are born to foreigners who are legal immigrants but are not naturalized citizens, do not qualify for the presidency because they are the off-spring of foreigners, with an inherited background of a foreign heritage. Their citizenship is "native-born" constitutional citizenship via the 14th Amendment, and not natural citizenship via Natural Law. Before the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (two years earlier) they had no legal right whatsoever to possess United States citizenship. It was up to the individual States and local judicial decision whether or not they were granted State citizenship, -without which they would not possess U.S. citizenship.
But natural citizens possess their membership in the American nation in the total absense of any law or constitutional clause that "grants" them that which they already possess naturally via birth to members.
Marco Rubio is a native-born constitutional American citizen. If his father had completed the naturalization process before he was born then his parents would have been American citizens when he was born, instead of Cuban citizens. Only children of American citizens are eligible to be the President, -not the children of foreigners. That's what the Constitution mandates.
If Senator Rubio were to be cognizant of this fact, and proclaim it openly to the American people, then he could bring down the presidency of Barack Obama, or at the least prevent him from being allowed to be the Democrat candidate. That would spell the end of his illegitimate presidency and the worst constitutional violation of the office of the President in American history.
http://obama--nation.com http://photobucket.com/obama_bc
** But it didn't work the same for American women. Some of them could and did have foreign husbands. Producing children with a foreigner resulted in a conflict of nationalities and a child having two competing national allegiances if the government recognized her children as citizens of both countries. In the course of reading and research covering a span of a hundred thousand words or more, this writer has never come across any mention nor hint that the U.S. government attributed U.S. citizenship to children of American women who married foreign men until the passage of the Cable Act in 1922 which repealed the 1907 U.S. Nationality Act that expatriated such women, -resulting in her children not possessing U.S. citizenship.
***Presidential ineligibility that's based not on inherited "foreign blood" but on the mere happenstance of one's mother's location at the moment of delivery is an idea that's elementary to say the least, and totally devoid of any rational applicable principle related to a singular allegiance to the land of one's people, -not "the land of one's birth". The land be damned. (or the ice be damned in the case of the Arctic and Antarctica) It matters not where one is born, but what does matter is to whom one is born. Presidential ineligibility based on happenstance would be the irrational result if the sons of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln or Dwight Eisenhower happened to have insisted that they exit their mother's womb before she could return back across the border during a visit to Niagara Falls in Canada. You know how rational that is.
If born within the borders of a neighboring country while one's native-citizen parents were visiting there, would one's life be significantly altered if that one day or hour of their whole life could be made to disappear from their life-history and experience? Absolutely not. Nothing would change. So there's no rational basis to think that such a birth location holds any meaning or significance whatsoever, especially when it comes to presidential eligibility and a citizen like John McCain. To argue otherwise is to argue that our founding fathers were idiots and choose to deny access to the presidency to the children of America's ambassadors and diplomats who through no fault of their own, were not born within U.S. borders.]
LEAKED STRATFOR EMAILS: Democrats Manipulated The 2008 Election Results
John McCain's 2008 campaign staff allegedly had evidence that Democrats stuffed ballot boxes in Pennsylvania and Ohio on election night, but McCain chose not to pursue voter fraud, according to internal Stratfor emails published by WikiLeaks.
In an email sent on November 7, 2008, and titled " Insight - The Dems & Dirty Tricks ** Internal Use Only - Pls Do Not Forward **," Stratfor vice president of intelligence Fred Burton wrote:
1) The black Dems were caught stuffing the ballot boxes in Philly and Ohio as reported the night of the election and Sen. McCain chose not to fight. The matter is not dead inside the party. It now becomes a matter of sequence now as to how and when to "out".
In an email sent two days earlier and titled "Insight - McCain #5 ** internal use only - Pls do not forward **," Burton wrote:
Burton, who appears to be friendly with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, wrote:
Stratfor provides confidential intelligence services to large corporations and government agencies, including the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Marines and the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency.
WikiLeaks has published 973 out of what it says is a cache of 5 million internal Stratfor emails (dated between July 2004 and December 2011) obtained by the hacker collective Anonymous around Christmas.
In an email sent on November 7, 2008, and titled " Insight - The Dems & Dirty Tricks ** Internal Use Only - Pls Do Not Forward **," Stratfor vice president of intelligence Fred Burton wrote:
1) The black Dems were caught stuffing the ballot boxes in Philly and Ohio as reported the night of the election and Sen. McCain chose not to fight. The matter is not dead inside the party. It now becomes a matter of sequence now as to how and when to "out".
In an email sent two days earlier and titled "Insight - McCain #5 ** internal use only - Pls do not forward **," Burton wrote:
After discussions with his inner circle, which explains the delay in his speech, McCain decided not to pursue the voter fraud in PA and Ohio, despite his staff's desire to make it an issue. He said no. Staff felt they could get a federal injunction to stop the process. McCain felt the crowds assembled in support of Obama and such would be detrimental to our country and it would do our nation no good for this to drag out like last go around, coupled with the possibility of domestic violence.
The Nov. 7 email also contains allegations that Democrats made a "six-figure donation" to Rev. Jesse Jackson to silence him on the topic of Israel after an October 2008 interview in which he said Obama’s presidency would remove the clout of “Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades.”Burton, who appears to be friendly with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, wrote:
2) It appears the Dems "made a donation" to Rev. Jesse (no, they would never do that!) to keep his yap shut after his diatribe about the Jews and Israel. A little bird told me it was a "nice six-figure donation". This also becomes a matter of how and when to out.
The email also refers to an accusation that Obama's campaign took money from Russia, recalling memories of Bill Clinton's 1996 presidential campaign when the Justice Department uncovered evidence that China sought to make direct contributions to the Democratic National Committee.
Burton wrote:
3) The hunt is on for the sleezy Russian money into O-mans coffers. A smoking gun has already been found. Will get more on this when the time is right. My source was too giddy to continue. Can you say Clinton and ChiCom funny money? This also becomes a matter of how and when to out.
If true the allegations prompt questions of how the fallout has affected the politics of Obama's current administration and how it will effect this year's presidential election.
Interestingly, Mitt Romney is also facing allegations of voter fraud in Massachusetts as he cast a ballot for Republican Scott Brown in January 2010 in the special election to replace the late Sen. Ted Kennedy but didn’t own property in the state at the time.
Romney registered to vote listing his son’s unfinished basement as his residence, but the Romneys' former realtor told GOP consultant Fred Karger that they moved to California. Anyone found guilty of committing voter fraud faces up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
Burton is a former Deputy Chief of the Department of State's counterterrorism division for the Diplomatic Security Service (DSS). The DSS assists the Department of Defense in following leads and doing forensic analysis of hard drives seized by the U.S. government in ongoing criminal investigations.Stratfor provides confidential intelligence services to large corporations and government agencies, including the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Marines and the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency.
WikiLeaks has published 973 out of what it says is a cache of 5 million internal Stratfor emails (dated between July 2004 and December 2011) obtained by the hacker collective Anonymous around Christmas.
See Also
Follow Michael Kelley on Twitter.
Ask Michael A Question >
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/leaked-stratfor-emails-democrats-tampered-with-2008-election-2012-4#ixzz1suWENG2I