FLORIDA COURT SETS HEARING ON OBAMA BALLOT CHALLENGE
FOR JUNE 18, 2012
Judge Terry Lewis
States "Natural Born Citizen" Definition Will Be Decided
May 31, 2012, Tallahassee, FL - Activist attorney Larry
Klayman announced today that Judge Terry Lewis of Leon County, FL has set a
hearing on June 18th, 2012 at 9:00am to hear arguments from both sides about
whether the eligibility of President Barack Hussein Obama can be determined in
open court. Judge Lewis made crucial rulings in the famous Bush v. Gore
case in 2000.
Florida's election statutes provide broad protections for
voters to ensure that the integrity of the election system is beyond reproach.
One of such laws allows voters to challenge the nomination of a candidate who
is not eligible for the office he is seeking. Plaintiff Michael Voeltz, a
registered Democrat, challenged the eligibility of President Obama because he
was not born to two citizen parents and thus not a "natural born
citizen" as required by Article II the U.S. Constitution.
During the hearing over discovery issues, which Mr. Klayman
wants to take the week of June 18, Judge Lewis noted that Mr. Klayman's
brief cited legal authority that a president, to be eligible, must have two (2)
U.S. citizen parents, but President Obama and the other defendants cited no
authority to the contrary. Mr. Klayman had cited the U.S. Supreme
Court case of Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875). Judge Lewis
ordered further briefing on this issue prior to the hearing.
Klayman stressed that the eligibility is very important
particularly with this president, Barack Hussein Obama. He added:
"The framers were not stupid. They understood that a president with
divided loyalties could present a security and other risks for our
nation. Obama's Muslim heritage, which emanates from his Kenyan father
(who had to be deported from the U.S.), frankly explains why he frequently
sides with and takes actions to further the interests of Muslim nations against
the United States; specifically his refusal to take forceful action against the
Islamic Republic of Iran and its leaders over nuclear armament and human rights
violations and atrocities."
In a CNN interview yesterday Donald Trump stated 'Obama
hates this subject' meaning the eligibility issue. This is because he
appears not to be a legitimate American president, but instead an imposter who
has fooled many. Unfortunately, the American people are the victims.
It's time that Obama, despite his protestations in proving his eligibility,
either put up or shut up by coming forward with real proof, not doctored,
computer-generated "proof" that he is eligible. The courts should
finally require this real proof as to whether he is eligible for office,"
Klayman added.
The case is entitled Voeltz v. Obama, et. al. (No.
2012 CA 467) and is being heard in the Circuit Court Of The Second Judicial
Circuit In And For Leon County, Florida. To request an interview please
contact Adrienne Mazzone at (561) 750-9800.
What? No comments about Romney's ineligibility
to be a candidate because his father was born in Mexico? Fair and balanced
reporting, Sam.
Editor's response:
Sue Ellen once again chooses to look stupid in public rather than do research.
George W.
Romney was brought to the U.S. at age 5 by his parents, the Nationality Act of 1940,
Section 201, 54 Stat. 1137, specifically provided that a child born outside the
limits and jurisdiction of the United States is a U.S. citizen, provided the
father or mother, or both, at the time of the birth of the child is a U.S.
citizen. Both of George’s parents were U.S. Citizens.
Thus both of Mitt Romney's parents were us citizens at the time of Mitt's birth. Mitt Romney is a Natural Born Citizen unlike the person Sue Ellen supports whose father was never a U. S. citizen.
Would you like to play a neat parlor game with your
friends? Barack Obama's long-form birth certificate forgery contains so many
forger's errors which are visible to the naked eye or which can be seen on your
computer under slight magnification that you can play a fun game finding them,
either alone or in a contest with your friends. It's similar to the arcade game
Whac-A-Mole, where you
pound a mechanical mole back into its hole before it disappears on its own and
randomly reappears in another one of the five holes in the game. You can score
by time per defect -- five points for each one found within two minutes, for
example -- or by total score -- five points for each defect for the length of
the game. (Note: Conservatives will generally spot these defects more quickly
than liberals do.)
To see these defects, we need to use the digital PDF
of the forgery released at whitehouse.gov. (You can download your copy from here.)
The reason for using the digital PDF is that it is the original forgery --
rather than the Savannah Guthrie photo or the T-shirt I used in my article "Oblivious
to the Obvious," published in American Thinker on April 10, which
are a generation removed and can introduce distortion -- camera-lens distortion
or twisted T-shirt fabric. Also, you need to view the PDF on your computer
screen, because some of the defects are not visible if you print the PDF on a
computer printer and then look at the printout.
So let the game begin!
Mole Hole #3: Is the mole black and white or gray?
The forgery has several instances of bitmap -- that is, all-black --
information, and grayscale -- shades of gray -- adjoining. In a true scan of a
paper document, all information would be either full-color or shades of gray, so
this is an indication of the forger's sloppiness. The most obvious is the
certificate number "61 10641" in the upper right-hand corner -- the digits "61
1064" are stark black, and the last digit "1" is grayscale, not dense black.
Even if you're not computer-literate and you can't tell grayscale from tree
scale, you can still see that there is something "funny" about that last, blurry
digit.
Two other obvious examples are in Line 11, Birthplace,
where the "K" of "Kenya" is blurry grayscale and the rest of the information is
solid black -- and in Line 13, Full Maiden Name, where the "S" of "STANLEY" is
pale grayscale and the rest of the word is stark black. All three defects are
shown below in Figure GS. You score 5 points for each additional occurrence you
find in the forgery (and there are quite a few of them).
Figure GS. A mixture of bitmap
(all-black) and grayscale (blurred shades of gray) information appears in the
Obama "birth certificate" forgery.
Mole Hole #5: Who lost the comma? The
(grayscale) comma following (bitmap) "August 4" in the forgery is way too far to
the right of the digit "4" to have been typed as the next character on a
typewriter.
Figure FD. The text "6085
Kalanianaole Highway" is a third of a character shorter than the text "y &
Gynecological Hospital." Also "out of pitch" in the forgery is the day "August
4," here compared with the word "None" from Line 17a.
Actually, the forger did a pretty good job of
maintaining typewriter pitch throughout the document. There are only a few
places where the pitch goes noticeably awry. That wayward comma is in pitch;
the day "August 4" is a half-character out of pitch, as you can see in Figure FD
after I vertically moved up a copy of the word "None" from Line 17a. The test I
showed in Figure F in "Oblivious to the Obvious" also works for the digital PDF,
and, additionally, you can see that some of the letters in "Kalanianaole" are in
vertical alignment with "Gynecological" and some are not. The pitch discrepancy
is especially noticeable with the characters "8" and "&," and with the last
"l" in "Kalanianaole" compared with the final "l" in "Gynecological." I have
vertically lowered the word "HUSSEIN" in Line 1b to show that the space between
"Gynecological" and "Hospital" is more than a single character wide. Of course,
none of these discrepancies would exist if a real typewriter had been
used.
Mole Hole #2: Kern you top this? "Kerning"
describes where one character intrudes into another character's space. It's
done by computers all the time for displaying and printing text which has
letters of varying widths, to close up extra space between certain combinations
of letters, such as "ay." But monospace typewriters can't
kern.
Figure K. In Line 12a the first "t"
in "Student" intrudes into the letter "u" which follows -- this is not possible
on a typewriter.
Figure K shows one instance of impossible kerning in
the forgery -- the letter "t" intruding into the subsequent "u" in the word
"Student" in line 12a. There are at least two more clearly identifiable
character overlaps in the forgery, and a number of "maybes." See if you can
find them, for 5 points each.
Mole Hole #1: "T" for two? There are at
least two different typewriter typefaces used in the forgery, and likely three
or more.
Figure TT. Typeface differences --
letters "t," "H," and "i" in three different words in the
forgery.
In Figure TT you can see that the two letters "t" in
"Student" (from Line 12a) are differently shaped at the base and in the
crossbar, and the "t" in "Hospital" (from Line 6) is different from the other
two, as it has the shape of the first "t" in "Student" but a shorter crossbar.
By computer I measured the widths of the two "t"s in "Student"; the first "t" is
5% wider than the second. Also in Figure TT you can see the differences in the
letters "H" and "i" in "Highway" (Line 7d) and "Hospital" (Line 6c). You score
5 points for each additional typeface discrepancy you find. Mole Hole #3 (again): Elastic letters? Look
at the word "HUSSEIN" in Line 8.
Figure H. The letters "U" and "IN"
in "HUSSEIN" are taller.
Does it seem to you that the letters "U," "I," and "N"
are a bit taller than the other letters in the word? No, it's not your
imagination -- computer measurement shows that they are 5.5% taller, by virtue
of their bottoms being lower than the other letters. (All of the tops of the
letters are at the same level horizontally.) Score yourself 5 points for each
oversized (or undersized) letter you find in a word. Mole Holes #1 and #4: Forgeries are not angelic;
why the white halos? All throughout the forgery you can see that the text
has halos of white around each letter (or image). Figure WS is a typical
example (as is also Figure H):
Figure WS. Definitely non-angelic
"halos" surround each character or graphic image.
This halo effect is proof positive that the "birth
certificate" is a digitally created forgery. In a genuine scan of a document of
black text copied onto real security paper, the scan into the computer would not
produce any halo effect whatsoever. These halos exist because the forger
extracted the typewriter-character images from who-knows-where, then attempted
with software to render the green security-paper image white in the areas where
text was to be applied. We can only speculate as to the exact method the forger
used; we know only that the process used was imprecise, because white halos were
created.
This halo effect appears throughout the forgery, so
you don't get points for each instance you find. Rather, it's worth two whacked
moles; give yourself 10 points for each additional whole-document defect you
find. (I know of at least three.)
Nobody knows what a perfect score is for our little
game of Birth Certificate Whac-A-Mole. A winning score is 100 points; when you
reach it, take your chit to the arcade redemption center for your prize of a
matched set of four shot glasses, each bearing a different etched view of the
White House on a dark and stormy D.C. night.
Note: Except for the pitch tests, none of this
information is original with me, and I am indebted to the many other researchers
who first noticed defects and published their findings on the
internet.
Nick Chase is a retired
but still very active technical writer, technical editor, computer programmer,
and stock market newsletter writer. During his career he has produced
documentation on computers, typewriters, typesetters, headline-makers, and other
pieces of equipment most people never heard of, and he has programmed
typesetting equipment. You can read more of his work at
contrariansview.org.
Lord
Christopher Monckton and Author, Tom Ballantyne to Speak in Ventura County
Moorpark,
California, WEDNESDAY, MAY 30, 6:30 P.M. — Lord Christopher Monckton
and author, Tom Ballantyne, have teamed up to speak at this special event. They will be discussing the
eligibility issue, specific concerns about the man who calls himself "Barack Hussein Obama," the Sheriff Arpaio
investigation, Agenda 21, global warming and the threat of one-world
government. A Q & A session will follow.
Lord Christopher Monckton, best known for debunking the
man-made "Global Warming" (AGW) myth of pseudo-science and fighting
world government schemes, is at it again! He has become very aware of
the fraud perpetrated by "Obama" and his many enablers, including
LameStream Media and has spoken out strongly about The One's ineligibility for
office. Monckton is an amazing, accomplished man, way more than just a title.
Tom Ballantyne, author of "Uncommon Sense…Apparently! "and
“Oh Really O’Reilly” will discuss thetotal media cover-up of this historic eligibility issue
- especially that of the Establishment "Conservative" Media - as well
as that of the Republican "leadership" in Washington, DC, and
throughout the nation (especially in AZ, his home state). He will explain
both why he believes this has happened, and continues to
happen, and exactly what we must do as citizens to combat it. His theme
will be "What is truth?"
Everyone in the community is encouraged to participate.The event will be held at Eden
Gardens, a beautiful outdoor, covered wedding facility, at 3900 Brennan Rd.,
Moorpark, right off 23, north of the101 on Wednesday, May 31,
2012 at 6:30 p.m. Bring sweaters/jackets. RSVP.
A 96 year old lady who
attended the Florida Ballot Challenge Press Conference on April 21 contacted me
today with two messages.
First, she wanted to know if we had a real
chance to stop Obama. We talked for some time and I prepared the summary of our
situation, which is printed below. Then she handed me a five dollar bill, four
one dollar bills, and four quarters to make an even ten dollars. She said she
just had to do something to try and save her country before she died. You can
see her move haltingly, using her cane, to come to the front of the room during
the press conference. She wanted to call the group's attention to a piece of
art she had seen, showing Obama burning the Constitution. Her name is Pat. God
bless you, Pat.
I was touched deeply as I sat there looking at
her gift. I was reminded of the lesson of the widow's gift, as presented in the
Synoptic Gospels (Mark 12:41-44, Luke 21:1-4), in which Jesus is teaching at the Temple in Jerusalem. In the story, a widow donates two small coins, while wealthy
people donate much more.Jesus explains to his disciples that the
small sacrifices of the poor mean more to God than the extravagant donations of
the rich.
THE
BARE ESSENCE OF THE FLORIDA BALLOT CHALLENGE
1 The sitting president’s
birth certificate is fraudulent.
2 The sitting
president is not a natural born citizen, and is therefore ineligible for the
presidency, because his father was not a US citizen.
3 If the sitting
president is formally ruled ineligible to be on the ballot in Florida, he will
not be able to be elected as President of the United (50) States.
4 Because of our state laws, we have a better
chance of winning in Florida than does any state in the union.
5 Our high profile attorney, Larry Klayman, is
the only one who has ever sued a sitting president and won.
6 This situation must be changed before it is too late! We need $9000 ASAP to
get this case before a judge. Time is crucial!
Once we have a ruling we will need more funds
to deal with Obama’s inevitable appeal.
Most of you know that Sam Sewell has been working to expose AKA
Obama since before the 2008 election. Sam is the Obama Ballot
Challenge Project Manager for Florida.ObamaBallotChallenge.com
To make financial contributions to the Florida Ballot Challenge
please contact Sam Sewell personally at flballotfund@gmail.com Direct Deposit can go to:
One
hour and 47 minutes of this milestone event in preventing Obama’s name from
being on the ballot. Look for Pat near the end of the press conference.
Hawaii State Registrar does not verify authenticity of President Obama's birth certificate
WASHINGTON, May 24, 2012 – The “Verification of Birth” letter sent by the Hawaii State Registrar Alvin T. Onaka Ph.D to Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett fails to respond to the fundamental question asked by Mr. Bennett in a March 30, 2012 letter to Hawaii Department of Health officials: Whether or not the image of President Obama’s “long form” Certificate of Live Birth, posted on the White House web site on April 27, 2011 is a “true and accurate representation of the original record in your files”.
The official whose signature appears on the “Verification of Birth,” as well as the copy of President Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth released by the White House is Onaka who is refusing to talk to Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (Ariz.) Cold Case Posse investigator Mike Zullo who was on the ground in Hawaii.
In response to an outcry from Arizona constituents troubled by the March 1, 2012 Cold Case Posse announcement there is probable cause the image posted on the White House website is a forgery, Arizona Secretary Bennett enclosed a printout of the White House website image with his letter, and requested verification that the image is a “true and accurate representation of the original record in your files”.
Maricopa County Sheriff's Department Cold Case Posse lead investigator Michael Zullo
At question is that an “official birth certificate” provided on request is not the original document created at the time of birth. If you are from, say Chicago, you can order an official birth certificate from City Hall, but it is not the original or even an exact facsimile of your birth certificate. The document you receive carries the Secretary of State’s seal confirming that the same “information” that would be found on your original birth certificate records is accurately reflected.
On May 22, 2012, after more than six weeks of wrangling over the legal authority of Arizona’s request, the Hawaii Department of Health did produce a “Verification of Birth” which at first glance appears to answer Mr. Bennett’s original forgery question.
Arizona Secretary of State Bennett March 30, 2012 letter asked Hawaii health officials the following:
“Please verify that the attached copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama is a true and accurate representation of the original record in your files.”
The May 22, 2012 Hawaii “Verification of Birth”, signed by Hawaii State Registrar Onaka, includes the following statement:
“I verify that the information in the copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama that you attached with your request matches the original record in our file”.
During a forgery investigation, certifying, “information matches” does not address the central and entirely separate issue of a whether a suspicious document is a true copy of an original document. The question remains if a forgery can contain information similar or even identical to that contained in an authentic document, yet still be a forgery.
Investigators with the Cold Case Posse announced during a March 1, 2012 press conference that, based on forensic evidence as outlined in a video presentation to reporters, there is probable cause the “long form” Certificate of Live Birth posted on the White House website is a forgery.
Creating suspicion over the documents authenticity is that Hawaii Department of Health officials have consistently blocked any attempts by citizens, the media, and now Arizona law enforcement, to access and inspect President Obama’s original vital records.
Cold Case Posse lead investigator Michael Zullo, accompanied by a Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office deputy, visited the Hawaii Department of Health in Honolulu last Monday, but was not allowed to see President Obama’s birth records.
Even so, Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett said on Wednesday that Hawaii’s “Verification of Birth” satisfies Arizona requirements, and that Barack Obama will appear on the November ballot.
Another example of questionable language being incorporated in documents surrounding President Obama’s vital records includes the new Selective Service System privacy rules as uncovered by Communities @WashingtonTimes.com. Published only four days after an announcement by World Net Daily that Sheriff Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse was opening an investigation of allegations that President Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth and selective service registration form were forgeries, those privacy rules contain subtle changes in language.
A May 10, 2012 letter from the Selective Service System Associate Director for Public and Intergovernmental Affairs Richard Flahavan to Cold Case Posse lead investigator Michael Zullo also contains carefully crafted legal language that navigates around fundamental questions presented to the agency by investigators while failing to provide direct answers.
The release of the “Verification of Birth” coincides with a perfect storm of developments that relate to President Obama’s birth certificate, to wit:
Four days before Hawaii officials released the “Verification of Birth”, Breitbart.com uncovered a 1991 promotional client list pamphlet published by the President’s former literary agency Acton & Dystel, which proclaims that Barack Obama was “born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii”.
Miriam Goderich, now with Drystel & Goderich Literary Management, issued a press release in response to discovery of the pamphlet:
“This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me -- an agency assistant at the time. There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii. I hope you can communicate to your readers that this was a simple mistake and nothing more."
On Monday May 21, 2012, one day before the “Verification of Birth” was released, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio dispatched Cold Case Posse lead investigator Michael Zullo to Hawaii, accompanied by a deputy due to unspecified security concerns.
Sheriff Arpaio told ABC15 Phoenix on Tuesday that he doesn’t care how much the investigation costs. “If I have to send ten deputies down there for security reasons, I’ll do it” he said.
In the meantime, major media outlets such as USA Today were reporting on Secretary Bennett’s statement to a radio interviewer that it “was possible” President Obama would not make it onto the Arizona ballot for the November general election.
Following the release of the Hawaii “Verification of Birth”, some media called for the official end to all questions concerning President Obama’s Hawaii birth records while failing to carefully analyze the response provide by Dr. Onaka to Secretary Bennett’s specific requests.
Also of interest is that It has been noted that the April 27, 2011 release of an image the White House maintains is President Obama’s Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth coincided with the publication of Jerome Cori’s book “Where’s the Birth Certificate?”
The T.E.A. Party TIME Network presents "The Freedom report powered by The Madison Institute." Kelly Berry, Hugh McInnish, and George Berry examine the FACTS related to President Barack Obama's eligibility to be our president. If you have been waiting on proof, WE HAVE IT!
Editor Note: Back in 2004 I investigated John Kerry's IQ as compared to Predident Bush and found that Bush was Smarter than Kerry. Is President Bush also smarter than AKA Obama?
President Barack Obama is hailed by his supporters and the mainstream media as one of the most brilliant men ever to hold the office. However, his refusal to release his academic records, his admitted deficiencies as a student, and his frequent factual errors--even in his chosen field of constitutional law--have cast doubt upon his supposed genius. Now, Breitbart News has established that Obama's grades and Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores may have been even lower than those of his supposedly less capable predecessor, George W. Bush.
Breitbart News has learned that the transfer class that entered Columbia College in the fall of 1981 with Obama was one of the worst in recent memory, according to Columbia officials at the time.
A Nov. 18, 1981 article in the Columbia Spectator, “Tight Housing Discourages Transfer Applications to CC,” written by student Jeremy Feldman and quoting admissions officials, reported: “On paper at least, the quality of the students accepted [as transfers] has declined along with the number of applicants, the officials say.”
Feldman, quoting Robert Boatti, Assistant Dean of Admissions, as well as the late college Dean Arnold Collery, continued:
Boatti also attributed the drop in transfer application to the College’s policy of requiring transfer students to take courses in its core curriculum and to the limited availability of financial aid for them.
He added a “majority” of the transfers come here from college in the New York area. Many come from community colleges, rather than the nation’s top schools.
“Even the unhappiest people don’t transfer from Harvard,” Boatti said.
In grades and other indicators of academic performance, the crop of transfer applicants “doesn’t stand out the way they did before,” [Dean Arnold] Collery said.
Boatti confirmed Collery’s observations.
Among accepted transfer students, the average combined math and verbal score on the Scholastic Aptitude Test is a 1,100 and their grade-point average at their former schools is about 3.0, Boatti said.
The freshman class at the College had a combined SAT score more than 100 points higher.
Only 450 students applied to transfer to Columbia in 1981 and sixty-seven were admitted, according to the Columbia Spectator, compared to 650 applicants just four years before.
If Obama’s SAT scores were near the average of the transfer students entering Columbia in the fall of 1981, he would have scored significantly lower than George W. Bush, whose combined math and verbal scores were 1206 out of a possible 1600 points (as revealed by the New Yorker in 1999).
In his autobiography, Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama describes himself as an unfocused high school student whose mother scolded him for being a "loafer" (142). He describes his attitude toward his studies at Occidental as “indifferent” (146), calling himself a “bum” who abused drugs (138) and who was notorious for partying all weekend (165).
That has raised questions about how Obama earned a place at Columbia in 1981, paving the way to Harvard Law and beyond. Indeed, like much else in his biography, Obama seems to have fictionalized the process through which he gained admission to Columbia. Obama writes in Dreams: "[W]hen I heard about a transfer program that Occidental had arranged with Columbia University, I’d been quick to apply"(172).
However, there is no record of such a "transfer program" existing at either Columbia or Occidental.
Breitbart News spoke to an official source at the Registrar’s Office of Occidental College, who confirmed that there has only been one transfer program between Occidental and Columbia--one that fed students into Columbia’s School of Engineering and Applied Science (known today as the Fu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Science).
Obama, who was not an engineering student, would not have been eligible for that program.
The official also pulled Occidental’s records between 1970 and 1990, and found no transfer program with any other Columbia University program.
In addition, Breitbart News spoke with Phil Boerner, who transferred to Columbia from Occidental in 1981, and graduated from Columbia in 1984. He was Obama’s roommate in New York, and is one of the few Columbia students to recall Obama. Boerner, speaking by telephone, denied there was a “transfer program.”
“You can transfer colleges at any time,” Boerner said, emphasizing that he was not speaking for Obama. “There was no formal arrangement between the two schools.”
It is possible that Obama benefited from Columbia’s affirmative action program, which the university had recently defended in an amicus curie brief to the Supreme Court in the celebrated Bakke case (1977). Columbia joined several other elite universities in defending the use of race as a factor in college admissions. The brief had argued that “minority status must be considered independently of economic or cultural deprivation.”
Given that 1981 turned out to be a relatively easy year to enter Columbia as a transfer student, and the fact that Obama was applying as a transfer student from a private college in California, as well as a minority student, Obama likely would have stood out among applicants, regardless of his scores and grades.
Yet because Obama has never released his academic records, it is impossible to know whether he would have qualified for admission as a first-year student or in a typical transfer year.
The only way to know is for Obama to release his records, transcripts and test scores--from Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard. Why Obama has not done so remains a mystery--unless he has something else to hide. Joel B. Pollak contributed to this report.
I have learned that Florida election officials are set to announce that the secretary of state has discovered and purged up to 53,000 dead voters from the voter rolls in Florida.
How could 53,000 dead voters have sat on the polls for so long? Simple. Because Florida hadn’t been using the best available data revealing which voters have died. Florida is now using the nationwide Social Security Death Index for determining which voters should be purged because they have died.
Here is the bad news. Most states aren’t using the same database that Florida is. In fact, I have heard reports that some election officials won’t even remove voters even when they are presented with a death certificate. That means that voter rolls across the nation still are filled with dead voters, even if Florida is leading the way in detecting and removing them.
But surely people aren’t voting in the names of dead voters, the voter fraud deniers argue. Wrong.
Keaton
Consider the case of Lafayette Keaton. Keaton not only voted for a dead person in Oregon, he voted for his dead son. Making Keaton’s fraud easier was Oregon’s vote by mail scheme, which has opened up gaping holes in the integrity of elections. The incident in Oregon just scratches the surface of the problem. Massachusetts and Mississippi are but two other examples of the dead rising on election day.
Florida should be applauded for taking the problem seriously, even if Eric Holder’s Justice Department and many state election officials don’t.
Maybe it was just a dream, but I feel certain that I
read an essay titled "How to Write Democrat Autobiographies (or Naked Came the
Kenyan Cherokee*)," authored by Barack H. Obama and Elizabeth
Warren. I can't remember the name of the publication it was
in, or even the entire text, but certain things stand out about it and are as
clear as if the article were in my own hands right now. The authors advised that to really advance in life, it
helps to make your background as exotic as possible. Warren suggested checking
the Native American box or other ethnic preference boxes on all school and
employment applications and went so far as to suggest that the reader submit
recipes to ethnic cookbooks to provide "evidence" of one's claim to priority
based on ethnic identity. For "Pow Wow Chow," which billed itself as an
American Indian cookbook, heavy on recipes using Wonder Bread, baloney, Velveeta
cheese spread, and mayonnaise, Warren offered up her Cherokee family's traditional
crab omelet. All right, so those recipes were Pierre
Franey's...but heck, maybe he was from some French Cherokee
tribe. Obama said he had tried sending in his family's mbaazi,
dog, and millet recipe, but no one would take it, so he told his literary agent
just to say he was born in Kenya, figuring no one would scramble to Africa to
see if the claim were true. Don't worry about being called out on your ancestral
fable-making, they advised. Warren said the trick is to pretend that you knew
nothing about who checked off those boxes and that you never heard your school
bragging about the native Indian woman they just hired when you were the only
hire. "If that doesn't work, just act indignant at the suggestion that those
irrelevancies had a thing to do with your hiring," she added. What could be
more sexist and racist than challenging an obviously fraudulent claim to a
double-special elevation up the academic ladder? Obama added that one could always get others to take
the fall more directly if needed. "I told my literary agent to say I was born
in Kenya when we were looking for publishers to give a huge advance to me at a
time when I'd done nothing but graduate from law school." It worked, and then,
in 2007, when he was running for president, he said he simply had the publisher
drop
that from the promotional booklet 'cause it might create a "birther"
claque.
The agent took the fall when those busybodies from
Breitbart got onto it. At first I was worried that some crack reporter -- say,
the Washington Post's Maraniss -- might see that and give me trouble
during the campaign, but they all shut up about it. Why would that surprise
everyone? I mean, I cannot make my verbs match the subjects and yet those morons
go along with the pretense that I wrote my own books. Let Jack
Cashill amass as much evidence of fraud as he chooses, who's going to
believe him? When people started questioning my literary
representatives about the Kenyan birth, right on cue my agent stepped up and
took the blame. Now all those reporters know enough about the literary business
to know that the information for the author's biographical information comes
from the author and he clears all the promotional material, but they aren't
saying a word about this. And how realistic is it to believe that an agent just
pulled the Kenyan birth tale out of the ether? But those sycophants don't even
report the story let alone question the excuse. Heck, I remember them laughing at anyone who
ever questioned the place of my birth. Is there anyone easier to hoodwink than
the members of the academia and the press?
(Have they even reported that the birth certificate he
provided was an admitted forgery? Didn't the make-believe genealogical backup
for Warren's claim get more coverage than the admission that it was false?) In
sum, if you're a Democrat, you can just make stuff up about yourself. No one in
the press cares. If they don't report it, who'll ever find
out? "It's such a sweet gig," added Obama. "If you're a
Democrat, even if you slipped up and told some unsavory truths about yourself,
the press loves you, and they will ignore the admissions."
I said I ate dog, and yet the press forgets about that
and still claims Romney's a dog hater cause he transported Seamus in a carrier
on top of his car. I said in "Dreams of My Father" I created such a mess
the Hispanic maids at Occidental college cried when they saw how much filthy
work I made for them, but you'll never hear that -- just the make believe tale
of Romney's "bullying" some kid in high school.
But Obama tacked on a caveat. Just because the press
is in the tank for you and won't tell readers that it's clear you lied through
your teeth most of your life and -- in rare moments of candor -- admittedly
engaged in behavior that might turn off voters, you may need to do more, he
advised, offering up the Wright example.
I pretended I was a Christian and pointed to the 20
years I was a member and regular attendant of Rev. Wright's church in Chicago.
When his racist and unchristian remarks became more widely known, I pretended I
never was at those sermons and didn't hear them. Then, as author Ed Klein
reports, I sent Dr. Whittaker to him with a $150,000 bribe to keep his mouth
shut until after the election. It didn't work. He still kept yapping and it
would have been troublesome except the press never really reported it anyway so
I saved the $150,000 and the bad news stayed buried
anyway.
"Even though I often slipped up about my Islamic
upbringing and sympathies the Rev Wright cover worked," Obama continued. "I
expect there will be no change on that even though Wright is now publicly saying
he made it 'comfortable' for me to 'accept Christianity without having to
renounce my Islamic background.'"
But just in case the Breitbart and Klein revelations
prove problematic to my re-election, I'm personally going through the
presidential biographies on the White House website and adding my estimate of my
accomplishments compared to theirs. I come out very well, if I say so myself.
Just in case there's any slippage though, I'm also following Elizabeth's
example and whining that it's really hard for someone named Barack Hussein
Obama to be elected to the presidency.
Those fools who still harbor the suicidal notion that Obama is just another "liberal" politician --rather than the Marxist-Leninist enemy-within* he really is-- are going to campaign against him with silk gloves, least they upset the blacks and the centrists.
*-- Cicero:"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear."
And they will idiotically avoid, and even repudiate, even a whiff of an allusion to Obama's hardcore-Left adherence --even if indirectly, as when exposing his former extremely-close links to theology of "liberation" ideologue and operative Jeremiah Wright-- as "politics of personal destruction", as stupidly Romney calls it...emulating McCain.
In war and politics, respectively, an enemy and an adversary must be attacked by the front, but also by flanks, by the rearguard, by the top and from underneath, that is, from all angles, perspectives and issues.
Although the main thrust against Obama is to be on the most horrid status of the economy he has created, all other issues must be used as bilateral thrusts against him, and they include, among others, his weakening of our Armed Forces; his weak foreign-affairs policies; his outrageous abuses of and trampling on the Constitution; his collusion with the Russians (Colluding on America's security, Obama:"This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."--- Medvedev:"I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir."); his maligning America when abroad; his bowing to monarchs; his flagrant and blatant racism that has taken him to repudiate his white blood; his virulent ethnic and class warfare; his hardcore-Left (i.e.; Marxist-Leninist) ideology; his former relations with Jeremiah Wright; his relations with unrepentant former terrorist and still-a-Bolshevik Bill Ayers; his population of the cabinet and his czars with hardcore-Left operatives (please read Trevor Loundon's shocking exposéBarack Obama and the Enemies Within); his blatant vows to"fundamentally transform the United States of America..."to socialism (e.g., nationalization of Fanny Mae, Freddie Mac, the Student Loan Program, Obamacare, etc.); the outrageous and huge splurge of taxpayer money by his wife in Pharaonic vacations, shopping binges, out-on-the town nights, bashes in the White House, etc.; his horrendously wasteful economic "stimuli"; his resort to sheer fascism (e.g., his government co-ownership of GM and Chrysler, his coziness with GE, his funding of select business-sectors such as the "green" one, etc.)
Obama must be "stung" in this electoral campaign with all vigor, intensity, and ceaselessly on absolutely all issues; his defeat at the ballot box must be secured if America is going to be saved!!!
Currently America is locked in turmoil regarding “gay marriage,” thanks in part to the president’s recent “evolutionary” approval of same-sex nuptials. In contrast, consider the perpetual success of state anti-homosexual marriage initiatives over the last decade. Given the depth of disagreement, there is not much deep analysis. So is there any enlightened opposition to the idea of Adam and Steve? In this essay are offered both religious and secular reasons for opposing gay marriage. Yet, the principled reader must make up his or her own mind as to the merits of this issue.
I. Religious Arguments Against Gay Marriage
A. Direct Biblical Prohibition
Starting with the most obvious argument, the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments expressly prohibits homosexual activity without exception. An important detail must also be noted. Homosexuality is referred to an activity rather than a fixed identity, as commonly presented today. The following verses are self-explanatory.
Old Testament—Leviticus 18:22 (KJV)
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
B. Christ’s Statement About Adam & Eve
Christ grounds his analysis of marriage in Adam and Eve’s hetero relationship. SeeMatthew 19: 4-5
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
C. Marriage as Model for Christ & Church
Jesus describes His relationship between Himself and the Church as akin to a man’s relationship between he and his female wife. SeeEphesians 5 (KJV)
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
D. Judgment of God Upon Marriage-Defilers, ie Covenant Breakers
One cannot ignore the negative prohibitions against those who defy the only model for sexual activity sanctioned by the Bible – Heterosexual, monogamous marriage. In fact, Jesus himself not only embraced the biblical model of Adam and Eve in the Garden, but even refused to sanction divorce except in the most dire circumstances. Hebrews 13:4 (NKJV)
Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.
No fornicator (a person engaged in sexual activity outside biblical marriage), unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.
E. Natural Law
Natural Law is the “law above the law,” a biblical application of God’s law into man’s world, according to Edward S. Corwin in The “Higher Law” Background of American Constitutional Law. One of the most powerful arguments against “gay marriage,” whether secular or religious, comes from Natural Law. Classical Natural law is composed of a few chief elements.
First, the ideas of enlightened pagans, such as Aristotle, Plato and Cicero. Second, important church fathers as Augustine. Third, essential philosophers such as Aquinas and Locke. One must also add logic and common sense. Finally, the Bible is the code book from which all the other elements must agree.
It may go without saying that a “gay marriage” is a non sequiter under the Natural Law. This is notable as Natural Law is the most ambitious and successful theory of jurisprudence ever proposed. The Founders used Natural Law for their commitment to a government based on rule of law, constitutionalism, and a Natural Rights theory.
F. Sodom & Gomorrah
When addressing the subject of homosexual marriage regarding the Bible, it’s absolutely crucial to cite the story of Sodom. See Genesis 18: 20 & 19
And the Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous…And they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally.”So Lot went out to them through the doorway, shut the door behind him, and said, “Please, my brethren, do not do so wickedly!...Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven; And it came to pass, when God destroyed the cities of the plain…
Further, Derrick Sherwin Bailey‘s famous defense of homosexual behavior in claiming Sodom’s sin was inhospitality, is wholly unsatisfying given the above words. Moreover, to raise children in an unabashedly gay household means to deny to them the truth of the God of the Bible every bit as much as never mentioning His name.
II. Secular Arguments Against Gay Marriage
A. Unknown Side-Effects
The fact is that very little is known about the potential side-effects of children being raised by a single gender within a homosexual union. But, we do know of other details which should give a profound sense of hesitation before committing our entire society in this direction. First, the overall statistics on children raised without fathers are astoundingly bad. For example, consider a few statistics from Fatherless Generation:
63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (US Dept. Of Health/Census)—5 times the average.
90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes—32 times the average.
85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes—20 times the average. (Center for Disease Control)
80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes—14 times the average. (Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26)
71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes—9 times the average. (National Principals Association Report)
70% of youths in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes—9 times the average. (U.S. Dept. of Justice, Sept. 1988)
85% of all youths in prison come from fatherless homes—20 times the average. (Fulton Co. Georgia, Texas Dept. of Correction)
Now, one can assume that a female playing the male role in a lesbian relationship would erase this problem, if such a dynamic exists. But frankly, why would a female attempting to act masculine take the place of a real man? This assumes that the problem with being fatherless is due entirely to there being only half a couple responsible for the children. It also assumes men and women are utterly interchangeable. And yet we know for a fact that men and women, even when undertaking the same tasks, are still radically different (see here).
It also assumes that male and female homosexual couples model male and female behavior effectively, which is crucial since young children learn much by mimicking. In fact, many experts are concerned that gay parenting will be brought in with anodyne claims of its harmlessness, and only after it becomes an institution, will we be told it is harmful but its too late to call it off. But what could possibly be done after it is legally and culturally established as a norm if it is found deleterious? For instance, in dealing with cases which came before a court, one author wrote:
A systematic analysis of appeals court cases or cases cited in those appeals cases regarding custody of children in which a homosexual parent was involved. Here, 82% of the homosexual vs 18% of the heterosexual parents and 54% of the homosexual’s associates vs 19% of the heterosexuals’ associates were recorded as having poor character in cases involving a homosexual claimant.
B. Design
Perhaps the most devastating argument against formalizing homosexual marriage is the argument from design. It is a simple fact that two men, or two women, have only half the necessary apparatus to consummate a marriage; only half of what it takes to naturally produce offspring. So every single gay marriage with offspring contains children of only one of the partners. This likely will produce confusion, anger, and even rebellion in many of these homes.
Further, to state the obvious, there must be a great temptation to seek children to meet one’s own needs, including proof that the couple is “normal.” It’s easy to claim “gay marriage” will not change traditional marriage. Yet, one must immediately jettison the element that a typical marriage can naturally produce offspring as part of the essential definition. So marriage is then essentially defined as about the participant’s needs, and not fundamentally the children’s.
C. History
Contra writers like John Boswell in Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe, most scholars agree no credible institution of homosexual marriage is found in Western history. Further, and despite the fact that some aspects of homosexuality were normative in ancient cultures such as Greece and Rome, neither was gay marriage found anywhere in the ancient world.
Yet, we know that procreation was considered a primary purpose for marriage in the classical and biblical world. In fact, in bot ancient Greece and Rome, fines were levied against men who did not procreate. In the present age, many claim the earth is over-populated, so it’s assumed most persons will find childlessness a blessing. And yet, our ancient forebears universally saw progeny as a blessing, and childlessness a curse, even if they disagreed at times on the treatment of handicapped newborns.
D. Denying any Essential Religious Nature of Marriage
One common argument defending gay marriage is to claim marriage was originally a secular contract bastardized over time by the church, yet only properly understood as non-religious. This argument could not be further from the truth. For example, marriage in the ancient pagan kingdom of Rome was highly religious. Further, removing the religious nature of a Roman marriage destroyed the entire undertaking, according to Numa Denis Fustel de Coulanges, in his unparallelled masterpiece The Ancient City. Coulanges writes,
Thus, when we penetrate the thoughts of these ancient men, we see of how great importance to them was the conjugal union, and how necessary to it was the intervention of religion. Was it not quite necessary that the young girl should be initiated into the religion that she was henceforth to follow by some sacred ceremony? Was not a sort of ordination or adoption necessary for her to become a priestess of this sacred fire, to which she was not attached by birth? Marriage was this sacred ceremony, which was to produce these important effect The Greek and Roman writers habitually designate marriage by a word indicative of religious act.
Ironically, it is the Muslim notion of marriage, utterly opposed to Western practice, which treats marriage as a wholly secular contract, according to Joseph Schacht in An Introduction to Islamic Muslim Law. Certainly this developed to simplify the routine Islamic approach to polygamous marriage and frequent divorce. It would seem that a normal marriage is seen as essentially religious in the human experience (see John Witte’s, From Sacrament to Contract).
CONCLUSION
Does God judge the actions of people and their societies that are radically outside his revealed rules? How could he not and retain any integrity? It is clear that America ratifying gay marriage will be an enormous change to families. Further, if 80% of Americans are Christian, then it also represents massive heresy. Remember Genesis 1: 26-28
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
But even atheist secularists understand the profound need to seek out one’s birth parents. If this does not occur, many children will grow up with permanent emotional and spiritual scars which no amount of therapy can erase, and that can only cause chaos and destruction for future generations.
The most absurd doctrine currently circulating among humanistic mankind is that – while God laid down his rules long ago, they have now been preempted and updated – and God Himself must accept these new laws of evolving, liberal man without judgment. Most ominously, remember the judgments reserved for those who truly ignore the Creator’s rules for His subjects and creation: Romans 2:6-8
But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.
Final question: What is more credible – Mankind judging the acts and laws of God – or Him judging ours?
Kelly O’Connell is an author and attorney. He was born on the West Coast, raised in Las Vegas, and matriculated from the University of Oregon. After laboring for the Reformed Church in Galway, Ireland, he returned to America and attended law school in Virginia, where he earned a JD and a Master’s degree in Government. He spent a stint working as a researcher and writer of academic articles at a Miami law school, focusing on ancient law and society. He has also been employed as a university Speech & Debate professor. He then returned West and worked as an assistant district attorney. Kelly is now is a private practitioner with a small law practice in New Mexico. Kelly is now host of a daily, Monday to Friday talk show at AM KOBE called AM Las Cruces w/Kelly O’Connell
