The Steady Drip

Obama money advantage disappearing and state approval rating drop

2012-02-02T03:05:00.002-05:00

Obama money advantage disappearing

POSTED AT 10:25 AM ON FEBRUARY 1, 2012 BY ED MORRISSEY

For a year, Republicans have worried about having to face a billion-dollar Re-Elect Obama machine in the fall. Most have just assumed that whoever wins the GOP nomination will have to contend with being outfunded and outgunned, even apart from the usual Democratic advantages of the news media and entertainment industry. National Journal punctures this expectation by looking at the pace of fundraising for Barack Obama’s campaign and the outside groups expected to boost him into orbit:

This year, it’s the Republicans’ adept and aggressive use of super PACs to even the financial playing field, blunting the often-massive money advantages that an incumbent president has at his disposal. With the emergence of American Crossroads, Crossroads GPS and Restore Our Future, a well-stocked Romney super PAC, the Obama fundraising juggernaut no longer looks so imposing.  If Romney is the Republican nominee, he won’t be overwhelmed with a wave of negative advertising, and will have the resources to fight back.
Take a look at the end-of-year numbers.  The Obama campaign ended the year with $81.8 million cash-on hand – a very strong total.  But the outside Democratic groups, especially the party’s newly-created super PACs, haven’t given him much assistance in the way of reinforcements.  The Democratic National Committee has $12.6 million cash-on-hand to assist. But Priorities USA banked a meager $1.5 million, receiving money from just 42 individual donors in the last six months.   The party’s Congressional super PACs – Majority PAC and House Majority PAC — also didn’t bank much, $1.3 million and $1.17 million, respectively.
Meanwhile, the Romney campaign ended the year with $19.9 million in the bank, far less than the president’s cash haul.  But when you add in the outside groups, he’s about at even strength.  Romney’s super PAC, Restore Our Future, banked $23.6 million at the end of the year, thanks to funding from venture capitalists aligned with Romney.   American Crossroads, which is poised to play an outsized role in the presidential race, ended the year with $15.6 million cash-on-hand.  And the RNC ended the year with more cash-on-hand than the DNC, banking $20 million.  All told, that adds up to $79.1 million – and it doesn’t include the cash-on-hand from Crossroads GPS, which doesn’t file with the Federal Election Commission.  But based on Crossroads’ announced fundraising totals, it’s logical to assume that they have around $15 million on-hand.
That brings the combined Obama + Democratic outside group totals to $98.3 million cash-on-hand, with the GOP groups tallying $94.1 million.  Take out the Democratic groups strictly devoted to Congressional activities, and it’s a virtual financial tie.  With labor and environmental groups poised to help Obama’s re-election, Democrats still could hold a narrow edge.  But it’s hardly the cash advantage that would allow Team Obama to run negative advertising uncontested against Romney, without an aggressive response.

The fundraising pace for Obama’s campaign itself, and not the total with the DNC, has actually lagged slightly behind that of George W. Bush in 2004. The amounts have also fallen a bit each time in the last two quarters. I’ve noted that at each disclosure point in 2011 and projected the eventual total to somewhere around $250 million — a substantial number and certainly good enough for a three-month general election campaign, but the billion-dollar behemoth is as likely as a the Loch Ness monster giving an interview over the summer.

That’s not the only advantage disappearing, either. Gallup released Obama’s job-approval ratings in 2011 by state yesterday, and he only tops 50% in ten plus the District of Columbia:

In 10 states plus the District of Columbia, a majority of residents approved of the job Barack Obama was doing as president last year, according to aggregated data from 2011. His greatest support came from District of Columbia, Maryland, and Hawaii residents, while Utah and Idaho residents gave him his lowest levels of support — below 30%. …
With the average state showing a 3.2-point drop in approval between 2010 and 2011, the number of states showing majority approval of Obama did not change much between the two years, moving from 12 states and the District of Columbia in 2010 to 10 states plus D.C. in 2011. Washington state and Rhode Island were the two states that dropped below 50% approval last year.
However, Obama was on pace to show an increase in majority approval states — to 16 plus the District of Columbia – midway through 2011. But his lower approval ratings in the third and fourth quarters of the year resulted in a net decline in the number of states above 50% approval by the time the year was complete.

The news was actually worse when comparing 2011 to 2010, which wasn’t exactly a banner year for Obama and Democrats anyway. Obama’s job approval rose between 2010 and 2011 in only three states — Wyoming (where it could barely have gone lower anyway), Connecticut, and Maine. In key states for the 2012 election in either the Presidential or Senate races, Obama dropped significantly:

Nebraska: -6.9%
New Mexico: -6.9%
Nevada: -5.7%
Montana: -5.3%
Ohio: -5.3%
Colorado: -4.8%
North Carolina: -3.2%
Florida: -2.2%

The two trends are probably not unrelated, either.

JET ENERGY Successfully Scores its SECOND COLD FUSION/LANR OPEN DEMONSTRATION AT MIT During the First IAP Short Course on Cold Fusion

2012-02-02T02:59:00.000-05:00

JET ENERGY Successfully Scores its SECOND COLD FUSION/LANR OPEN DEMONSTRATION AT MIT During the First IAP Short Course on Cold Fusion
January 30-31, 2012 - Cambridge, MA. - As part of the IAP Course on COLD FUSION at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dr. Mitchell Swartz, JET Energy, and Prof. Peter Hagelstein demonstrated cold fusion openly for scientists and engineers. The demonstration was a two day part of the detailed, yet overview, seven day course run by Prof. Hagelstein and Dr. Swartz, and followed the first open demonstrations of cold fusion at MIT in 2003. This JET Energy NANOR(TM) demonstrated a significant energy gain greater than 10, much larger than the previous open demonstration. This exhibition is also remarkable because it confirmed the role of the nanoengineered lattice in enabling the CF/LANR Cold Fusion lattice Assisted Nuclear Reactions activity. It followed Prof. Hagelstein sharing his breakthrough explanatory theory of cold fusion during the first 5 days. The NANOR technology of JET Energy may have already begun to shatter a few preconceived notions of skeptics and cold fusioneers.

Gallup state numbers predict huge Obama loss - Click Map for Full Screen

2012-02-02T02:44:00.000-05:00

Gallup released their annual state-by-state presidential approval numbers yesterday, and the results should have 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue very worried. If President Obama carries only those states where he had a net positive approval rating in 2011 (e.g. Michigan where he is up 48 percent to 44 percent), Obama would lose the 2012 election to the Republican nominee 323 electoral votes to 215.

Gallup adds:

Overall, Obama averaged 44% job approval in his third year in office, down from 47% in his second year. His approval rating declined from 2010 to 2011 in most states, with Wyoming, Connecticut, and Maine showing a marginal increase, and Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Jersey, Arizona, West Virginia, Michigan, and Georgia showing declines of less than a full percentage point. The greatest declines were in Hawaii, South Dakota, Nebraska, and New Mexico.

OBAMA’S NOBEL PEACE PRIZE WIN LEADS TO FORMAL INVESTIGATION OF AWARD

2012-02-01T23:07:00.003-05:00

OBAMA’S NOBEL PEACE PRIZE WIN LEADS TO FORMAL INVESTIGATION OF AWARD

STOCKHOLM, Sweden (AP) — Nobel Peace Prize officials were facing a formal inquiry over accusations they have drifted away from the prize’s original selection criteria by choosing such winners as President Barack Obama, as the nomination deadline for the 2012 awards closed Wednesday.

The investigation comes after persistent complaints by a Norwegian peace researcher that the original purpose of the prize was to diminish the role of military power in international relations.

If the Stockholm County Administrative Board, which supervises foundations in Sweden’s capital, finds that prize founder Alfred Nobel’s will is not being honored, it has the authority to suspend award decisions going back three years – though that would be unlikely and unprecedented, said Mikael Wiman, a legal expert working for the county.

Obama won in 2009, Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo won in 2010, and last year the award was split between Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Liberian activist Leymah Gbowee and Tawakkul Karman of Yemen.

For this year’s award, Russian human rights activist Svetlana Gannushkina, jailed former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko and Cuban rights activists Oswaldo Paya and Yoani Sanchez are among the candidates who have been publicly announced by those who nominated them.

The secretive prize committee doesn’t discuss nominations – which have to be postmarked by Feb. 1 to be valid – but stresses that being nominated doesn‘t say anything about a candidate’s chances.

Fredrik Heffermehl, a prominent researcher and critic of the selection process, told The Associated Press on Wednesday that “Nobel called it a prize for the champions of peace.”

“And it’s indisputable that he had in mind the peace movement, i.e. the active development of international law and institutions, a new global order where nations safely can drop national armaments,” he said

Especially after World War II, the prize committee, which is appointed by the Norwegian Parliament, has widened the scope of the prize to include environmental, humanitarian and other efforts, he said.

For example, in 2007 the prize went to climate activist Al Gore and the U.N.’s panel on climate change, and in 2009 the committee cited Obama for “extraordinary efforts” to boost international diplomacy.

“Do you see Obama as a promoter of abolishing the military as a tool of international affairs?” Heffermehl asked rhetorically.

Nobel, a Swedish industrialist and inventor, gave only vague guidelines for the peace prize in his 1895 will, saying it should honor “work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”

Nobel said the peace prize should be awarded by a Norwegian committee, and the other Nobel Prizes by committees in Sweden. The two Scandinavian nations were in a union at the time.

Geir Lundestad, the nonvoting secretary of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, dismissed Heffermehl’s claims.

“Fighting climate change is definitely closely related to fraternity between nations. It even concerns the survival of some states,” he told AP.

Still, the County Administrative Board decided to send a letter to the Stockholm-based Nobel Foundation, which manages the prize assets, requesting a formal response to the allegations.

“We have no basis to suggest that they haven’t managed it properly. But we want to investigate it,” Wiman said.

“The prize committee must always adjust its rules to today’s society,” he said. “But peace work has to be at the core – it can’t deviate too much from that,” Wiman said.

The peace prize and the Nobel awards in chemistry, physics, medicine, literature and economics are always handed out Dec. 10, the anniversary of Alfred Nobel’s death.

New Quo Warranto Eligibility Lawsuit Filed Against Obama In Washington, D.C. ~ Demands Return To ‘Rule Of Law’ Under The U.S. Constitution!

2012-02-01T17:42:00.000-05:00

New Quo Warranto Eligibility Lawsuit Filed Against Obama In Washington, D.C. ~ Demands Return To ‘Rule Of Law’ Under The U.S. Constitution!

FEBRUARY 1, 2012 BY VOLUBRJOTR 1 COMMENT

George Washington

A new quo warranto lawsuit has been filed in Washington over Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility, but unlike similar challenges brought by noted attorneys since before Obama was elected, this one is by a contender for the presidency.

A quo warranto action, which dates back nearly 1,000 years in Western civilization, is a challenge to an official to document on what basis he or she holds the office.

The action was filed by a former attorney, Montgomery Blair Sibley, who, according to his lawsuit, announced on Nov. 11, 2011, his candidacy for president. He “qualified as a write-in candidate by filing with the District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics his ‘Affirmation of Write-In Candidacy.’”

He explains that given his access to the Internet and mobile information technology, his support could rise quickly, and “given the mood of the country, the public’s disenchantment with the Republican party candidates and the implication of this petition on Obama’s candidacy, it is impossible for this court to determine whether or not the dramatically increased exposure Sibley will seek and receive … will increase his success.”

Further, he explains, that even “by only capturing a small number of Electoral College votes, Sibley could cause the presidential election to fall to Congress, thus radically changing the course of the election.”

Congress and U.S. courts have affirmed the concept, although Congress limited those who could bring such a challenge to those with an interest in the office; thus, Sibley’s announced candidacy.

Sibley told WND the case is not really about Obama.

“My overarching concern is not the man Barack Obama. My overarching concern is our departure from the rule of law when it’s inconvenient to those in power,” he said.

He said the Constitution simply requires a president to be a “natural-born citizen,” at least 35 years old and a 14-year resident of the U.S.

“If the president was 32, no one would object to a claim he wasn’t qualified,” Sibley told WND. “The term ‘natural born citizen’ has a very clear meaning. … I don’t believe anyone can dispute it.”

He said a natural-born citizen is the offspring of two citizens of the country, and since Obama has written repeatedly that his father was Barack Obama Sr., a Kenyan national subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom when Obama Jr. was born, he doesn’t qualify.

“If I’m the only one saying the emporer has no clothes, so be it,” he said.

The case names Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder and others as defendants, and court records note it was assigned to Judge Amy Jackson.

Columnist Devvy Kidd notes Sibley has a colorful history, including a grandfather who was the last private owner of Blair House – now a government property – across from the White House.

His mother also worked for Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Rights Action League. She later became an ordained Episcopal Church priest. Another ancestor, Francis Preston Blair, was part of Andrew Jackson’s “kitchen cabinet.” Another, Frank Blair, was a corps commander during Gen. William T. Sherman’s March to the Sea in Georgia during the Civil War.

Still further, his ancestor George Mason was a delegate from Virginia to the U.S. Constitutional Convention, and Sibley’s father was part-owner of the Miami Dolphins during the team’s perfect season in 1972.

Kidd notes that Sibley at one point represented Deborah Jean Palfrey, dubbed the DC Madam.

Sibley told WND that he expects opposition not just from the White House and Department of Justice, but from the judiciary.

“All I can do is present the Supremes with an opportunity to prove their hypocrisy,” he said.

He said Obama has successfully undermined the Constitution because those who normally serve as government watchdogs, the media, have been co-opted.

“My position is it’s time to tear the federal house down to its foundation, the Constitution. It’s gotten out of control. We’ve lost the very rights the government was meant to preserve.”

While many of the challenges to Obama’s occupancy in the Oval Office simply suggest his ineligibility, Sibley’s moves further, stating, “By this lawsuit, Sibley seeks: a. a Writ of Quo Warranto ousting Obama as president of the Untied Statesand/or preventing him from holding the franchise of being on the ballot for that office in 2012 insomuch as he is not a ‘natural born citizen’ of the United States.

“Obama’s father was not a United States citizen when Obama was born. In his two books, ‘Dreams from My Father’ (1995) and ‘The Audacity of Hope (2006), Obama states that his father was Barack Hussein Obama and that he was a British subject at the time Obama was born,” the case argues.

“Respondent Obama publicly released two ‘Certificates of Live Birth’ from the state of Hawaii in an attempt to demonstrate that he was born in the United States. Expert document examiners have examined each of the COLBs and found significant indications of fraud raising the very real specter that Obama was not even born in the United States,” it continues.

He said he has requested that the DOJ pursue action against Obama but never got a response. So now, as an “interested person,” he “is authorized to petition this court for the issuance of a quo warranto writ.”

Sibley cites numerous issues raised by researchers Douglas Vogt and Paul Irey about the birth documentation that the president has released. He also raises some of the questions previously raised by ProtectOurLiberty.org.

WND

Barack Obama is NOT a “natural born Citizen of the United States”

Barack Obama is NOT a “natural born Citizen of the United States” and is thus constitutionally ineligible to be the President and Commander in Chief of our military.

Obama was born to a FOREIGN NATIONAL FATHER who was NEVER a U.S. Citizen nor was Obama’s father even an immigrant to the USA or even a permanent resident in the USA.

For no other U.S. President in the history of the nation since the founding generation (who were exempt from the natural born Citizen clause in the U.S. Constitution via a grandfather clause in Article II Section 1) was that the case, i.e., having a foreign national father who was never a U.S. Citizen or even an immigrant to this country.

Click to read the correct definition of "Natural Born Citizen"

Obama being seated as the putative president is an outrageous violation of Article II Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, the presidential eligibility clause.

Obama was not born with sole allegiance to the USA. Sole allegiance and unity of Citizenship at birth was the goal and purpose for putting the natural born Citizen clause into Article II Section 1 of the Constitution as to who could serve as president once the founding generation has passed away.

Obama (II) was born a British Subject via his foreign national father Obama (Sr.) who was a British Subject. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen of the United States” to Constitutional Standards since he was born with dual allegiance and citizenship.

The founders and framers did not want anyone with foreign allegiance to ever get command of our military, i.e., be the president. Obama is Constitutionally not eligible to be president and commander in chief of our military.

Adjectives mean something. A “Citizen at Birth” is not logically identically equal to a “natural born Citizen at Birth”.

Barack Obama may be a ‘Citizen of the United States’ but he is not a ‘natural born Citizen of the United States’ and does not meet the constitutional standards as to who can be the President and Commander in Chief of our military: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/03/obama-maybe-citizen-of-united-states.html

The natural born Citizen clause in our Constitution is a national security clause inserted into our Constitution by John Jay and George Washington. Read why the natural born Citizen clause is still important and worth protecting.

Five Citizenship Terms Mentioned in the U.S. Constitution: http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/Citizenship-Terms-Used-in-the-US-Constitution-The-5-Terms-Defined-Some-Legal-Reference-to-Same

Of Trees and Plants and Basic Logic and Citizenship Types: http://www.scribd.com/doc/44814496/Of-Trees-and-Plants-and-Basic-Logic-Citizen-at-Birth-NOT-Identical-to-Natural-Born-Citizen

See evidence Obama forged the birth certificate posted on White House servers 27 Apr 2011:http://www.scribd.com/collections/3166684

See evidence Obama is using a SSN 042-68-4425 not legally issued to him:http://www.scribd.com/collections/3260742

See evidence of Obama’s forged and back dated draft registration here:http://www.debbieschlussel.com/4428/exclusive-did-next-commander-in-chief-falsify-selective-service-registration-never-actually-register-obamas-draft-registration-raises-serious-questions/

The Obama constitutional eligibility issue is not a fringe issue! South Carolina Poll Results – A poll done by Public Policy Polling (PPP) shows that almost 2/3 of GOP voters want Obama’s constitutional eligibility and true legal identity investigated. This is not a fringe issue: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=340805

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
http://www.protectourliberty.org/
http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/

“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened.” Ronald Reagan alerting us to Norman Thomas’ and the socialist/progressives’ long-term stealth agenda to transform the USA from a Constitutional Republic into a top-down, central controlled, democratic socialist form of government.

PLAINTIFF WELDEN’S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

2012-02-01T17:23:00.002-05:00

PLAINTIFF WELDEN’S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

BREAKING! JUST RECEIVED!

Please note that this document plainly states that it not an order but a proposed order unlike some attorneys who have submitted proposed orders and tryed to pass them off as having court sanction and power.

PLAINTIFF WELDEN’S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Click here for a PDF of what Attorney Van Irion filed with the OSAH February 1, 2012

VIDEOS- Obama Ballot Hearing - ATLANTA GEORGIA INTERVIEWS

2012-02-01T17:09:00.000-05:00

ATLANTA GEORGIA INTERVIEWS

For video of the entire hearing in Atlanta, CLICK HERE

Interview with ATTORNEY MARK HATFIELD

Interview with ATTORNEY VAN IRION

Interview with PLAINTIFF CARL SWENSSON

Interview with WITNESS SUSAN DANIELS

Believe it or not, we actually interviewed FOGBOW FOGGY (aka Bill Bryan)

Please consider making a secure online donation to Article2SuperPAC by credit card or check by clicking here.

Obama the Chicken is Being Plucked - By Mark McGrew

2012-02-01T16:57:00.000-05:00

Obama the Chicken is Being Plucked

By Mark McGrew

AP photo

January 29 through the 31^st, 5% of the sheriffs in America are in Las Vegas Nevada, learning how to tell the Federal government agents to pack sand and get out of town. 20% of the 50 United States of America have been presented with lawsuits and or legal filings challenging the eligibility of Barack Obama to be on the ballot for the 2012 election.

Congressional representative Allen West summed up the American people's feelings for the Obama administration today when he told Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to, "Get the hell out of The United States of America!". His talk can be seen here.

Ten people will be murdered today in Mexico with guns provided to drug cartels by Eric Holder, the United States Attorney General. Politicians are calling for him to resign. Resign??

There is enough evidence presented to Congress to arrest him and prosecute him for an Act of War against the nation of Mexico, accessory to murder of thousands of innocent citizens in Mexico and America as well as the murder of United States Border Patrol agent Brian Terry. Resign?? Besides sending illegal guns to Mexico, Holder and his associates sold guns to criminal street gangs inside the United States where the guns will be used inside the United States. It will take years to find the thousands of guns these criminals sold to killers.

Eric Holder and his criminal operatives in his office and the Department of Justice need to be dragged out in handcuffs, jailed with no bail and put on trial with a jury of American citizens who are not federal government employees.

Like a dead chicken being plucked, Obama has lost his power and his support. Six months or so ago, French President Sarkozy called Obama, "Insane". Other world leaders have publicly called him incompetent and other derogatory names.

Since then, major news in America has been slowly, quietly, as if testing the waters, pointing out Obama's faults and crimes. Little by little they are feeding America, and the World, the truth about the man they fought so hard to cover up for these past four years. Feather by feather, the chicken known as Obama, is being plucked. The most hated psychopath on Earth and his administration are going to be thoroughly plucked, gutted, tossed in an oven, cooked and devoured. And like any dead carcass with no use, Obama and his faithful supporters will be thrown onto a garbage heap until they rot to nothing.

The thing known as Obama is committing one large theft after another of the American people's money, work and trust. He is the most disgusting example of human life we have ever witnessed.

Like all stupid people, he thinks everyone else is stupider than he is. There is, however, one thing he has done well. Every facet of American life and business has gone down considerably, except for foreclosures, unemployment, bankruptcies and business closures.

The mistake he made was to think that We the People, would just sit back and take his arrogant insulting crap.

Pamela Barnett was a plaintiff in a case brought by Orly Taiz demanding proof that Obama was eligible to be President. That court arrogantly and illegally refused to hear their complaint. Pamela Barnett's character reflects that of most Americans: When you treat her like a dog, she'll jump up and bite you. So she formed an organization to teach and help people how to have Obama taken off of all 50 State ballots. And it is working very well. Her site is here:http://obamaballotchallenge.com

And it is working. Obama has been denied to be on the primary ballot in Alabama until he proves he is eligible. Georgia has a ruling pending in 3 weeks to keep Obama off the ballot until he can prove he is eligible.

The amazingly tenacious, Carl Swensson, fighting to get Obama out of the office of the President, by knocking on every official's door he could find for four years, finally found two government employees who were not traitors and took their Oath of Office seriously: The Georgia Secretary of State, Brian Kemp and Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi of the Georgia Office of Administrative Hearings. Meet Carl Swensson at this site: www.RiseUpForAmerica.com

And quit being a jerk. Send him 5 or 10 bucks for his legal bills. His wife wants him home to spend more time with the cat. Carl Swensson credits his wife for his stamina in being able to run his business and being able to expend the energy and the capital in fighting the treasonous federal elected employees.

Only a Natural Born Citizen can be President. There are at least three US Supreme Court cases defining Natural Born Citizen. The Us Constitution refers to "The Law of Nations", which defines Natural Born Citizen. There are dozens of letters of correspondence from the signers of the Declaration of Independence and creators of the US Constitution defining Natural Born Citizen. The United States Congress, in the past nine years has made eight unsuccessful attempts to change the wording of the US Constitution to say that foreign born or children of foreign born parents can be the President of the United States of America. These elected employees have repeatedly proven that they know damn well what a Natural Born Citizen is. The record is clearly established, through over 250 years of acknowledged definition that Natural Born Citizen is a person born on American soil, to PARENTS plural. For liberals and democrats and other traitors, that means that in order for a person to be our President, the stork has to deliver him inside America and both his mommy and daddy must be citizens of the United States of America.

So, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, California, Hawaii and Arizona have either lawsuits filed or ballot challenges filed to keep Obama off the ballot until he can prove he is eligible to run for election. Activities are going on in 26 other states, with the same goal in mind, to keep Obama off the ballot, unless he can prove he is eligible to run. This is further proof that it is the states that control the federal government and not the other way around. The federal government is a group of full time employees managing certain pertinent affairs concerning the states. These permanent employees are managed by part-time employees called politicians, which are periodically elected by the People. They are all expendable. It is these temporary employees who we accuse of committing treason and other High Crimes against the citizens of America as well as other Nations of the World..

In New Hampshire, Orly Taitz appeared before election officials asking them to take Obama off the ballot because he is not eligible. Their response was basically, "Well, we don't have to look at any evidence. We take the man for his word."

The crowd attending, We the People, erupted with shouts of "Traitors!....Treason!!". The sissy boy assistant attorney General got so scared he ran into another room, locked the door and called the State police to protect him. (The police are "investigating". Which, in New Hampshire, means "You get what you pay for.")

This is a good place to learn how people are fighting Obama across the USA.

In business, we realize that the Internet was invented to destroy your competition. And it works in politics too. As seen in Greece, Italy and across North Africa. Obama is such an IDIOT!

When his eligibility problem came up in 2008, because of a phony Birth Certificate he presented, he said, "Ah, people will forget about that in two weeks." Since then, millions of people have tried countless ways to get a case into court to compel Obama to prove he is eligible to hold the office of President.

Until Carl Swensson's case, not one of 40 or so lawsuits against Obama has been able to make it to court. Judges from coast to coast muttered the terminology of, "You don't have standing." Telling the American People that they do not have a right to question if someone is eligible under our constitution to hold the office of President. We believe these judges are guilty of Treason against the American People and should be arrested and put on trail for it.

I can not scream loud enough to express the absolute RAGE that the American People have against the criminal syndicates, known as the Federal Government and Republican and Democratic political parties.

Only because of the Internet have we been able to inform the World of the criminal activities of the Obama administration. Major news has been overwhelmingly vicious in their attempts to keep the Obama administration crimes secret. They have done everything they could to ridicule, insult, vilify and harass any person they invited on their shows to "discuss this issue". We the People, believe they also are complicit in committing Treason against the American People.

Because of their traitorous actions, they have lost huge numbers of TV viewers and newspaper readers. Newspapers across the country are going broke and they are too stupid to figure out why. Here's a clue: People are not stupid and they do not like being lied to and played for suckers.

We the People, with the Internet news sites we own, are bigger than major news. We have more investigators, more reporters, more audience and much more news produced every month. What we don't have, that major news does have, is the financial support from large corporations. Maybe because large corporations are profiting so well from a fascist government.

We the People, are bigger than the Federal government. We have more people and more guns. If the Federal government was not afraid of us, they would already have tanks in the streets and fighter jets and bombers in the air, as they did in Libya and countless other countries.

Most people in control of the armaments of the Federal government know that We the People do not want war with our government. We just want them to get their policies the hell out of the United States of America. We the People, would prefer they be put in prison for the rest of their twisted rotten lives. Myself, I would prefer to see the male traitors put in a 50 foot deep hole, the size of a football field, fill a horse trough with water once a week and send down a live cow once a month. Punishment for the female traitors, including Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton, I would send them to a bordello in Bolivia, Mogadishu or some other hell hole.

We don't need no stinkin' commies, Marxists, fascists or socialists. And we sure as Hell, don't want some criminally insane imitation of a man making orders, thinking he can murder anyone, anywhere on Earth, or put American citizens in secret prisons, even if he does have a phony birth certificate.

Unless he can PROVE he is eligible to hold the office of President, which he can't under his own admissions, every law, treaty, agreement or promise he has made are null and void. An incredible amount of criminal charges, including fraud for every donation he took, up to Sedition (creating contempt for your government) to Treason as well as a myriad of criminal charges against every Congressman who supported him, the managers of the Republican National Party and the Democratic National party, every one of the 50 Secretaries of State who allowed him on the ballot, Hawaii Department of Health employees who lied about his Birth Certificate and the list goes on and on.

Americans are finally understanding why, in many countries in the World, when new people take power, they have a purge of the old system by getting rid of the old regime through murder or imprisonment. In America, we would need to purge a minimum of 600,000 people from our elementary, junior and high schools, universities, city, county, state and federal government, newscasters, news station owners, newspaper writers, newspaper owners and the list can be huge to get rid of the anti-American traitorous degenerates.

When Obama and his associates are removed from American society, as We the People want to, We are ready to and We will gladly, extend our friendship to the many nations in this home we call Earth.

Until then, to the many world leaders who did not bother to ask the one simple question: "Who is Barack Hussein Obama?" I have this to say: "Congratulations smart guy. How's it feel to be played for a sucker?" We saw you laughing your butts off, knowing Obama was going to strip us dry and give the money to your gangster banker friends. We don't see you in your elevated shoes with your botched plastic surgery face's wives, laughing too much now. We see your cities falling like dominoes to Islamic immigrants. We see your cities burning on the nightly news. We see your cities as residence of the most raped women on Earth. Family fortunes, intact for centuries, evaporated like a drop of water on a red hot skillet. Chaos, ruin, destruction. All because your pea brained minds were too drunk with power and you were mesmerized with an insatiable greed. You saw the biggest fraud in history standing right in front of you and were so stupid, you actually thought you were the bird and not the worm.

To the People of this world, who are suffering from the policies of Obama, I say to you all: "So do something about it. Go to any Internet site you know that is fighting the corrupt American government and donate some cash or offer to help in some way to spread their news. That is the least that any honest person can do."

And to the people who voted for Obama, because he was going to steal our money and our creations and fraudulently turn them over to you: "How's that Hope and Change working out for you?"

Mark S. McGrew can be reached at McGrewMX@aol.com. More of his articles, published on over 900 websites, in 28 countries, in 8 languages, are onwww.MarkSMcGrew.com . When reprinting this article, please include a link to the free press of Pravda.Ru and a special thanks to Pravda's English editor, Dmitry Sudakov.

Obama Ineligibility - WHY ARE WE STILL SUCH GULLIBLE FOOLS?

2012-02-01T16:51:00.000-05:00

WHY ARE WE STILL SUCH GULLIBLE FOOLS?

Posted by: Dean C. Haskins
dean@birthersummit.org
202.241.3648
Download a PDF

He is a fool who rejects the facts simply because he does not like them.

Where the law concerning birth certificates from the State of Hawaii are concerned, it is certainly disheartening to see so many people within our movement play the part of utter dunderheads. Because we so want to believe that there is some legal maneuver that will grant an attorney license to walk into the Department of Health in Honolulu and inspect whatever may or may not exist pertaining to Barack Obama, we are easy prey for the deceptive legal claptrap of a narcissistic attorney, and the online sources that echo those snake-oil sales pitches.

The facts are really not all that hard to understand, but first, one must be willing to set aside his preconceived notions about what those facts are (the notions that have been used as an insidious ploy to raise money), and approach those facts honestly. Having previously tried to relay those facts, only for them to be ignored by some, please allow me to present them in a different way that might make them a bit easier for those who appear to be willfully ignorant.

1. Barack Obama has no legal authority to give access to any original documents possessed by the Department of Health in Hawaii.

The State of Hawaii is the owner of all Hawaiian records of vital statistics. The Hawaiian Department of Health is the keeper of those records. Barack Obama has no authority over that which he does not own. Once issued a “certified copy” of any such record, the recipient is free to do whatever he would like with THAT document, but that has no bearing upon any original document the certified copy represents, as that is owned by the state, and not by the person named on the document.

Furthermore, a photocopy of the certified copy being sent to a judge in Georgia does not produce a legally valid reason for inspection of an original possessed by Hawaii. At most, the Georgia judge could request to see the certified copy from which the photocopy was made. Legally, that would be the extent of the judge's authority.

2. State courts have no legal authority to give access to any original documents possessed by the Department of Health in Hawaii.

Hawaii law (H.R.S. 338-18) prohibits access to, or inspection of, any birth certificate to anyone who doesn't have a direct and tangible interest (generally, immediate family members). No subpoena or Motion to Produce from any other state regarding original documents possessed by Hawaii will ever be enforceable, as providing such would be against Hawaii law. No state court has the power or jurisdiction to force a Hawaiian court to do something that would be against Hawaii law.

3. A certified copy of a birth certificate is legally considered an original.

Article IV of the Constitution (the Full Faith & Credit Clause) requires every state to consider documents certified as valid from every other state to be valid. In regards to birth certificates, a certified copy (with raised seal) must be viewed as equal in authority and validity as the original.

So, what will you do with your newly acquired knowledge? Will you continue to allow yourself to be whipped into a mouth-breathing frenzy because some internet headline states that a judge has given a lawyer a “green light” to obtain legally protected documents in Hawaii? Or, will you stop and think about the validity of those headlines in light of the law?

Here's the equivalent of the so-called “green light” that Judge Malihi gave: imagine that you walk across the street from your house, and you ask that neighbor for permission to request that your next-door neighbor defy the law of gravity and levitate. Knowing that he has no authority to stop you from requesting something of your next-door neighbor (regardless of your next-door neighbor's ability to honor your request), I'm thinking his response would probably be, “Sure, go ahead.”

That's the extent of Judge Malihi's “green light.” He doesn't possess the legal authority to stop any such request from being made to the Superior Court. But, here's yet another accurate prediction: the Superior Court won't even try to “levitate,” as it will understand that there are laws that prevent such an action.

If everyone in our movement could at least act like he comprehends these very simple laws, we might actually make some progress toward resolution. As long as we continue to behave like moths drawn to a counterfeit light of deceptive lunacy, we will all be viewed as nutwhacks by association—and that's what the media continues to do by focusing on the “grifter element” of our cause. As much as we really want for those baseless headlines to be true, they are not; so, if you continue to fall for them, not only is it your fault (because you've now been shown the truth), you are ultimately helping to destroy the very movement you claim to support.

As much as we all might wish that someone could walk into the Department of Health and be given access to inspect whatever documents may exist there, it would plainly be against the law for the DOH to allow such access. How can we be a movement that proclaims to embrace the law, and demands that the law be upheld, and yet at the same time, support nonsensical efforts to thwart the law? Something is very wrong with that picture.

Not until we have a brilliant attorney who can construct an argument against the Department of Health in Hawaii that, somehow, would allow that access within the law, will that ever happen. So far, such an argument has not even remotely been made. And, it could be, there is possibly no such argument that could ever be made. For that answer, you'll have to ask someone other than an “unemployed musician” (LOL!). If I were a lawyer, and there were an “unemployed musician” who knew these laws better than I, I certainly wouldn't publicly call him an “unemployed musician.” But, that's just me. Whether we're called “bloggers” or “unemployed musicians” does not change who better understands these laws. You can take that to the bank!

The good news is, there ARE some legitimate actions underway—actions that are being cultivated within the constraints of the law. If you truly want to see us move forward in these eligibility issues, I strongly recommend that you focus onhttp://riseupforamerica.com/ and http://libertylegalfoundation.org/.

And, as always, Article2SuperPAC remains a resource committed to furthering our cause through education and underwriting. Visit them regularly at http://www.art2superpac.com/.

As you can probably imagine, my inbox continues to be slammed because of my recent articles. While the vast majority of what I receive is wholly supportive, there is still the occasional “not-so-supportive” message. Please be aware that, as I have previously stated, emails that simply attack me or praise incompetence, but do not address the actual facts, will not only be ignored, they will demonstrate the sender's unwillingness to learn the truth, and a lack of moral integrity by a support of, and association with, something that is ethically indefensible.

I will continue to share the truth the best I can. Just remember this: while the truth will inevitably set you free, it will likely piss you off first. Just do me a favor, get over your pissed-offedness and engage of few synapses to understand what the law really says, and how that law doesn't actually square with the seemingly endless deceptive tripe, before sending me any more emails.

###

If you would like more information about the Birther Summit, please visit our website often at www.birthersummit.org or contact Dean Haskins at dean@birthersummit.org.

Doug Vogt's Mega Neutron Bomb On Obama's Eligibility

2012-02-01T13:51:00.000-05:00

Cartoon Says It All

2012-01-31T15:08:00.000-05:00

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

-Irving Kristol

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

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

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

Double click cartoon for full screen:

OBAMA ELIGIBILITY CHALLENGES SPREAD TO 6 STATES

2012-01-31T01:15:00.000-05:00

OBAMA ELIGIBILITY CHALLENGES SPREAD TO 6 STATES

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

http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/obama-eligibility-challenges-spread-to-6-states/

GEORGIA HEARINGS – Two Base Hits and One Foul Ball - TWO OUT OF THREE AIN'T BAD -

2012-01-30T15:24:00.000-05:00

GEORGIA HEARINGS – TWO OUT OF THREE AIN'T BAD

Posted by: Dean C. Haskins
dean@birthersummit.org
202.241.3648
Posted: January 30, 2012
© 2012 The Birther Summit

Download a PDF

Author's Request: If you are not going to read the conclusion of this article, please do not read any of it. Those whose critical thinking skills are limited, either genetically, or willfully, are required to read the conclusion at least three times before sending me your zombie hate mail.

Once again, in the days following the hearings that were conducted in Georgia on January 26, there has been a lot of spin and misinformation coming from our side; while much of it comes from simply being overzealous about the hearings, we must be vigilant to stay on the side of truth.

But, before I get into that, I want to explain some things about the issues that we faced with the live video streaming. I was brought into the live streaming process pretty late in the game, and while my background and experience are in studio audio, before this past week, I had never been involved in any live streaming video project. We did visit the courtroom on Wednesday to assess the layout, but the facility had no wireless internet available, and our wireless card that had been shipped to Atlanta had not yet arrived; so, we were not able to test the live streaming in the courtroom. Moreover, the Media was relegated to the rear of the courtroom, and there was no allowance for placing any microphones at the front.

Ultimately, we gained a mountain of experiential knowledge through this first attempt, and will use what we learned to perfect our future live video streaming projects.

The First Two Cases Heard

The courtroom was packed and hot, and there was a constant flurry of activity throughout the morning. Things were said, and half-explained, in the midst of the surrounding confusion, so I want to take a moment to clarify the essence of what happened, now that there's been some time to accurately recount the events of the day.

Just as we witnessed internet postings falsely proclaiming that many individuals had been “subpoenaed” or “ordered by a judge” to appear in Atlanta, as well as repeated claims of there being a “trial” (instead of what they were—administrative hearings), that same kind of self-serving, inaccurate headline-manufacturing has resulted in claims that a “judge has ordered that Obama will not appear on the Georgia ballot.” Folks, not only has that not happened, Judge Malihi will not be issuing any such “order.” He will only be issuing a recommendation to Secretary of State Kemp, who will ultimately decide.

Prior to the start of the hearings on Thursday, the judge called the three attorneys who were present into his chambers and said that he could award them a default order because the defendant did not show up, but the attorneys stated that they would prefer to present abbreviated versions of their arguments so that they would be on the record, in case there were any appeals.

Their having chosen to present evidence, therefore, precluded a default order, as such an order is awarded in the absence of any evidence being presented. The fact that evidence was presented means that Judge Malihi must make his recommendation based upon that evidence. It is the understanding of the first two attorneys to present their cases that, whichever way the judge decides will ultimately result in an appeal, and with their evidence being presented, they have prepared their cases to proceed to the highest court in the land, if necessary. The third case, as presented, didn't, and won't, go anywhere.

The cases presented by attorneys Irion and Hatfield had nothing to do with any claims regarding Obama's birthplace or his birth certificate. In fact, Van Irion's plaintiff stipulated to the birth certificate that had been posted online, which means that, for the purposes of his case, his plaintiff accepted its validity as part of the court record. He merely used what is claimed to be a valid birth certificate to establish the fact that Obama's father was a foreign national, and never a US citizen. Mark Hatfield's plaintiffs relied on parental divorce records to establish the same fact. Neither attorney was concerned with anything other than arguing that Barack Obama is not constitutionally eligible to be president because of his father's lack of US citizenship.

At this point in the proceedings, and in light of the basis of much of the third case, I believe an attorney who either understood the law, or who had an actual interest in succeeding with that case, would have at least voiced an objection to attorney Irion's stipulation of the birth certificate, even if, for no other reason, than to have the objection entered into the record. However, the third attorney made no such objection.

Having quickly presented their evidence, the judge called for a brief recess, at which time, Irion and Hatfield asked for the record to be closed in their cases. While speculation resulted that they requested the closing of their cases to prevent the defendant from providing evidence, I do not believe that was their purpose, as was evidenced in their open, and calculated, exit from the courtroom before the beginning of the third hearing, and not returning. They wanted it understood that they would have nothing to do with the third case, and closed the record on their cases to keep the third case from diluting theirs.

Now, before proceeding with my report, let me say that, before Thursday, I had never personally met Orly Taitz. After she entered the courtroom, she approached the Media area, where I was standing with our live streaming equipment, and she asked, “Are you Dean Haskins?” I extended my hand and said, “Yes, how are you doing, Orly?” Without reciprocating the handshake, she stated, “I think it is about time for an apology,” to which I replied, “You can apologize to me anytime you want.” Through clenched teeth, Orly quietly seethed, “You're a piece of sh*t. You shouldn't even be here.” Classy.

It is not really necessary to go into a detailed analysis of Orly's presentation of her case, as there was little proffered that could be viewed as proper construction of a legal argument, or even a coherent presentation of evidence, but there are some points I believe need to be made.

As I have stated, Orly has grossly misrepresented the facts in her part of these cases, and, as I had previously remarked, any of the subpoenas she simply mailed to people who reside outside the state of Georgia weren't worth the paper on which the blank subpoena forms were downloaded and printed. Judge Malihi neither issued them, nor personally signed them. But, that's not what Orly stated to her faithful followers. Before the day of the hearings, jbjd came to the same conclusion. In fact, as many times as it has been pointed out that these were “administrative hearings” and not “trials,” Orly is still claiming her hearing was a trial. I have also recently read that Orly was “the principal attorney,” and that she “was the one responsible for these cases being heard.” That is an outright lie, as she injected herself into these cases very late in the process, and at the probable dismay of the other plaintiffs. It was the work of Swensson, Powell, Irion, Hatfield, and Weldon, which had been ongoing for more than two years, that brought these hearings to fruition.

As to my previous explanation that Orly's subpoena to Loretta Fuddy, which included a demand for certain documents of identification pertaining to Barack Obama, was completely unenforceable since Hawaii law prohibits the release of those documents to someone without a direct and tangible interest, and that a Georgia ALJ has no jurisdiction over Hawaii (something first-year law students would readily understand), Judge Malihi denied her request for that reason (although, as of this writing, Orly has chosen not to post that denial). Additionally, it appears that Orly may have knowingly gone outside the bounds of the law in a statement she made trying to coerce a Hawaiian court to provide certain documents to her.

On January 19, 2012, Orly filed an Ex Parte Amended Motion for Reconsideration under 60B in Honolulu, which was denied by Judge Nishamura. On page 5 of that motion is the following language: “I, Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ, declare under penalty of perjury, that I was given commission and subpoena (attached) to conduct deposition and examination of records of witness Loretta Fuddy, Director of Health.” Interestingly, what she stated “under penalty of perjury” never happened. It was a lie. Not only did she never go before Judge Malihi to obtain a commission prior to January 26, on January 27 Judge Malihi denied her request for such commission due to lack of jurisdiction (precisely as predicted). I would be surprised if this little tidbit doesn't get included in whatever Deputy AG Nagamine files with Judge Nishamura concerning Taitz.

If there were any questions regarding whether or not Orly is truly interested in proving anything in a courtroom about Barack Obama, those questions were finally put to rest last Thursday. Putting aside the abysmal legal performance we have all come to expect (which was certainly replayed on Thursday), and seeing the constant shameless appeals for donations (since her expenses to conduct her HEARING were so great), why would Orly have spent the money to hire apersonal professional videographer to capture her every move in the courtroom? If Orly's case wasn't all about Orly (rather than proving anything about Barack Obama), what possible motivation could she have had for such an extravagance? And, I'm not quite sure how she plans to use the footage of her transitioning from a closing argument, to taking the stand and testifying, and then back to a closing argument (at Judge Malihi's insistence), but it would probably be very useful in a “How-Not-To” video somewhere.

And, to what did she “testify”? While “testifying” about Barack Obama's Illinois Bar Application, Judge Malihi asked Orly what “personal knowledge” she had about the document (this is a common “legal” question), and Orly's response was that she had downloaded the image from the internet herself. Really? Did an attorney actually say that to a judge? I don't know if I could have been more embarrassed.

But, far and above the horrendous incompetence, unmerited self-promotion, and inexplicably inaccurate self-image, is Orly's proclivity still to throw people under the bus in an effort to provide cover for her ineptitude. While most everything about Orly's public persona is deplorable, this must be her most depraved character flaw.

In a ridiculous posting in which Orly spoke dishonestly about Sheriff Joe, she included abhorrent and wholly undeserved comments about Mara Zebest and Tom Harrigan (although, she didn't even get Mara's name correct). In essence, she stated that, if Zebest and Harrigan wouldn't agree to be a part of her absurd circus, then they are “totally worthless,” and “their opinion is of no value.” But, the fact that there was even a posting about Sheriff Joe in the first place should indicate to any sane individual that Orly is singularly the most damaging element of the entire eligibility movement (more on that in a minute).

It is clear that Orly does not want Sheriff Joe to garner any possible limelight for the efforts that he and his Cold Case Posse have expended, and her fake subpoena to him was an attempt to have that evidence presented as part of HER hearing (for then, she could somehow claim the evidence as her own). It needs to be understood that this is truly reprehensible behavior. To the one and only law enforcement official in the country who has stepped up to the plate and is conducting a thoroughly professional investigation, he deserves our utmost gratitude; but, after Sheriff Joe rightfully and commendably ignored Orly's downloaded unenforceable “subpoena,” Orly tried to elevate herself by diminishing him. That is censurable conduct, folks!

How can I assert that this was Orly's attempt to steal Sheriff Joe's evidence, and claim it as her own? From her website:

“Arpaio’s unwillingness to testify tells me that:

a. he does not have any new evidence aside from what I provided him.”

I have spoken several times with the Posse's lead investigator, and that statement couldn't be further from the truth. For those Orlyites out there, that is what is technically called a “lie.”

Also, Orly has been repeatedly vocal against proactive groups in our movement, such as Article2SuperPAC,ObamaReleaseYourRecords, Obama State Ballot Challenge, and GiveUsLiberty1776, but those entities deserve our full gratitude and support, as they are truly working for the benefit of our cause, and are not daily sabotaging it. Short of libel, I couldn't care less what Orly, or anyone else, says about me, but I will not stand idly by while she calls into question the characters and motivations of these good people.

I also commend jbjd.org as trustworthy commentary that cuts through the deceptive hype many in our movement have blindly accepted at face value.

Conclusion

Before sending me any hate emails like the ones I've already received, there are now ground rules involved. You must include this statement: “I, (state your name), declare under penalty of perjury, that I have read this conclusion at least three times.” Additionally, such hate mail must be constrained to refuting what I have stated. Personal attacks devoid of such refutation will demonstrate a lack of critical thinking skills on the part of the sender, and relegate such hate mail to the insignificant and unworthy of consideration.

Folks, I'm angry; not in a personal way, but fundamentally in regards to our cause. I have poured my time and energy into this issue as a quest for truth . . . nothing more, nothing less. When I see us publicly lauding disgraceful behavior, and honoring deception, then I fear we have lost our way in what we are doing. Such blanket approval of that is indicative of abject hatred overruling thoughtful objectivity. If we are willing to disregard truth and decency in our quest toward a goal, then we should re-examine our motivation for that goal.

On any given day, I can scroll through the headlines on Orly's website, and it literally turns my stomach. The contents are typically morally and ethically questionable; thus, I have a hard time believing that those who openly and totally support such, are not also lacking in morals and ethics—and I, personally, do not want to believe that! But, the tension that such an inconsistency produces in my conscience is the reason I believe I must speak up. I refuse to sear my conscience through my silence.

I am aware that most of those who are actually working in this movement do not disagree with me; however, there is a remnant who have not yet figured it out for themselves. To those who would accuse me of being “divisive,” or “hurting our cause,” if being truthful is divisive to a cause, then there's either something wrong with the cause, or the people within the cause. I cannot, in good conscience, tolerate aberrant behavior simply as a way to further the cause—and what some have not yet learned is that, as long as we do accept it, our cause will continue to be severely handicapped.

We have gained a toehold in Georgia (Orly had absolutely nothing to do with that, regardless of what she claims), and we owe a debt of gratitude to the plaintiffs and attorneys in the first two cases that were heard. However, if we continue to allow ourselves to be equated with the preposterous antics of the third case, we are doomed. The Media will always gravitate to that which makes it easiest to ridicule and vilify us—and, we saw that again this past week.

For those who are still unconvinced, take a few days and actually investigate the facts—and ignore every single word Orly says about Orly, or against anyone else. Obama himself could not have set into action a more brilliant ploy to keep him safe in the White House. If one forces himself to research and study the facts, apart from the repeatedly baseless claims, he will necessarily come to the same conclusion, for the facts themselves do not lie.

I am aware of so much more that I cannot divulge, as it would not be fair to those who have shared those things with me. If they want to come forward with such information, that will be up to them—I will not betray their confidence.

In the end, the hate emails I have received have been from those who are not aware of the truth (from a lack of real research, and reliance on the constant deception), cannot understand the truth, or who know the truth, but choose to ignore it. The last group are the ones I most fear regarding our cause, as they will ultimately be the “divisive” ones, and will be the ones who keep us relegated to the circus sideshow.

Again, if I must be hated for speaking the truth, then so be it. But, if you're going to send me a message to let me know just how much you hate me, it had better be because you can refute what I've said, and not because you just don't like it. I am completely open to being proved wrong where the facts are concerned—and, if you want to share your hatred with me, I hope you DO try to refute the facts, because then you will at least have to face them.

Peace, if possible, but the truth at any rate. - Martin Luther

###

If you would like more information about the Birther Summit, please visit our website often at www.birthersummit.org or contact Dean Haskins at dean@birthersummit.org.

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

2012-01-29T17:18:00.000-05:00

Voting for Faith, Reason, and Heart

I have a favorite film about sports. It is entitled “Miracle.” It is about the miraculous 1980 US Olympic Hockey Team. This young team of college lads clawed its way to the Gold Medal round, defeating the Swedes, the East Germans, the Czechs, the Finns, and most dramatically, the Soviet Union. Even knowing the outcome of the movie, I sit on the edge of my seat and cheer out loud [maybe you wouldn’t, but I do] for the unabashedly patriotic themes about competition, faith, and family. Kurt Russell is fantastic in the Role of Coach Herb Brooks [who sadly passed away just before the movie screened].

This ‘got me to thinkin’. The great uplifting Olympic victory, against all odds, happened when we needed a big lift. It happened during the disastrous Presidency that was Jimmy Carter. The Iranians had destroyed our Embassy and had taken hostages. The Soviet Union had invaded

Afghanistan

in a take-over bid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

America

. Americans are not the Olympics or Bain Capital acquisitions, and I certainly would not brag about my time as the Massachusetts Governor if I were he.

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

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

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

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

Most importantly, I am setting aside my desires and wants here and I am trusting in God. If God is with us, after all, who can be against us. I believe in miracles.

William R. Mann
Most recent columns

William R. Mann, is a retired Lt. Colonel, US Army. He is a now a political observer, analyst, activist and writer for Conservative causes. He was educated at West Point [Bachelor of Science, 1971 ]and the Naval Postgraduate School [Masters, National Security Affairs, 1982]. He currently resides with his wife in Pensacola, Florida. William can be reached at:letters@canadafreepress.com

Georgia Ballot Challenge: Obama Walks On By

2012-01-29T01:06:00.002-05:00

Georgia Ballot Challenge: Obama Walks On By

By Cindy Simpson and Alan P. Halbert

Two AT writers attended yesterday's hearing in Georgia over President Obama's eligibility for the presidential ballot. Cindy Simpson writes:
President Obama has a habit of turning his back and walking away from those with whom he disagrees, as recently discovered by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer. Professor John Lott, in an interview with Teri O'Brien, recalled similar experiences with Obama while at the University of Chicago.
Ms. O'Brien commented to Professor Lott: "Gods don't debate. They just issue decrees."
And apparently they also tend to place themselves above the law.
On January 26, I was in Atlanta to observe the hearings on the challenges to Obama's eligibility to appear on Georgia's 2012 ballot. In two previous American Thinker blog posts, "The Birthers Went Down to Georgia" and "Georgia on Obama's Mind," I described the content and history of the cases.
The courtroom was crowded to maximum capacity; however, the table for the defense was notably vacant. The defendant, Obama himself, was also not in attendance, even though the judge last week refused to quash the subpoena requesting his presence. Judge Michael Malihi, in his denial, stated:

...Defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend. Defendant's motion suggests that no President should be compelled to attend a Court hearing. This may be correct. But Defendant has failed to enlighten the Court with any legal authority...evidencing why his attendance is "unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony... [is] irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary..."

Obama's attorney, Michael Jablonski, had warned of his absence in a defiant and last-minute move on the afternoon of January 25, via a letter he sent to Georgia's Secretary of State Brian Kemp. He requested that Kemp "bring an end to this baseless, costly and unproductive hearing by withdrawing the original hearing request as improvidently issued." Jablonski's letter concluded: "We await your taking the requested action, and as we do so, we will, of course, suspend further participation in these proceedings, including the hearing scheduled for January 26."
A few hours later, the blogosphere lit up with the news that Secretary Kemp had responded with a letter stating that the hearings would continue on the 26^th as scheduled, and concluded with the warning: "...if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril."

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

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

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

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

2012-01-28T22:46:00.000-05:00

Here's your change!

	January 2009	TODAY	*% chg*	^Source
Avg. Retail price/gallon gas in U.S.	$1.83	$3.44	84%	¹
Crude oil, European Brent (barrel)	$43..48	$99..02	127.7%	²
Crude oil, West TX Inter. (barrel)	$38..74	$91..38	135.9%	²

Corn, No.2 yellow, Central IL	$3.56	$6.33	78.1%	²
Soybeans, No. 1 yellow, IL	$9.66	$13..75	42.3%	²
Sugar, cane, raw, world, lb. Fob	$13..37	$35..39	164.7%	²
Unemployment rate, non-farm, overall	7.6%	9.4%	23.7%	³
Unemployment rate, blacks	12.6%	15.8%	25.4%	³
Number of unemployed	11,616,000	14,485,000	24.7%	³
Number of fed. Employees	2,779,000	2,840,000	2.2%	³
Real median household income	$50,112	$49,777	-0.7%	⁴
Number of food stamp recipients	31,983,716	43,200,878	35.1%	⁵
Number of unemployment benefit recipients	7,526,598	9,193,838	22.2%	⁶
Number of long-term unemployed	2,600,000	6,400,000	146.2%	³
Poverty rate, individuals	13.2%	14.3%	8.3%	⁴
People in poverty in U.S.	39,800,000	43,600,000	9.5%	⁴
U.S. Rank in Economic Freedom World Rankings	5	9	n/a	¹⁰
Present Situation Index	29.9	23.5	-21.4%	¹¹
Failed banks	140	164	17.1%	¹²
U.S. Dollar versus Japanese yen exchange rate	89.76	82.03	-8.6%	²
U.S. Money supply, M1, in billions	1,575.1	1,865.7	18.4%	¹³
U.S. Money supply, M2, in billions	8,310.9	8,852.3	6.5%	¹³
National debt, in trillions	$10..627	$14..052	32.2%	¹⁴

Just take this last item: In the last two years we have accumulated national debt at a rate more than 27 times as fast as during the rest of our entire nation's history.

Sources:
(1) U.S. Energy Information Administration; (2) Wall Street Journal; (3) Bureau of Labor Statistics; (4) Census Bureau; (5) USDA; (6) U.S. Dept. Of Labor;
(7) FHFA; (8) Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller; (9) RealtyTrac; (10) Heritage Foundation and WSJ; (11) The Conference Board; (12) FDIC;
(13) Federal Reserve; (14) U.S. Treasury

I wouldn't call this an endorsement! - I have decided who I will vote for in the Florida GOP primary.

2012-01-28T19:43:00.002-05:00

10 videos of Ricks speech in Naples FL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zz5xKF1vpDA&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

I have decided who I will vote for in the Florida GOP primary.

There is less wrong and more right with Rick Santorum than the other candidates.

VIDEO OF RICK IN NAPLES FL

This is the Beginning of the End for Barack Hussein Obama

2012-01-28T13:16:00.000-05:00

This is the Beginning of the End for Barack Hussein Obama

CNN Tries To Whitewash Obama's Radical Past

2012-01-28T02:19:00.002-05:00

CNN Tries To Whitewash Obama's Radical Past

IBD Editorials.com

As the president launches his re-election bid by striking a more centrist tone, the partisan press is helping him whitewash his radical past. Teamwork or not, it'll be hard to bleach. Exhibit A is CNN's Soledad O'Brien. Earlier this week, she hosted a segment that tried to de-link Obama from Chicago socialist Saul Alinsky. The late Alinsky is the father of community organizing and the author of the far-left bible "Rules for Radicals."
O'Brien opened her piece by scolding GOP front-runner Newt Gingrich for warning Obama "will represent Saul Alinsky (and) European socialism" in a second term. "President Obama has never said that he was influenced by Alinsky," O'Brien insisted.
Of course he hasn't. He's not stupid enough to publicly link himself to a socialist. But the record is clear that he was in fact influenced by Alinsky, if only CNN's "journalists" would do their homework. Allow us to do it for them:
• Obama first learned Alinsky's rules in the 1980s, when Alinskyite radicals with the Chicago-based Alinsky group Gamaliel Foundation recruited, hired, trained and paid him as a community organizer in South Side Chicago. (Gamaliel's website expressly states it grew out of the Alinsky movement.)
• In 1988, Obama even wrote a chapter for the book "After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois," in which he lamented organizers' "lack of power" in implementing change.
• Gamaliel board member John McKnight, a hard-core student of Alinsky, penned a letter for Obama to help him get into Harvard Law School.
• Obama took a break from his Harvard studies to travel to Los Angeles for eight days of intense training at Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation, a station of the cross for acolytes.
• In turn, he trained other community organizers in Alinsky agitation tactics.
• Obama also taught Alinsky's "Power Analysis" methods at the University of Chicago.
• During the presidential campaign, Obama hired one of his Gamaliel mentors, Mike Kruglik, to train young campaign workers in Alinsky tactics at "Camp Obama," a school set up at Obama headquarters in Chicago. The tactics helped Obama capture the youth vote like no other president before him.
• Power would no longer be an issue, as Obama infiltrated the highest echelon of the political establishment — the White House — fulfilling Alinsky's vision of a new "vanguard" of coat-and-tie radicals who "work inside the system" to change the system.
• After the election, his other Gamaliel mentor, Jerry Kellman (who hired him and whose identity Obama disguised in his memoir), helped the Obama administration establish Organizing for America, which mobilizes young supporters to agitate for Obama's legislative agenda using "Rules for Radicals."
• Obama's favorite rule is No. 13: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it." You see that in his attacks on "fat cat bankers," "greedy health insurers" and "millionaires and billionaires." He also readily applies Alinsky's fifth rule of "ridiculing" the opposition.
"Obama learned his lesson well," said David Alinsky, son of the late socialist. "I am proud to see that my father's model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing."
Bizarrely, O'Brien was more than willing to connect Alinsky with the Tea Party, without citing a shred of real evidence to back up the silly claim. The CNN anchor closed her segment by saying she would pin Gingrich down on his supposedly misleading claims. "We will be sure to ask the former speaker the next time we get a chance to talk to him about that," she said.
Wouldn't it make more sense to just ask Obama? You know, "Mr. President, have you ever read Alinsky's 'Rules for Radicals'"? Or "Have your ever trained at organizations founded by Alinsky?"
Is she really this clueless? Or is she covering for Obama? Either way, it does not reflect well on a journalist of her stature and influence.
It's plain CNN plans to gloss over the president's radical past in this campaign, just like it did in 2008.

Why Isn't Orly mentioned? - GEORGIA JUDGE CONSIDERED 'DEFAULT' AGAINST OBAMA

2012-01-28T01:40:00.000-05:00

GEORGIA JUDGE CONSIDERED 'DEFAULT' AGAINST OBAMA

Ruling could have brought immediate recommendation to remove name from ballot

Attorneys who argued in a Georgia court this week that Barack Obama isn’t eligible to be president say Administrative Law Judge Michael Malihi considered granting a default judgment before they even argued the case.

That presumably could have recommended that Obama failed to prove his eligibility and therefore should not be on the 2012 ballot, since he and his lawyer snubbed the hearing, for which Obama was subpoenaed.

But the attorneys argued against such an easy victory on the point of the single hearing, expressing instead their desire to get the evidence concerning Obama’s eligibility or lack of it in the record, so that it would be there should the case elevate to an appellate level.

The attorneys also said the strategy decision by Obama to simply ignore the subpoena and the hearing may ultimately backfire, because judges typically aren’t pleased to listen to arguments from someone who wants to introduce evidence during an appeal.

Discover what the Constitution’s reference to “natural born citizen” means and whether Barack Obama qualifies, in the ebook version of “Where’s the REAL Birth Certificate?”

Both attorneys, J. Mark Hatfield and Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation told WND they felt comfortable discussing the situation as the judge had imposed no ban on communicating what happened.

“The judge … was considering just entering a default judgment against Obama,” Hatfield said today. “The plaintiffs’ attorneys uniformly did not want the judge to do that because there wouldn’t be any evidence in the record at all.”

In Georgia, state law requires “every candidate for federal” office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy “shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”

State law also grants the secretary of state and any “elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate” in the state the authority to raise a challenge to a candidate’s qualifications, the judge determined.

That’s exactly what several groups of individuals did. Citizens bringing the complaints include David Farrar, Leah Lax, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by Taitz; David Weldon represented by attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation; and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell,represented by J. Mark Hatfield. Cody Judy is raising a challenge because he also wants to be on the ballot.

Hatfield and Irion told WND the expected process is that Malihi will make a decision over the course of the next week whether Obama, without appearing or being represented at the hearing, documented his eligibility to the court’s satisfaction.

That recommendation then goes to Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, to whom Obama’s lawyer, Michael Jablonski, earlier had complained that Malihi was letting the attorneys “run amok” since the issue of Obama’s “citizenship” had been resolved.

But in fact the U.S. Constitution demands a different status for presidents, that of a “natural born citizen,” which Founders likely considered to be the offspring of two citizen parents. If that is the case, Obama could not be eligible as his father was a Kenyan national subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom.

At the time Jablonski complained to Kemp and told him he should simply cancel the hearing, Kemp warned Jablonski that he ultimately would be reviewing the hearing result, and to not participate would be at Obama’s “peril.”

Both lawyers, whose cases in fact are separate from each other as well as from the Taitz’ case, said it was important for them to be able to introduce evidence and build a court record.

Hatfield said the goal ultimately is to have a court rule on the substance of the controversy: Is it necessary to have citizen parents to be a “natural born citizen” or will that definition evolve as America ages?

Hatfield told WND that he specifically asked the judge at the end of the hearing to close the record, and he did that. Hatfield said that should make it clear that as the decision is made, and any challenges progress, no new information can be added to the evidence already submitted.

He said it’s very clear that the court had jurisdiction to take the case and accept evidence, since the ballot at issue is a ballot with which the state election in 2012 will be conducted.

And Hatfield noted that although Obama’s lawyer at least made a motion to quash the subpoena from Taitz for his testimony and records, Obama’s attorneys never even bothered to respond to his own motion to produce records.

Obama’s campaign declined to respond to WND emails and messages inquiring about a comment on the situation.

Irion told WND the default is a typical result when one side fails to appear for a dispute that’s being adjudicated in court, but in this case, that would have left it wide open for arguments on appeal that had nothing to do with the issue.

He said he explained to the judge that awarding a default judgment actually would have been rewarding Obama for failing to respond to the subpoena.

The attorneys said they would be watching for Obama’s next move in the contest. And they said they believe there is a possibility that because of the dispute, Obama may end up not being on the Georgia ballot in the fall.

Obama lost the state in the 2008 election to John McCain.

Earlier, several attorneys who previously took cases challenging Obama’s eligibility as high as the U.S. Supreme Court said Obama’s refusal to participate in the hearing was a travesty.

“That President Obama’s attorneys didn’t show respect for the court, the citizens, the secretary of state, and the statutes of Georgia reveals the true character of the administration as being completely and utterly against state’s rights,” said attorney Leo Donofrio. “The federal government is growing out of control with every administration and this action today is a loud announcement that this administration is going to do what it likes, and you can imagine that their response to this judiciary would be exactly the same if this had been the U.S. Supreme Court.”

He said if Georgia does decide to keep Obama off its state election ballots, he won’t appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, “because if he were to lose there, his entire administration would be void, including his appointments to the Supreme Court.”

“If Obama were to appeal in Georgia, only this election is in play, and only as to Georgia’s ballots, but if he loses in Georgia, appealing to the SCOTUS brings in his entire eligibility, and the legitimacy of his current administration,” Donofrio warned.

“My personal belief is that if the U.S. Supreme Court held that he was ineligible, he might simply ignore the ruling, and test the will of the nation, just as he is testing the will of the state of Georgia,” he said.

“If the judge’s recommendation – and I’ve been told that it’s going to be to disqualify Mr. Obama as a candidate – is followed by the secretary of state, Mr. Obama has got a real problem,” said Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation.

His organization pursued several of the lawsuits over Obama’s occupancy of the Oval Office to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has not accepted any eligibility cases.

“He’s thumbed his nose at the court. He’s thumbed his nose at the secretary of state in Georgia. He’s thumbed his nose at the people and said, ‘I’m above it all. I’m above the law,’” Kreep said.

Mario Apuzzo, who also shepherded a case to the Supreme Court, said Obama, by not showing, “actually failed to meet his burden of proof, to show that he is eligible and should be placed on the ballot.”

“For him to just ignore due process here is really telling a lot,” he said, noting, “This decision will have a ripple effect.”

“He’s not above the law. That’s a very important thing here. He’s a private person running for office, so he had no business not showing up. So the court can enter the judgment, and then the secretary of state does what he wants with it. And this will have a ripple effect for other secretaries of state, for other states, for the public. Also for any case that could be pending in the Supreme Court, where the issue of Mr. Obama’s eligibility is implicated,” he said.

Links to stories about the most important issue for our nation - Obama's Ineligibility

2012-01-28T01:32:00.000-05:00

From: To: The National MiddleClass Network & Tea Parties

"Regardless of your party, everyone needs to know what's being reported..."

And...Thank you all for your kind comments on our fairness in both sides of reports. As you know, we are having IP issues. So, if you too will be forwarding this email, thank you for deleting our email address, personal information, etc. from it. This helps prevent the proliferation of spam. Also should anyone no longer choose to receive our "NewsMail", please let us know. Thanks.

----- Original Message -----

From: To: Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 3:43 PM

Subject: RE: MUST SEE: Carl Swensson Takes Obama To Court For Real ! 22 min

Carl Swenson with Pastor Manning, interview yesterday

OBAMA TO PROVE HE IS NATURAL BORN CITIZEN; NOT FOR PLAINTIFFS TO PROVE HE IS NOT!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hxx33V4WuY&feature=youtu.be

http://www.riseupforamerica.com/

----- Original Message -----

From: JigsawTo:Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 9:18 PM

Subject: The most important issue of the nation

The most important issue of the nation and no media orginazation covers this at all. However they do cover his campaign trip, figure that if you can.

Incredible day at Obama-no-show eligibility trial ...

Incredible day at Obama-no-show eligibility trial ...
Finally, sworn testimony about Barack Obama's lack of eligibility and his possibly fraudulent Social Security Number gets heard in an American court of law. Find out the juicy details right now at WND. Click here to read the full article

CERTIFIGATE

Obama accused of disrespecting court, state, Americans

'My belief is if Supreme Court held he was ineligible, he might simply ignore the ruling'

Plus.......................

What happened at Obama-no-show trial

Constitutional expert says arguments over Barack…

What eligibility doubters think

----- Original Message -----

From: C. & B Hockenbury

To: undisclosed-recipients@blu0-omc2-s16.blu0.hotmail.com

Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 10:21 PM

Subject: A Must Read - OBAMA ELIGIBILITY COURT CASE. BLOW BY BLOW

http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/?p=4138

What Really Happened In A Georgia Courtroom On January 26, 2012?

2012-01-27T19:14:00.000-05:00

What Really Happened In A Georgia Courtroom On January 26, 2012?

JANUARY 27, 2012 BY MIKI BOOTh

Wednesday, January 25, 2012 was the longest day I would never want to re-live but feel it necessary to document for posterity. The day had its ups and downs and ins and outs and Article II, Section 1.5 Constitutionalist, also known as “birthers,” “racists,” “wing-nuts” and “fringe” were holding our collective breaths and praying like never before.

The day actually began much earlier when, for the first time in over three years, a judge had agreed to hear a lawsuit that would require Barack Obama, leader of the free world and most powerful man on earth, to appear in a Georgia courtroom. This time it was not a federal case as in many challenges brought by attorney Orly Taitz and others, but instead, an administrative judge for the state of Georgia would hear the case. Judge Michael Malihi scheduled the hearing and issued subpoenas. Obama’s Atlanta lawyer, Michael Jablonski, quickly issued a Motion to Dismiss. Of course we expected this. Obama’s dream team of Perkins Coie and his stable of attorneys across the United States and under the auspices of Eric Holder’s DOJ and Elena Kagan, Obama’s pre-election counsel and now sitting Supreme Court Justice would come down on Orly Taitz like an iron fist. But on January 3, their Motion to Dismiss was DENIED.

This was big. Would we really have our day in court? It was almost too good to be true. Dozens of lawsuits over Obama’s eligibility had been dismissed for “lack of standing,” “wrong jurisdiction” or “procedural errors.” But this time a judge actually moved our case forward because he read the Georgia law correctly in that it explicitly gives Georgia residents the right to challenge candidates wanting to be on the state ballot.

We blogged, we called, we emailed and got the word out to as many people as we could. We anxiously monitored the mainstream news but again, nothing except a small mention on FOX Brett Baier’s “Grapevine,” where he tossed in the “birther” epithet meant to discredit us. We were used to that. The lawsuit moved forward.

Obama’s lawyer, Jablonski, spoke to reporters saying the lawsuit would be dismissed just as every challenge has been defeated and Obama would not be going to Georgia. Of course the traditional media carried his story to the ends of the earth. But we moved on Orly would line up her witnesses and arrange to pay their way to Georgia. We had Susan Daniels who discovered Obama’s stolen identity in a CT social security number and experts on Adobe and a former INS agent. All these witnesses had overwhelming evidence of fraud and forgery. The copy of Obama’s birth certificate posted on the White House website confirmed that Obama is not natural born as required in the Constitution. Early on Wednesday, we learned that Leo Donofrio, renown authority on the Constitution and federalist papers, had filed a 200 page Amicus (friend of the court) Brief which joined the documented evidence irrefutably proving that Obama is not a natural-born Citizen and even his status of “native born Citizen” is questionable because of the suspected birth document forgery.

Within hours, Orly Taitz and the attorneys for the plaintiffs in two other lawsuits that had been consolidated were copied on a letter from Obama’s Atlanta attorney, Jablonski. The letter was sent to Georgia Secretary of State, Brian P. Kemp to stop the hearing. It came at approximately 3:00pm but by five o’clock, SOS Kemp responded to Jablonski rejecting the request and stated it would not be judicious given the hearing is set for the next morning. He added, “…if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.”

About the same time I was working diligently to get the latest news out to my contacts including posting the information on Facebook, I got a comment and link to Leo Donofrio’snaturalborncitizen blog. The news was stunning. Leo was alerted to information in the government’s own INS/ICE handbook delineating a distinct difference in “natural-born citizen” and “native-born” citizen. I scrambled. Did my Birther Summit team know about this? I painstakingly emailed the information to my 500 or so contacts and posted on Facebook. It was too let to get it into the court records but it didn’t matter. Our case was air-tight as it was.

It had been a long day and I began receiving emails from friends and supporters saying they would look for me in the live-stream video provided by The Birther Summit and Art2superPACsites. I didn’t have the energy to tell them I wasn’t going to Atlanta. I could not afford to go but it was nice so many people really thought I would be there. This is what we all worked so hard for.

There was so much traffic on the live video feeds and many of us had long periods of blackouts but I did see Orly and the other attorneys leave to go with the judge to his chambers. What really happened yesterday was the judge decided to award a DEFAULT JUDGEMENT to the plaintiff’s since the defendant didn’t show up. But an abbreviated hearing took place. The first two cases were heard and Orly presented her witnesses and argued her case and the evidence all went into the record. We had our day in court.

To Watch a Video of the Eligibility Hearing Click Here: Exclusive Video Of Entire Georgia Obama Eligibility Hearing

Georgia Video - Here it is - Video: Exclusive Video Of Entire Georgia Obama Eligibility Hearing

2012-01-27T19:09:00.000-05:00

Video: Exclusive Video Of Entire Georgia Obama Eligibility Hearing

Jan 27, 2012 02:18 pm | Breaking News

Obama & his Attorney fail to appear for Trial -- 2 Hour Hearing provides strong evidence that Obama is not qualified for Ballot

2012-01-26T13:33:00.002-05:00

Obama & his Attorney fail to appear for Trial -- 2 Hour Hearing provides strong evidence that Obama is not qualified for Ballot

Thursday, 26 January 2012 12:15

William M. Windsor

President Barack Obama and his attorney refused to appear for a trial in Atlanta, Georgia on January 26, 2012 despite subpoenas requiring his attendance and documents as well as a letter from the Georgia Secretary of State saying their failure to appear would be at their peril.

Judge Michael Malihi presided over the two-hour hearing in which significant evidence was presented to show that Obama is not eligibile to be President of the United States.

I was there in the media group with videographer Lydia Swain, and the entire hearing was videotaped ....

The video will be available in its entirety through On Second Thought TV.

Late Wednesday, Obama's attorney, Michael Jablonski, wrote Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, asking him to suspend the hearing. "It is well established that there is no legitimate issue here -- a conclusion validated time and again by courts around the country," Jablonski wrote. Jablonski also served notice he would boycott the hearing.

In response, Georgia Secretary of State Kemp said the hearing to consider the challenges is required by Georgia law. "If you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the [Office of State Administrative Hearings] proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril."

After hearing many witnesses and seeing and hearing about a lot of documents, it is my belief that Obama is not qualified to be on the ballot.

The day began with a pre-trial conference with the attorneys in the judge's chambers. The Defendant's table was vacant. No one showed up to defend Obama.

Three attorneys presented cases for their plaintiffs -- all Georgia registered voters. According to my count, 12 witnesses testified under oath.

There was no testimony or evidence for Obama, so if the judge rules on the facts and the law presented, the name of Barack Obama will not appear on the ballot in Georgia. I'm not a "birther," but that's how I see it. Significant evidence for the Plaintiffs and zero (0) evidence for Obama.

The testimony from three witnesses -- Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator, scanning, and typesetting experts -- was that the birth certificate for Obama that was released online was a forgery. I know enough about layers in Adobe to know that when part of a signature appears on one layer and the rest of the signature appears on another layer, something is rotten in Denmark. The witnesses seemed credible, though I would have loved to see an Adobe employee testify.

The testimony of former Immigration officer, John Sampson, was especially compelling. It was his testimony that the birth certificate has serial numbers that are out of sequence with other births at the time; the certification paragraphs are different on Obama's alleged birth certificate and the birth certificates issued before and after his; and the name of the registrar was different on the birth certificates issued at the same time to others. Mr. Sampson has found a number of irregularities that would cause him to demand documents and investigate further. He indicated that it is a crime to claim to be a U.S. citizen if you aren't, and one of the consequences is deportation.

Susan Daniels, a private investigator testified that the social security number that Obama uses is fraudulent, in her opinion. The number was issued in Connecticut in 1977-79, and Obama never resided there. A number of records that she obtained showed that Obama was born in 1890.

Attorney Van Irion gave a closing argument that explained the definition of "natural born citizen" -- a person born in the United States from parents who are both U.S. citizens. Mr. Irion explained case law on the definition and provided an excellent presentation as to why Obama is not qualified. Mr. Irion's witness, Kenneth Allen, provided documents proving that Obama's father was from Kenya (birth certificate and immigration forms). One witness produced 181 pages of documents obtained through a Freedom of Information request to the U.S. Immigrations service that show that Obama's father was never a U.S. citizen.

Documents were presented showing that Obama has been known under a variety of names -- Barry Soetero, Barry Soebarkah, and Barack Obama. Witnesses claim no proof of a name change was found. Attorney Orly Taitz testified that Illinois Bar Association records show that Barack Obama's application for membership claims he had no prior names.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am not a birther. I am not a Republican; I became an Independent when I discovered how corrupt all parties are.

To me, this is potentially the case of the most significant dishonesty and corruption by an elected official in the history of the United States. If that is the case, this should shine a bright light on the extent of the government corruption in America. If you are pro-Obama, please don't get mad at me for supporting this story. I have stated that if Obama is qualified, and if he signs a pledge to be honest and return our rights under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, I'll vote for Obama if no other major candidate signs the Contract with the Citizens of the United States.

After the hearing today, I believe that Obama is not qualified. I spoke with a very sharply-dressed black man with gray hair after the hearing. He was an Obama supporter, but he seemed to be swayed in his thinking by the evidence he saw and the testimony he heard.

It was standing-room-only. There were two overflow rooms where people watched on video screens.

I saw representatives from all the major TV networks' local affiliates, and I saw a reporter for CNN.

The judge asked the Plaintiffs' Attorneys to file briefs by February 5. A decision will be rendered sometime thereafter.

William M. Windsor

http://www.lawlessamerica.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=631:obama-a-his-attorney-fail-to-appear-for-trial-2-hour-hearing-provides-strong-evidence-that-obama-is-not-qualified-for-ballot&catid=117:news-reports&Itemid=219

For a good blow by blow account http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/?p=4138

Latest Update from Obama ballot challenge

2012-01-26T13:14:00.000-05:00

I just got off the phone with Dean Haskins who was in the courtroom this morning assisting with the Art 2Pac live stream. Judge Malihi talked to the attorneys in chambers before the hearing this morning and told them that he was going to enter a DEFAULT JUDGMENT against Obama and recommend that Obama's name not be on the Georgia ballot! Alll the attorneys expressed a desire to put an abbreviated streamlined case on the record and the judge agreed. How does the mainstream media spin this? The Georgia SOS has already indicated that he will follow the judge's recommendation. Obama will not get any popular vote or electors from the great state of Georgia! Congratulations to all freedom-loving Americans!

Harry Reid's Magical Glasses Infomercial...Check It Out Now!!!

2012-01-26T12:48:00.002-05:00

Over one million hits - Obama Birth Certificate Faked In Adobe Illustrator - Official Proof 1 ( Layers )

2012-01-26T03:35:00.000-05:00

RUMORS!

2012-01-26T03:13:00.000-05:00

No rumor- watch history being made- Thu 6 am pt/9 am et-
http://art2superpac.com/

****ARTICLE II SUPER PAC WILL PROVIDE GAVEL TO GAVEL LIVE VIDEO COVERAGE FROM THE 3 BALLOT CHALLENGE HEARINGS ON JANUARY 26TH IN ATLANTA GEORGIA STARTING AT 9 AM ET****